Comments on: Bingaman expresses doubts about rip-offsets

By: audelkirk

audelkirk — Tue, 29 Sep 2009 15:53:12 +0000

against http://jsedres.geoscienceworld.org reliable http://www.australianarchaeologicalassociation.com.au

By: hey joe, what you doing with that gun in your hand?

hey joe, what you doing with that gun in your hand? — Fri, 14 Nov 2008 03:53:17 +0000

it really does amaze me how closed-minded you’ve become to an issue on climate change. you yourself know that there are many energy efficiency savings that are estimates and are prone to some sort of margin of error. so if i give you one study showing these errors will it forever change your view? i doubt it. but one study on offsets has substantiated your seemingly predetermined conclusion…troubling. what is your solution for reductions in developing countries then? do you propose a safety valve like stanford proposes to help control costs? won’t this hurt efficiency?

[JR: What?! I have worked with dozens of companies directly over the year on applying energy efficiency, so I don't really need to see any theoretical studies. As for offsets, if you read all of the articles in the offset category, you'll see this isn't just one study -- it is lots of analyses and articles questioning offsets. Offsets do NOT help efficiency -- they hurt it, since they offer phony alternatives to real action. I do not want to control costs (through a safety valve), I want to control emissions. The only way to control costs is to a very aggressive technology deployment program and smart utility regulations to finally put efficiency of a level playing field with supply.]

By: Scatter

Scatter — Thu, 13 Nov 2008 19:14:47 +0000

“Can you give some examples of offsets that are not rip-offs?”

http://climateprogress.org/ 2008/ 07/ 24/ dont-offset-your-co2-emissions-retire-them/

By: Katy Y

Katy Y — Thu, 13 Nov 2008 18:35:33 +0000

” ‘It’s hard to imagine getting to 2050 targets without offsets,’ this source added.”

This phrase sounded awfully familiar, and then I remembered reading in Carbon Market North America (see Oct 31 issue, http://www.pointcarbon.com) that the Nicholas Institute Institute for Environmental Policy Solutions had stated a similar phrase: that allowing offsets in a US federal C&T program is necessary to lower costs and make a stringent emissions cap politically viable.

So the cause for stasis by both political parties seems to come down to a question of costs. Not the environmental costs that come from climate change or the social costs from poor air quality or more variable (and dangerous) weather patterns. And if we allow CDM projects into any of our climate policies, watch out. What looks like supporting developing countries is really locking them into incredibly harmful practices (see http://www.internationalrivers.org/en/node/2470).

By: william

william — Thu, 13 Nov 2008 17:53:57 +0000

I read on Google News today (http://www.iht.com/ articles/ ap/ 2008/ 11/ 12/ america/ Global-Warming.php) that Senator Bingamen said the Congress won’t get around to dealing with climate change until 2010, “despite President-elect Obama’s declaration that he will move quickly to address climate change.”

Mr. Romm always blames republicans for climate inaction. Bingamen, however, is a democrat. Moreover, a friend of mine told me that 10 Senators from the Democratic Party wrote a letter last summer to Barbara Boxer, stating that they couldn’t support the cap and trade bill that her staff wrote and which was put before the Senate for a vote. That’s 20% of the Democrats in the Senate!

What gives? It seems that both political parties oppose serious action on the climate.

By: Paul K

Paul K — Thu, 13 Nov 2008 13:36:22 +0000

Can you give some examples of offsets that are not rip-offs?