It's hard to know who to believe.

[Jet Cash]

The western world says that the world is warming, and we will all be drowned or cooked in a few years. China says we are about to enter a period of global cooling, and we should prepare for that. China has been forecasting climate change for thousands of years, so we should at least consider their opinion.

The fundamentals of Bitcoin are really strong in the opinion of many people, but others seem to think that it has fallen out of favour, and new regulations will cause a continuance of a drop in its value. I think they may both be right, with a short term drop in price, followed by a new bull run.

The climate change natzis are trying to force through legislation to reduce carbon emissions, but many research scientists seem to be of the opinion that we are in a period of carbon famine, and this is causing desertification.

Statins have been the most profitable of all the manufactured pharmaceuticals, but the side effects seem to far outweigh the very limited benefit to health. All of the raw research data is held by Oxford University, and they are refuse to allow it to be released for public evaluation.

Don't even start me on fractional reserve banking, non-government creation of fiat currencies, derivatives and all the other banking schemes.

What we really need is the release of factual and well researched objective reports, that are not promoting commercial interests, but there isn't much chance of that is there?

[1714079483]

1714079483

[1714079483]

1714079483

[Upgrade00]

What we really need is the release of factual and well researched objective reports, that are not promoting commercial interests, but there isn't much chance of that is there?

There really is not much chance of that happening. All forms of mass media has for a long time been used as a tool to direct the masses along a certain path, with the different sources leading to different paths, with everyone pushing their own narrative.

I also think that such factual reports would be unsettling to a lot of people, civilization is sort of a house in the clouds, and any harsh reality could dispel it.

[NeuroticFish]

What we really need is the release of factual and well researched objective reports, that are not promoting commercial interests, but there isn't much chance of that is there?

The money is in the "commercial interests" and there's much higher chance to hear only that part of the story.
And you somehow missed the governmental interest. China is using massively coal based industries, and actually USA too. It can be one of the reasons for the loudness of the voices telling that global warming is a hoax.

The climate change is a reality. How much is provoked by humans, it's debatable. It would be good if the big countries would do something about it, for real. Not the current way, where they convince population be careful with electricity, water, not throwing the oil into the sink and so on, when industries burn coal for goods nobody may be buying, when ships and industries throwing tons after tons of petrol and oils into the waters and so on.

There are multiple possible causes for the desertification, not only global warming and carbon. It may be some sort of "shifting" of the climate related "lines". And the scientist are not gods, their understanding on all this is still limited and sometimes their funding is also limited because there's no commercial interest. It's quite a sad circle.

[amishmanish]

What we really need is the release of factual and well researched objective reports, that are not promoting commercial interests, but there isn't much chance of that is there?

You can be sure that there isn't much of a chance for that. Research publication and its control is one of the most profitable businesses in the world. I think you will appreciate this piece from "The Guardian" (which I guess has a reputation of its own).
Business of scientific publishing bad for Science? Source: The Guardian

These days there is a lack of diversification of opinions we hold as individuals. In the book Sapiens by Yuval Noah Harari, he says that the ability to hold two conflicting beliefs; Cognitive Dissonance has lead to much of innovation and progress in Human society. In today's age of targeted ads and AI recommendations from Google and Youtube, we are fed our own world-views on loop, strengthening these stupid lines of Left-Liberal vs Conservatives further and further. As people on both sides keep losing the ability to hold flexible, conflicting beliefs, the possibility of arriving at a compromise in order to target the real problems keeps getting distant.

Maybe, As individuals, we all need to decide on the basis of common sense rather than Scientific data. Like if I have an option to utilize a non-carbon source of energy which is cheaper too, Why shouldn't I? Why should I go into the debate of Climate-change alarmists versus Carbon 'Faminists'.

When it comes to bitcoin; anything that is obscure, hard to understand and brings people together in its pursuit has always been valuable. So regulations or not, it should remain valuable. So Stack'em Sats!

[Carlton Banks]

The western world says that the world is warming, and we will all be drowned or cooked in a few years. China says we are about to enter a period of global cooling, and we should prepare for that. China has been forecasting climate change for thousands of years, so we should at least consider their opinion.

who is "China"? what is that even supposed to mean? Chinese wildlife? Chinese ghosts of future past? Every single man, woman, child, transexual and apparition in China?

