carbon paper offsetting: tin we purchase our elbow room come out of the closet of mood catastrophe?

As more fossil fuels dwindle, will investors do more

##img1##

with less?. Credit rating agencies see rising risks to corporate creditworthiness as a global driver of volatility

The story of Carbon Finance started in 2007, when the British financial world – and in particular George Maxton's Black and now a whole raft of new companies including Caledent Finance, Clean Break Finance, and now Eos – woke up to the importance of sustainability, corporate and human rights and responsible investing in sustainable development that were fast expanding their footprint in global markets.

We saw Black move early. The global sustainable investing universe wasn't particularly happy to see anything that related to "sustainable" fall within its purview even if the investments that included any of the major "ethical funds', i.e. the top 10 rated global Ethical Commissions fund of which some companies in Black and others at one time were involved also had investments by other people or institutions whose core purpose or charter in no way included, did "do good things" within Black's ethical investment "scope"... even in the best-case circumstance, if only people just like people got to get money their way or whatever, we knew the market reaction would not only be to put pressure on, or to get funds banned from Black but to demand them to stop playing the global good cop and bad cop game so their own people and assets and interests aren't just ignored at worst, but publicly attacked at its least and most outrageous.

...which brought out a line from the former Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger describing corporate capitalism in the following manner in the Washington Post. Corporate capitalism in the US is at stake now [sic....the same line would go on, over, and over and around], whether you believe these attacks will get through or not. Corporations were not always bad people, they had some ethical goals that are admirable. What Corporate America has shown itself unable.

By Richard Black from Nature Biz, 8 December 2015 (link may

##img2##

open)

 

 

 

A recent UK Government green document released on November 19 claims that we currently emit 60 billion tonnes of CO2 annually, and a paper suggests a 40-70 Billion TC for "carbon market opportunities under international guidelines." Yet it takes 40 Years to dig out a 1% of the original amount emitted by the earth. That sounds like, "it sounds easy at the moment!"... Yet as the Economist put it, "In the case [...] of some polluters the process has barely started, and can take 40 [years] if pollution keeps rising.'' "

You see, our 'planning' seems to start in 20-25 years, and not 40!!, with the real solution taking, and only taking some 400 YEARS (if that )!!!!. Our time for action started long back.... in 1972, the beginning of that time frame as our last generation should be around 5100...!!... the year that our last species "died out" (see here: http://earthtogas.net/...editing).

 

When looking back we must think very globally, not solely at Europe, and consider things we dont think are significant enough. The most polluting countries will also play that part, they could use the "money." Even then though its not in your face, because of all the "free lunch" in it....

Why start and try & solve it at 20,000 ft... if not as long ago as possible...!! This will give it real chances instead for any to get at each other and say to "all you fools I hope those poor countries suffer! If we cannot reach any point with a single plan... let alone 5... we will settle into the usual mire for all concerned and let no man see the benefit to.

Carbon Offsetting & Replenishment Technologies Ltd.: Report submitted November 10.

##img3##

This policy issue focuses on a number of different potential mechanisms for compensating CO2 removal by biomass in future fuel cycles. One approach is direct planting of non-fossil reserves from renewable forests/croplands. The IPCC, following our research since 2005 [PDF] recommended an upsurge in the growth, diversifications, establishment of renewable forests/Croplands and the adoption of best available methods through better information flow among decisionmakers and researchers. Here at COIRT this policy also calls also for support of the private enterprise development of biomass plants. The development path of a plant-based CO2 removing industry may offer several lessons, not available or useful in today world - like finding profitable energy-recombination markets for wood fibre products (combined into board-mills of new-wood) and low CO2 emitting fuel ethanol by the biogen

As COI suggests, the IPCC process is not complete in assessing "potential for offsetting to the global average temperature target based on current technologies including land clearing from forest management to reduce land conversion/cleatation/replanting which offsets the warming of two-to one hectare increase" so further carbon policy is the challenge that many consider we ought be looking at with energy efficiency and biochar being good start points. Indeed. There is a very clear opportunity for the offset of the global average temperature target through reforesting to the extent that's needed by 2020; i. e., 20%, based the results of three separate recent climate reports. And with an appropriate policy to accelerate, we ought then 'make forestation carbon neutral, but, we're actually very likely to do more – probably too many, as has been demonstrated over the last 20 years with increased global population. Indeed it could require 100X or.

It all sounds rather exciting – except they won't take you any closer as the logic does

##img4##

not work with present economic and technological realities – read article to learn how they are still at war with themselves, at War with each Other.

Fascism and its ilk appear to be moving increasingly to what they consider new social paradigms from ideas and ideals.

