What is Digg?Sponsored by Dragon Age: Origins
Join the Dragon Age: Origins development team on Facebook view!
facebook.com/DragonAgeOrigins - EA presents BioWare's new dark fantasy epic Dragon Age: Origins. '9/10' from Game Informer.
35 Comments
- tgc1, on 07/11/2009, -5/+21Carbon credits. Another scam courtesy of greedy ***** everywhere.
- compulsive1, on 07/11/2009, -2/+12The traders are laughing their asses all the way to the bank. Before long (if not already) they will treat carbon credits like currency and stocks- selling derivatives, futures ect... And, apply fractional reserve principles to them. If there is need for carbon credits, they will issue them and collect money- against future projects that might never materialize. There will be lending of carbon credits, interest baring of course, short selling of them and before you know there will be new carbon credit bubbles. All the usual suspects (widely considered too large to fall) will get insanely rich. The need to keep the market going will result in artificial creation of polluters, so that there are always enough buyers. It will make financial sense to suppress clean technologies because the carbon credits will be so profitable.
- vsujohn2, on 07/11/2009, -2/+11"have had a bumpy ride in the last few years"
In other words.... they don't work. - vats, on 07/10/2009, -2/+10Carbon neutral - I heard this term for the first time.
- inactive, on 07/12/2009, -2/+6offsets / neutrality sounds like ***** to me. Let's say you and I have two lakes. I pay you not to piss in your lake, which enables me to piss in my lake. I'd then say look your lake is cleaner! But no matter how much money I pay to enable my dirty behaviour, I'm still pissing in my lake.
- PocketTiTs, on 07/12/2009, -3/+7Agreed that the carbon credit system is a scam. You would be better off buying coal and burying it in your back yard then paying a bunch of shysters to "offset" your carbon emissions. It's retarded.
It's like saying that I can eat all the cheeseburgers I want, as long as I give money to some banker ***** to open a weight watchers. - inactive, on 07/12/2009, -0/+4uh, if global climate change is the best they can do, I'm not too worried...
- MWeather, on 07/12/2009, -1/+4It's more like this:
Let's say you and I have two lakes. We're both going to piss in them. However, I pay you not to piss in your lake. I'd then say look your lake is cleaner! Now instead of two piss filled lakes, there is one.
If polluters don't buy offsets, they're still going to pollute. Nothing about buying an offset enables them to pollute any more than they already do since there is currently no cap on emissions.
I think what you have a problem with is credits, not offsets. - timohackbarth, on 07/11/2009, -1/+4dugg for "google vs. yahoo" in the title. like there's a competition...
- inactive, on 07/11/2009, -14/+16carbon footprint
carbon offset
carbon neutral
all buzzwords for the new globalist tax system. Global warming is a natural sun cycle and the govts are uniting to get more tax dollars and creating a global govt - brundlefly76, on 07/12/2009, -0/+2You don't need to subscribe to the man-made theory of global warming to appreciate replacing fossil fuels , there's plenty of argument for it without global warming (gas prices should be plenty) and no one has much of a history of moving towards it voluntarily.
We should be all-nuclear by this point - statistically air pollution has resulted in far more environmental damage and health issues than the relative damage of nuclear accidents would have. Rather then killing nuclear power, Chernobyl should have assured us that a meltdown will eventually contain itself and just continued working on plant systems safety, accident response and containment, and locating away from population centers. - ziggy88, on 07/12/2009, -0/+2GOOGLE vs YAHOO
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=910fLzws7Jo - Cartman86, on 07/12/2009, -0/+2Second part is right. First part? Not conclusive.
- inactive, on 07/12/2009, -1/+3Just follow the money behind these carbon credit scams. You'll find the guys screaming about this climate change ***** are also major shareholders in carbon credit companies.
- Richandler, on 07/11/2009, -2/+3So are the offsetting the breath of each employee they have too? Of course offsetting doesn't mean elminating, I'm pretty sure the only source that can effectively remove carbon dioxide is plants.
- acknotSW, on 07/12/2009, -2/+3yep, and the ***** who facilitates the exchange is the only one who wins.
- joe122370, on 07/12/2009, -2/+3LOSE, not loose
- MWeather, on 07/12/2009, -1/+2Offsets aren't about removing carbon, they're about offseting it, though removal would certainly count as an offset. For example, a solar power plant doesn't remove any CO2 at all. Had it not been built, though, then the energy would most likely come from coal, thus the plant offsets the amount of CO2 an equivalent coal plant would produce.
- JHW539, on 07/12/2009, -2/+3"Let's say you and I have TWO lakes."
And that's where you took a sharp left into Stupidtown.
We have one lake. It tastes like piss if two people piss into it, but dilutes it out and fully biodegrades the urine load just fine if only one person pisses into it. I live on a boat, so I pay you not to piss in it. You have a couple acres of land, so you take the cash and build yourself an outhouse away from the lake. Guess what - now the lake doesn't taste like piss.
Is this really too difficult to comprehend? It is not just theory either - the cap and trade approach worked great at getting the sulfur emissions (acid rain) under control in the US. - funkywood, on 07/12/2009, -1/+2Google says sorting the real carbon offsets from the increasing miriad of ***** claims takes time. Why doesn't Google save itself a lot of bother and take the step that so many supposedly green governments have avioded and take up Guyana's (or others) offer and buy its rainforest. No ***** filtering required and a lot more good publicity from one event.