The climate change natzis are trying to force through legislation to reduce carbon emissions, but many research scientists seem to be of the opinion that we are in a period of carbon famine, and this is causing desertification.

sounds like a manipulative ploy by the alarmist/pay-government-for-the-right-to-breathe lobby

there's plenty of questionable science suporting the anthropogenic climate change argument, but measurements of proportion of CO₂ in the atmosphere isn't part of that. It's increased over the last ~ 200 years from 0.03% to 0.04%, i.e. not much


still, a 0.01% increase has another observable and non-controversial effect; higher amounts of CO₂ help plants to handle more adverse conditions. This means the exact opposite of desertification increase is happening, as the margins of desert areas literally are adverse habitats for plants to grow in. Thus, the margins of desert areas are pushed into the desert by increased CO₂, not expanded, and the deserts shrink


you know what you could do, JC? instead of "believing" this or that, you could just use logic

[Jet Cash]

Of course increasing carbon and CO2 in the atmosphere helps plants. It reducing the need for plants to open their pores whilst they "gasp for breath". Opening their pores increases the loss of water, which is released into the atmosphere. Water vapour is the single largest contribution to global warming in the composition of our atmosphere. The pro-warming activists conveniently leave it out of their statistics though. Also they are great at using misleading images. Do you remember all those smoke laden exhaust fumes from coal burning electricity generation plants? That is carbon, not carbon dioxide. Carbon is an essential element for the creation and maintenance of life on Earth.

We need more well managed coal fired generators, with sophisticated management of emissions. They are far more environmentally friendly than some of the so-called renewable sources. Sunlight is not renewable, it is generated constantly. If you divert it to electricity generation, then you are depriving some other entity, such as plant or tree growth.

[NeuroticFish]

Sunlight is not renewable, it is generated constantly. If you divert it to electricity generation, then you are depriving some other entity, such as plant or tree growth.

Sunlight is "wasted", whether we use it or not. Same quantity, no matter what.
If the solar panels are not over plants (they can be on the buildings, they can be instead of windows, they can be in deserts) the "damage" of depriving other entities is insignificant (to not say 0).
I think that the problems with solar panels are different: their production may not be as environment friendly as many would like to think (and please also add here the batteries too that may be attached to the solar panels) and their lifespan may not be great (I don't know what protection against hailstone they have, for example).

[Jet Cash]

Sunlight is an energy source, and energy cannot be destroyed. This means that the energy used to create electricity is being denied to some other natural process. One needs to determine if that natural process is less beneficial than the electricity we consume. Certainly building a solar farm on arable lane is depriving us of a food source. To compensate for this the farmed land has to be "fed" with fertilisers, and these don't contain the minerals that are essential for healthy humans. To compensate for that, Big Pharma creates artificial products that have serious side effects, and further diminish the health of "civilised" societies. It is obvious that it is a carefully constructed project with the primary aim of increasing the wealth of the rich elite. and damaging the health and finances of the bulk of civilisation.

I agree that batteries, and the misuse of rare earths are another factor to be considered. So is the damage caused by the war machines of the international bullies and slave masters.

[bluefirecorp_]

If you can't decipher reality from fiction, you're a fool.

The shit you come up, I really do wonder what you smoke.

[amishmanish]

We need more well managed coal fired generators, with sophisticated management of emissions.They are far more environmentally friendly than some of the so-called renewable sources.

They aren't. Even with the best managed power plants, the CO2 emission levels range from 750 gm to 1000 gm per KWh. Coal-fired generators are going to be hard to replace simply because of the night-time availability issue with Solar power. Even then, it is prudent to use Solar power when you can.
Solar power generation effectively has zero emissions while Coal fired plants have to deal with SOX, NOX, PM too. This may not be a huge issue in developed countries but in developing countries like China and India, steps have just been started to manage these other emissions. Hence, Parallel targets of solar energy are desirable.

Sunlight is not renewable, it is generated constantly. If you divert it to electricity generation, then you are depriving some other entity, such as plant or tree growth.