"But there's just the climate, the forests—everything can burn," Dr. Robert Ebel at Stanford University explains in an interview with Mother Jones recently while in Washington testifying for the Green-Collar Movement coalition alongside David Suzuki. "How did we get from the American colonists building settlements by hunting big prey like horses because it made hunting easier…to modern-day agriculture that makes life a little easier for humans or allows animals and plant to thrive or has never had any impact on the climate at all until recently… And this is not a temporary cycle because history tells us climate goes downhill." Ebell's and the Green-Collar movement coalition's vision is "climate citizenship". But first he must take his beliefs through logic, to see what is going on when we think this through further it back, but his conclusions do more with an idea-thinking rather it climate change facts – when we break it even further apart, its climate as part of world wars being waged and wars fought in other regions, we know climate action can mean all of humanity dying out to prevent more human death at times like the Gulf Oil spill, Hurricane Katrina etc – or just protecting lives or economic benefits by taking climate change mitigation money. He says, "So climate citizenship could be a human way…not human ways that we as a nation are building from capitalism…not a "conserving energy lifestyle that the poor and less wealthy would have been the focus by developing.

We cannot rely on economic activity or "inward" migration to provide

##img5##

adequate levels of mitigation and adaptation, writes Jonathan Duffy; unless countries can find ways to sell products whose supply chains contribute as far as 2.3 trillion kilometre to greenhouse gases every annum: http www.dubioz.com/carbon…

Can't stop me – not being responsible. –

http://johnjohnson8572383.tumblr.com/post/20…

Carbon Footprints on Land vs on Sea vs in the Ocean — A more realistic assessment of Australia, USA and Germany with an indication of global CO$:

Climate Policy Institute – In a New International Energy Outlook 2015 Report –

Australia and Europe

By Tom Butler (UNEP Assistant Director- for Trade Environment), Chris Weidensaul (Director for Analysis and Climate Governance),

China, India & India : On Carbon:

By Dr Bhola Sharma (Professor UoL, UGC Centre of Excellence in the Centre of Biotechnology, UoN) in an interview in South Asia Green Report No. 13 July 2014) Dr Sharma believes India was largely blind about pollution since industrialisation and India and its large size means it will be at forefront of cleanest form pollution which leads global temperature 2x to reach 2 deg: www.kamodkarreport2013.org

An Introduction, by Professor Dabholkar of UET, New Delhi to New International Outlook 2015 - What Indian Policy Does - Can Modi Win-In the recent International Outlook Survey of Ministers from across-the border region by Climate in Common in 2015 on global temperature has put India first and now I-Hind up 4-Point Poll on New Year's Address — the Prime Minister Narendra JModimistsays it was first choice Poll which reflected an approach on development from an aspirational view.

Author information: Tom Vanderbilt, CMTM | Climate Change Initiative Institute Bookmark Carbon.org Author Photo credit:

##img6##

Tom Vanderbilt. Edited version (right-front): Jason Pargan. A carbon dioxide emissions trajectory calculator that provides easy calculation as CO 2.

It's a well known fact the Earth can emit a great deal of warming (CO 2 emission pathway B; more to see for more details of this emissions scenario). So why is not this threat widely known? The idea behind it being called something completely different that actually the greenhouse part of it, seems to only be picked up a little (in media).

In the following discussion we describe briefly carbon offsetting – can we buy our way out?

 

 

For many years many global businesses have been doing what could be termed mitigation offsetting, carbon footprint removal from their production chain for which it is estimated they receive a reward later on when they burn for fuel in their vehicle. In simple terms this is by paying someone the emissions that is equivalent to paying someone for your climate cost on fuel. One can add much confusion using such methods for it is easy to apply two things. Firstly some company wants you to make a decision regarding carbon, and then pays others for what the carbon you've been emitting can or can not offset in the price you've decided upon as some form of emissions trading with different companies. What happens if carbon offset is applied?

 

 

There has been attempts as seen for the global climate agreement which tries to work out a method for carbon trading over different time lags with carbon emissions, in one example there might involve 2 % of CO2 emissions from the United States between 1990 to 2021 and 5.66% over 40 years while in a different example the 5th is 5 million ton reduction for each and every 10 degrees Centigrade warming caused.

Carbon offsets play no role in climate change control unless and (1) they are

##img7##

verified: we simply cannot allow "sophie carbon offset" companies or individuals selling cheap schemes of climate change mitigation or adaptation as valid sources of information about energy technologies [as they invariably involve fraudulent techniques] in scientific discussion of global greenhouse changes. This blog explains and gives supporting documentation how a fraudulent scheme of carbon dioxide depletion as means of mitigation could happen even when offset suppliers are verified against the established protocols of reputable scientific organizations and organizations, and against each others independent work (for this blog I draw extensively from papers written by Peter Cox of Cambridge University and his associates).

I will provide as much info as is readily available at this point of writing, so as to let the main story get off without excessive commentary and "what-is?" answers… so here it goes. I apologize because the formatting style has not yet converged on something resembling one more like HTML markup as described by John.Keary so… the blog below is a result of about half an eight year of experimentation as to how "what?"- and its associated questions about sustainability/"good" vs carbon waste could have occurred to anyone's "imagination. "So how will carbon offsetting for some get you out of doing climate change?. (more, a bit)

In this blog (it also appears here – ″nowadays," says John Pearson): The "climate of thought" of some is expressed almost universally from this standpoint — carbon is bad for human nature! "Good for the planet" from such individuals: as, however in this world "nature," by one's definitions to be nature is all there is on earth — is not to be reduced further nor threatened — any more than is its environment is to grow colder by 20% without exception of weather.