- acknotSW, on 07/12/2009, -0/+1And it will all be driven by exploiting loopholes in the system regarding exactly what an offset is.
I'm not a denier by any means, I've seen the overall weather paterns accross this whole country change over my lifetime, so clearly something is going on. Is it natural, is it man made, I don't know. I don't trust reports from enviromental groups any more then I trust the reports from big oil. My gut tells me that man at least has a hand in things, but maybe not as big as some believe. Regardless which side you are on, the reality is that fossil fuels won't last forever and since it appears we have a large segment behind alternative fuels ATM, now is as good a time as any to push forward with more efficent and sustainable sources of energy. Nuclear is my personal favorite.
Anyway (sorry, to much beer and to much ranting), carbon credits are a full on sham designed to enrich and empower certain groups. - david4041, on 07/12/2009, -1/+2Or the one who gets paid thousands to make speeches on the subject.
- lex0nyc, on 07/12/2009, -1/+2And the difference is... ?
- lex0nyc, on 07/12/2009, -1/+1No kidding. You can't have carbon credits and then let people keep building coal power plants. You have to start shutting them down.
- MWeather, on 07/12/2009, -1/+1Carbon offsets and carbon credits are two entirely different things.
- joe122370, on 07/12/2009, -2/+2since they are NOTHING, how can they work. It's a scam to make money, step 2 if you will.
1) create mass hysteria over global climate problem that doesn't exist
2) cash in cha-ching! guess who started the idea of selling "carbon offsets"?............... Gore - ivan423, on 07/11/2009, -3/+3Fool me once, shame on you tranny. Fool me twice, shame on me. >8 /
- MWeather, on 07/12/2009, -2/+2Well if you ate all the burgers you wanted, then paid someone else to loose weight, wouldn't your combined weight stay the same, at least in theory? Obviously you can gain a lot more weight than you can loose before dying.
- grimacebrown, on 07/11/2009, -2/+2I gotta be honest. I read the article... but I found it of only mild interest.
Just goes to show I'll read anything with Google's name in it. - sarcasm, on 07/12/2009, -0/+0@compulsive1: That is an excellent summary of exactly what the plan is. Goldman Sachs will probably make a killing on it.
On a tangential note, It's funny how derivatives are totally legal but gambling is not (in most places). Maybe we should call it "poker hand futures" or "sports team loss swaps" and then they'd be legit.
I wonder if I can sell credit default swaps against my home and then pay off my mortgage with the premiums... - Spire3660, on 07/12/2009, -1/+1IM not particularly worried about the 'globalist tax system' as much as I am worried that they are taking *****, imperfect data and making overreaching policy with it. I am not a climate change denier, merely a realist.
If we were REALLY interested in reducing carbon emissions, we would be adopting strict reproductive control on our populations. I know no one wants to hear that, but its the plain truth. There are simply too many people on the planet already. - MWeather, on 07/12/2009, -1/+1You can, but you must be able to reduce CO2 elsewhere to offset the output of the new coal plants.
That's not likely, so we'll probably see other options like nuclear power become much more attractive. - MWeather, on 07/12/2009, -1/+1A credit is a license to produce a certain amount of CO2 under a cap & trade system.
An offset is where you pay someone to offset the carbon you produce, either via removing it from the atmosphere, or preventing it's release via the construction of alternative energy projects, etc.
Under cap & trade, offsetting carbon can earn you a credit, but it is not a credit in itself. In fact no carbon need be offset to receive a credit. Companies are given a certain amount of credits, and must only purchase offsets when their carbon output exceeds the value of the credits they own.
So while a credit may or may not be linked to an offset and the resulting reduction in CO2 output, an offset is always linked to CO2 reduction (or at least a contractual promise of such) regardless of whether or not it's under a cap & trade system. - Spire3660, on 07/12/2009, -0/+0On thing I forgot to add. More then anything else, hubris caused the accident. The scientists actually believed that the design was foolproof and felt they couldnt melt it down if they tried. Titanic syndrome.
- Spire3660, on 07/12/2009, -0/+0I think you need to research the Chernobyl event a little deeper. It most certainly did not 'contain itself'
THe whole reactor had to be pumped out and filled with 200m of concrete and that jsut the TEMP structure. A new permanent solution is due in 2013. More then a dozen reactormen died containing it. They sent 3 men down in the radioactive water to open the water valves and drain some coolant. They succeeded, but never came back. Is that your definition of 'self-contained'?
The Chernobyl event should be looked at for what it was, an EXTREME GROSS NEGLIGENCE OF SAFETY PROTOCOL and to a lesser degree a bad reactor design. They turned off every computer safety and made it sit in the corner while they turned off the manual safety interlocks as well. The reactor was undergoing a emergency fallover test, but because of delays, the original daytime test crew went home and didnt communicate to the night shift the true state of the reactor. BOOM, blowing off a 2000 TONNE roof, exposing the core to air and igniting the graphite core spectacularly.
TL:DR
Chernobyl was a perfect case of what can happen if you are pants on head retarded, and should never be used to condemn respected nuclear reactor designs/procedures.
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is