It is hard to say this to you JetCash, but that sounds pretty stupid. How is installation of Solar Panels on barren desert stretches going to deprive plants or trees of sunlight? 
For all practical purposes, Sunlight is a renewable source of energy as it is always being replenished unlike Coal/ Petroleum.

The argument about "Manufacturing of Solar Panels and Batteries" adding to CO2 emissions is on thin ground too. The manufacturing process for Power plant equipment isn't too environment-friendly either. I have not seen a comparative study of the two but if you simply consider the diversity of equipment needed to construct a Coal-fired thermal plant to a Solar plant, there is no comparison. Beginning from Humungous concrete foundations to the Millions of tonnes of support structure and Steel-alloys , the manufacturing process for Thermal plants is no less CO2 heavy.

About Rare earth, I agree that we wouldn't have Central Africa so fucked up if it wasn't for rare earth materials. But then, we wouldn't have the Gulf wars and Middle-East wouldn't be constantly on boil if it wasn't for Petroleum.

[NeuroticFish]

How is installation of Solar Panels on barren desert stretches going to deprive plants or trees of sunlight? 
For all practical purposes, Sunlight is a renewable source of energy as it is always being replenished unlike Coal/ Petroleum.

Thanks for the support. I am usually reluctant in explaining obvious things. You did.

The argument about "Manufacturing of Solar Panels and Batteries" adding to CO2 emissions is on thin ground too. The manufacturing process for Power plant equipment isn't too environment-friendly either. I have not seen a comparative study of the two but if you simply consider the diversity of equipment needed to construct a Coal-fired thermal plant to a Solar plant, there is no comparison. Beginning from Humungous concrete foundations to the Millions of tonnes of support structure and Steel-alloys , the manufacturing process for Thermal plants is no less CO2 heavy.

About Rare earth, I agree that we wouldn't have Central Africa so fucked up if it wasn't for rare earth materials. But then, we wouldn't have the Gulf wars and Middle-East wouldn't be constantly on boil if it wasn't for Petroleum.

That's correct. But when I started discussing about those I didn't compare with existing coal based industry. I compared with "0".


And to add something to the discussion, I've read these days an interesting theory on Amazon wildfires hysteria.
You know, many tell that Amazon is Earth lungs and from here many wrong numbers and things were spread.
However, the article tells that

Contrary to almost every popular account, Earth maintains an unusual surfeit of free oxygen—an incredibly reactive gas that does not want to be in the atmosphere—largely due not to living, breathing trees, but to the existence, underground, of fossil fuels.

I don't know if this is correct, but it's an interesting point to be in consideration when one supports burning fossil fuels: we are reversing pretty fast some processes Earth has done in millions of years so the consequences may be ... unexpected. (In this case we "consume" the extra "stash" of free oxygen).

[Jet Cash]

I didn't refer to the use of solar panels, but the replacement of productive arable land with solar farms. We also have a CO2 drought at the moment, and this is affecting the plant life, and causing global warming for reasons that I explained above. We need to reverse desetification, and turn the current barren deserts into productive land.

One other point - algae is responsive for the creation of more oxygen than trees, and we are destroying algae as well as trees.

Countries such as China are building more coal fired plants to give themselves an economic advantage, and the western world is transferring manufacturing to them.  Wouldn't it be better if we used well managed coal fired generators to preserve our manufacturing, rather than allowing the coal burning to be performed in countries that have less interest in the welfare of the world.

As I stated in my opening post, it is difficult to know which reports one should believe. What I do know is that most of them seem to contradict basic scientific facts. Some people even believe that fractional reserve banking is beneficial to the consumer, and that high blood pressure is a disease, and not a healthy biological response.

[Carlton Banks]

Solar power generation effectively has zero emissions while Coal fired plants have to deal with SOX, NOX, PM too. This may not be a huge issue in developed countries but in developing countries like China and India, steps have just been started to manage these other emissions.

right, one almost never hears anyone talk about sulphur or nitrogen dioxide, yet they're directly bad for the health, and possibly have a detrimental effect on the overall ecosystem also (don't know enough about the consequential effects)

Hence, Parallel targets of solar energy are desirable.

I don't totally agree with this

The storage technology for renewable energy is both required and immature (it's very immature considering how old the energy storage field is), if significant proportions of energy production is to be changed to renewable sources. It's the ideal, but until then, renewables are best used to smooth out peaks in demand, as that supply profile matches what the tech is actually capable of in the actual real world

The argument about "Manufacturing of Solar Panels and Batteries" adding to CO2 emissions is on thin ground too

the argument that CO₂ emissions even matter is similarly thin on the ground (as is the proportion of CO₂ in the atmosphere )


the foundation of the whole anthropogenic warming argument was rocked this week: the climate sceintist that produced the famous "hockey stick" graph of temperature rises over C20th lost his court case.


how did he lose his case? he refused to present his methodology that produced the hockey stick graph in the court room. think about that; the methodology that produced the famous hockey stick trend graph was not publicly available then, and it's still not available now

what sort of scientist does that? loses a court case, a civil libel case which he instigated, by refusing to present the evidence that proves his case? what sort of science cannot withstand the scrutiny of a courtroom?

[amishmanish]

Hence, Parallel targets of solar energy are desirable.

I don't totally agree with this

The storage technology for renewable energy is both required and immature (it's very immature considering how old the energy storage field is), if significant proportions of energy production is to be changed to renewable sources. It's the ideal, but until then, renewables are best used to smooth out peaks in demand, as that supply profile matches what the tech is actually capable of in the actual real world

You are absolutely right that Storage isn't mature enough to allow renewable sources to cater to base load requirements on their own. That is why we still need Coal/Gas fired plants. Yet, I meant it in a developing country context that why these parallel targets are necessary.

This is an on-going debate in India. Power equipment manufacturers have their order-books spread thin as Govt. has slowed down funding for conventional power plants owing to their climate change commitments. I believe USA under Trump pulled out of the agreement to safeguard mining, automobile jobs. Its much tougher for India to do so.

The problem with India and China is the sheer concentration of humanity here. The detrimental health effects are proving to be a huge healthcare cost in Indian cities. Indian planners have to balance between the need for additional power against the environmental/healthcare costs of going ballastic on conventional power plants.
Like I said earlier, Indian plants are more polluting compared to the well-managed power plants that Jet Cash is mentioning. The coal quality is low with a higher sulphur content, lower calorific value resulting in higher ash content. Compared to western/ European plants, few have Desulpharization or Catalyitc converters to take care of SOX/ NOX (Which as Carlton pointed out have severe immediate health effects). Investments in this direction have just started and that too is big business. Hope you can see why parallel renewable targets are important for a country like India.

I didn't refer to the use of solar panels, but the replacement of productive arable land with solar farms.

That reply was more towards Fish as he pointed out carbon footprint of manufacturing solar panels and batteries, and then you said, "I agree that batteries"..Well.. LOL..You are right about the need for a middle path here. (Better management of conventional plants). I am not on the Climate change denial side which I guess even you are not, though it seemed to me that you are because of "Solar isn't renewable".

We probably disagree on the reasons and the ways to mitigate that. (Let me know if am judging this correctly.)
For the dilemma on science, when it is not known who is right, maybe we could look at the motivations. Those who deny climate change typically belong to the established coal, petroleum, automobile industries. It is but natural that they don't want anything to eat into their substantial profits. I feel that the renewable supporters (not the renewables industry) are the under-dogs here.

We have sufficient non-arable land to cover with Solar panels that will not lead to the affects that you are concerned about. In India, there are plans to install solar panels along railway tracks. There has already been efforts to use Water Canals for this purpose. Even train coaches with solar panels installed on roofs to cater to Lighting usage. So, Allow me to say that for incremental improvements, space is not the constraint.

Then again, most city-based pollution comes from automobiles. Consumer level actions like Roof-installed solar panels, battery vehicles can go a long way in reducing pollution in cities. Isn't that a desirable action? If someone denies it by saying that CO2 isn't that bad, which side should I err towards?

[KonstantinosM]

What we really need is the release of factual and well researched objective reports, that are not promoting commercial interests, but there isn't much chance of that is there?

There really is not much chance of that happening. All forms of mass media has for a long time been used as a tool to direct the masses along a certain path, with the different sources leading to different paths, with everyone pushing their own narrative.

I also think that such factual reports would be unsettling to a lot of people, civilization is sort of a house in the clouds, and any harsh reality could dispel it.

Those reports are there if you look for them, they're lengthy and they cite other reports and data, no one piece of information is without bias or error.

Here's one website for example: https://ourworldindata.org/co2-and-other-greenhouse-gas-emissions

They have reports on just about everything and from my limited time reading them they don't seem biased.


I'm very interested in climate change and it's a subject that takes nuanced thinking, which is at times counter-intuitive. You have to be truly open to new ideas and to understanding a little bit of physics.


Other than that, look for other critical thinkers that make facts and figures based arguments that you can follow yourself. My favorite one is ThunderF00t on YouTube. I really like his style of debunking nonsense and in the process I learn a little bit of science.

He debunks a lot of bullshit, including things that well respected people try to sell to the public, such as Elon Musk's hyperloop (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RNFesa01llk), solar roadways, powedered alcohol and other nonsense that the media just repeats without giving it a second thought.


We're all wrong at times, but if you at least arrive to a conclusion by understanding the logic behind it you have a higher chance of being right and a lower chance of being misled.


In short here's where I stand:

The earth is warming and climate change is our greatest challenge yet (as a species).
Bitcoin is strong and as it keeps scaling and improving we'll see more uses.
I don't know enough about statins.
Fractional reserve banking is stealing. The banks can use money that doesn't exist, I don't understand what, if anything stops them from buying a bunch of stock in all of the companies, even the ones that fail, and basically owning most of the wealth without doing any of the work.



I'd also like to add that climate change requires an open mind to study it. You have to be open to learning a little bit of physics.

about 500 Million years ago the co2 ranged in the thousands (a high of about 5000ppm) but the sun wasn't as hot yet. More recently at a co2 similar to the one we have today, the earth was much hotter and the sea level was much higher. In fact New York and Miami and Tampa and my home would be many stories/levels under the sea's surface.


It's however easy to see that plants are not taking up all the co2 in the atmosphere and so it's going up. Plants eat co2 that much is true, but they also require a good climate. Climate Change will turn many areas into deserts.

Other areas that will thaw out will not necessarily become covered in trees simply because soil takes thousands of years to develop. The rate at which we're changing the climate is not the same rate is it would naturally change itself.


If we slowly had increased co2 to 400, or even 1000ppm but we did it over 1 million years all of our grain crops and forests could adapt, new species and ecosystems would arise.

This is not what's happening here. The rate of climate change is very important. Right now we're causing the six mass extinction.


Climate Change can also bring colder winters and more snow to a lot of people. More water in the atmosphere means more snow in certain areas. In certain cases there could be both devastating ice loss and snow falls at the same place.

The loss of ice limiting the area that the locals can hunt in and travel to nearby villages and the snow just worsening things.

Also who's to say that even if certain plants grow faster that that's a good thing. Bush-fires are scary, more water in the atmosphere, higher temperatures and more co2 means that unless people in areas prone to bushfires learn to manage the forests around them carefully they're risking losing their lives or all of their belongings year after year.


For the entirety of humanity's past in the planet co2 was much lower. We've fucked things up. Things will never be the same. Maybe if more people could understand the science a little better we could at least ride things out a little smoother.

Just a few billions of people dying happily dosed with pain killers in their 70s,80s and 90s rather than starving to death in poverty in their 20s.

[Carlton Banks]

Those who deny climate change typically belong to the established coal, petroleum, automobile industries. It is but natural that they don't want anything to eat into their substantial profits.

no, this is incorrect

the fossil fuel industry is promoting the anthropogenic climate change agenda rather heavily, and they stand to gain, for this reason:

Storage isn't mature enough to allow renewable sources to cater to base load requirements on their own. That is why we still need Coal/Gas fired plants.

fossil fuel industry plan to benefit from these circumstances thusly:

• Promote carbon credits legislation
• Continue extraction and usage of fossil fuels
• Use new tech to slowly reduce the CO₂ output of extraction & energy production (scrubbers, sequestration etc)
• Record how much CO₂ emissions they prevented
• Sell the amount saved to us, as carbon credits

can we trust them, and the regulators who measure and certify their efforts, not to cheat? I doubt it, personally

if your point is (and it was): "we can't trust big oil or big energy in general", you'd be right. But look at what you're trusting them with when you accept the anthropogenic climate change position



can you see the greater political danger in giving this much more power to a group of organisations, who openly admit they are a cartel, over which significant armed conflicts have dominated the past 100 years, and all of that at the expense of everyday people whose political power is rapidly diminishing?

You are being tricked by these very powerful people, please get a grip before they institute any of this planned power-grab

If someone denies it by saying that CO2 isn't that bad, which side should I err towards?

it's not that simple

how much is bad? The fact that you are willing to use such open-ended, non specific expressions leads me to believe that you don't even care what the details of the pro anthropogenic climate change argument even are

because the pro-anthropogenic change argument is not "CO₂ is bad"

the argument is "this proportion of CO₂ is bad"


guess what? I agree with the latter statement. I disagree with anthropogenic climate change proponents on what the dangerous proportion is.

and the major flaw in the argument: reality agrees with me. cherry picked statistics, of course, do not, and that's the only way that anthropogenic climate change arguments can be made; using biased statistics and computer models that reinforce the anthropogenic hypotheses, but deliberately ignore the overall context that does not support the anthropogenic hypothesis

the evidence that biased statistics and computer models are being used to further the anthropogenic argument is abundant, and increasingly so

[NeuroticFish]

Here's one website for example: https://ourworldindata.org/co2-and-other-greenhouse-gas-emissions

They have reports on just about everything and from my limited time reading them they don't seem biased.

Yet, I am convinced that not everything is reported correctly, so their data is incomplete.
Maybe I am wrong, but if the industry or governments are the ones doing the reporting, the reality is much worse than most of that data.

[amishmanish]

fossil fuel industry plan to benefit from these circumstances thusly:

• Promote carbon credits legislation
• Continue extraction and usage of fossil fuels
• Use new tech to slowly reduce the CO₂ output of extraction & energy production (scrubbers, sequestration etc)
• Record how much CO₂ emissions they prevented
• Sell the amount saved to us, as carbon credits

can we trust them, and the regulators who measure and certify their efforts, not to cheat? I doubt it, personally

Carbon Credit legislation (Kyoto Protocol et al) came out of the need to bring the developed and developing economies on board. The parties involved are Governments of developed countries whose interests align with those of major polluting corporations'. There are developing countries and others which deem it unfair to have themselves restricted in this way because their share of Global Industrial emissions (at that point of time) wasn't as big.

I have generally seen it as quite a clever way to bring these disparate interests together so that "selfish parties can be made to act for the common good because of Market forces". I respect your opinion but I'll have to see where your above mentioned belief is coming from? Or maybe I'll just google to see what I can find (despite having to face OP's Trust conundrum ). Lets see what new I can learn.

if your point is (and it was): "we can't trust big oil or big energy in general", you'd be right. But look at what you're trusting them with when you accept the anthropogenic climate change position
--snip--
You are being tricked by these very powerful people, please get a grip before they institute any of this planned power-grab[/size]

Say, if we agree that Copenhagen summit, Paris treaty, Kyoto etc. is a big farce, sponsored by the most powerful people, then what according to this school of thought is the solution? Isn't it well-documented that the oil industry actively worked against Climate change theories beginning in the 70s-80s?
They changed the track to dominate the renewable's market. This is because those who have the money to invest will do it anyways. After Tesla, there has been a host of manufacturers who have warmed up to the prospect of Electric cars and are thus coming out with models of their own.
Again, like i said, what is the solution if not these international treaties?? Its a global issue and compromises have to be made between countries.

I think we are reading from vastly different sources. Damn Google/ youtube suggestions!!

[Carlton Banks]

Carbon Credit legislation (Kyoto Protocol et al) came out of the need to bring the developed and developing economies on board. The parties involved are Governments of developed countries whose interests align with those of major polluting corporations'. There are developing countries and others which deem it unfair to have themselves restricted in this way because their share of Global Industrial emissions (at that point of time) wasn't as big.

I have generally seen it as quite a clever way to bring these disparate interests together so that "selfish parties can be made to act for the common good because of Market forces". I respect your opinion but I'll have to see where your above mentioned belief is coming from? Or maybe I'll just google to see what I can find (despite having to face OP's Trust conundrum ). Lets see what new I can learn.

so, the point is that someone must issue the carbon credits, and they must do it according to some rationale

and I outlined the rationale above. Although I missed out perhaps the most significant detail; those who produce most CO₂ are those with the most leverage to decrease their output.



think about it; the big oil and gas extractors & the fossil fuel based electricity production industries fit this profile more or less exactly. They create more CO₂ than anyone else, because they are the root source of all the carboniferous products.

and so they have been anointed as the carbon credit controllers, they control the supply, and the price. but none of this was in their interests all along, right? they just had to fight all this taking away bestowal of extra political power all through the 70's and 80's

it was probably (at least at some point in the development of this culture) a simple reverse psychology trick: "oh no IPCC!! please don't give us the power to print and sell carbon credits as a worldwide monopoly!!!! Noooooooooooooooo!!!"

Its a global issue and compromises have to be made between countries.

there was other climate change news this week too


when you measure the average temperature change of the planet from suitably equipped satellites, not from a cherry-picked range of non-standard weather stations in unevenly distributed locations, there is no discernible or statistically significant warming trend over the last decade, despite the increases in CO₂

so, what do you think we should do about the problem?

[amishmanish]

so, the point is that someone must issue the carbon credits, and they must do it according to some rationale

and I outlined the rationale above. Although I missed out perhaps the most significant detail; those who produce most CO₂ are those with the most leverage to decrease their output.

Banks, have you studied the issuance of the Carbon-Credit under the present system? It does not work the way you were telling earlier. The total allowable carbon credits is fixed at the start and then decreases each year. From my reading, this is how it works:

1. The total GHG emission in tonnes during the baseline year defines the total available credits.
2. These are allocated as allowances to polluting industries.
3. The available credits decrease every year to achieve the Emission reduction target (as taken up in form of NDC's under Paris Agreement)
4. Industries that use beyond allowable allowances need to buy credit.
5. Industries that implement clean-tech (at significant costs) stand to save some part of their allowance which they can sell.

think about it; the big oil and gas extractors & the fossil fuel based electricity production industries fit this profile more or less exactly. They create more CO₂ than anyone else, because they are the root source of all the carboniferous products.

There is nothing suspicious in this. These are the only industries that are covered under the scheme. There is no "us" to whom they can sell these credits. At least that is what people should know. Individuals aren't supposed to buy Carbon Credits as an investment. Those are generally just scams. They are to be traded among the polluters themselves.

it was probably (at least at some point in the development of this culture) a simple reverse psychology trick: "oh no IPCC!! please don't give us the power to print and sell carbon credits as a worldwide monopoly!!!! Noooooooooooooooo!!!"

Once again, I think we are reading from vastly different sources. Like i said above, there is no "power to print" carbon credits. Of course there is the power to buy and sell them based on how much a polluting corporation can save from its "annual allocated allowance".

there was other climate change news this week too


when you measure the average temperature change of the planet from suitably equipped satellites, not from a cherry-picked range of non-standard weather stations in unevenly distributed locations, there is no discernible or statistically significant warming trend over the last decade, despite the increases in CO₂

so, what do you think we should do about the problem?

I think that you are trying to tell me that the data is wrong and that there is not as much warming as people want to project (promoted by the big industries so they can create a market). This is a point i don't find convincing for the reason I explained above. Your understanding of the "Carbon Credit Printing" isn't how this works.

Also, Didn't i ask this to you first..? LOL..  I have been pretty clear on this that the Paris Agreement and Emission allowance market is the way to go. You cannot just force present corporations  out of business and usher in an era of only Clean energy corporations.
Steps are needed so that all countries/ companies have the incentive to make investments in clean energy. People will never do this out of the "goodness" of their hearts.  I am sure you know this way better than me.
We need a different thread.

EDIT: I think you mistakenly put my sentence in your own quotes in the previous reply. With all the "bots" going around, you should probably edit it..