So, there seems to be this new trend when it comes to environmentalism in which it becomes acceptable for one to pollute or release extensive carbon emissions so long as one purchases an equal number of green "credits" that go toward planting forest of kelp under the pacific or promoting the use of green energy elsewhere.

Now, from a purely practical point of view, this almost makes sense. Obviously, if you decrease world-wide emissions in an amount equal to your own increase in emissions, then on a global perspective it all balances out. Huzzah.

But I've noticed that environmental issues are rarely displayed in purely practical terms. Generally there is some sort of moral argument about how we all should strive to decrease greenhouse emissions and save the planet.

And that's all well and good. But imagine trying to apply the "credit" strategy to other moral issues.
For example, perhaps some sicko gets his jollies by abusing children. Could he not implement a system in which, for every child he abused, he paid to have some other child (probably in some far corner of the globe) rescued from an abusive situation? Thus, on the global scale, the amount of abuse remains constant and he hasn't actually added to it. Would this in any way lessen the moral evil of his abuse?
I'm sure you can imagine other possible examples with other issues.

It seems to me that, if polluting is wrong then it's wrong regardless of whether or not you plant new kelp forests or promote efficient new light bulbs.

Personally, I have mixed feelings about the environmental crisis thing, but I'm beginning to feel somewhat irritated by the "green" individuals and organizations who urge us all to cut-back, sacrifice and change our lifestyles while they fly about in jets and conveys of cars and hold concerts. The excuse that this is all OK because they're rich enough to "make up for it" by buying credits falls flat for me.

Well, the idea is to internalize the negative effects pollution causes into the calculation of the polluters and to set an economically sensible incentive to reduce pollution or CO2 emissions or whatever. It also works with emission rights for industry. At least in theory this is a very appealing instrument. In year one, the polluters are given a certain amount of pollution rights. If they need more because of high pollution, they need to buy further rights. If they reduce pollution, they can sell emission rights and make money out of their efforts. In the following years, the overall number of credits can be reduced and such increase the value of each emission unit and so make it even more interesting to reduce pollution. In such a way, emission credits are a sensible tool to internalize the negative effects of pollution into the decision making process of consumers and businesses in an economically efficient way. At least if we don't want to change our whole lifestyle or economic system.

Oh, I think it could be an excellent tool to decrease the pollution output of large businesses, though it does have a downside of upping the barrier-to-entry cost for small businesses.

No, my irritation is mostly with private individuals or organizations who claim to be "green" in response to a universal moral obligation, rather than in obedience to a governmental mandate.

I thought it was a trade agreement smoke and mirror for allowed carbon emissions.
A certain amount of pollution allowed but not used is traded around by moonbats so there base can excuse away them not doing as they preach.

For instants, a fishery that doesn’t pollute is allowed as much pollution as a power plant so democrats and environmentalist take it from there.
In fact there were complaints about some moonbat love-in global warming concert thingy going on in Asia or somewhere that was shut down due to the pollution from there diesel generators polluting the entire village. The news reported they where using recycled materials and some organic diesel fuel so it was okay…

__________________
Only a liberal would know how hard it is to get a nicotine patch to stick to a monkey.

Scuse me, but pollution credits are not an environmentalist issue, they are a typical political-economical compromise. The environmentalist approach is to cut down everywhere and permanently. AG & his road show are populist politicians, not environmentalists.

BTW, it's perfectly possible to decrease energy consumption considerably without any loss of lifestyle whatsoever.

2nd edit : Actual environmentalists, and scientists, are in despair over AG hijacking this important issue for political reasons.

Okay, couldn’t find much on it but it’s called “Live Earth”. There diesel generators for the equipment lighting ect. Placed the entire village in a Smokey smog that caused respiratory problems and concern from citizens not used to pollution.

__________________
Only a liberal would know how hard it is to get a nicotine patch to stick to a monkey.

I cannot understad the legal theory behind pollution rights. If I have a factory that has emitted x tonnes of CO2 for years, then I already have this pollution right and should not be forced to "buy" it again.

__________________
President Josiah Bartlet: Sweden has a 100% literacy rate. 100%! How do they do that?
Leo McGarry: Maybe they don't and they can't add.

You are not forced to buy emission rights for pollution in past years. The theory behind is that private corporations have to pay for the use of public resources and so to internalize social costs (in this case pollution) into the production costs of those entities that produce pollution and to give them an economically efficient incentive to cut down pollution.

I think everyone who setup Live Earth concerts should get carbon credits to offset the tons of carbon they put into the air while running the concerts. At least thatd be a good way to spin it.

__________________
http://www.fairtax.org

Elminate all taxes on income and replace with a national sales tax.

I'm a little confused. Do individuals who try to live a "greener" life irritate you? Would you rather they did so out of moral obligation, or through government mandate?

I only ask because I've generally considered myself more on the green side for years. I recycle - but that's required where I live. I also use mass transit whenever possible, I've planted a few trees in my day, etc.

I don't see anything wrong with the concept of being carbon neutral, or striving for it at least. I can't really imagine the concept being adapted by child molesters and such. I don't think we, as a society, would let them get away with that.

I think the issue, rightly so, is that carbon credits are being used in leiu of conserving energy. Much like Al Gore and his 10,000 ton house. Instead of living in a smaller house, he plants trees, and everything is ok.

Much like the govt solution to deficits is raising taxes instead of cutting spending.

Also, as I noted above, the hypcrasy of the Live Earth concerts is astounding. No doubt billions more tons of greenhouse gases were put into the atmosphere to put on the concerts, just for Al Gore to get the attention he craves. Ever since Manbearpig was killed, he had to find something new.

__________________
http://www.fairtax.org

Elminate all taxes on income and replace with a national sales tax.

I think you misunderstand. I applaud those who live "greener" lives. I think that's great. I also recycle (not required here) and take the train most places.

What irritates me is the notion that its OK not to actually live a greener live so long as you can afford to pay enough money to "make up for it".
The fact is that living "green" costs you something, either monetarily or in time commitment. The idea of a wealthy person or organization telling everyone else to change their lifestyle to be more planet-friendly, while they keep their life the same and merely buy up a bunch of "green credits" as if that makes it all OK....that irks me.

In summary, I guess, I think conservation is great and I think sponsoring "green initiatives" (as the credits usually do) is great.
But I don't think that sponsoring the initiatives somehow makes your lack of conservation all OK, not if being planet-friendly is really a moral obligation.
You can't buy your way out of a moral duty.

OK, I see your point. I find it a bit annoying as well that some people can take the easy way out if they have enough money. OTOH, at least they're doing something... perhaps if he just turned off half the lights in his mansion....

Conservatives are typically hostile to any effort to preserve human life, so I'm not surprised by the posts in this thread.

__________________
Is our children learning? -George W. Bush

"I think—tide turning—see, as I remember—I was raised in the desert, but tides kind of—it's easy to see a tide turn—did I say those words?"—Washington, D.C., June 14, 2006

"[T]he illiteracy level of our children are appalling."—Washington, D.C., Jan. 23, 2004

Yeah, screw humans. We should all go extinct. Seriously though, thats a bit misleading. Conservatives are hostile to any effort BY GOVT to control human lives is more accurate.

__________________
http://www.fairtax.org

Elminate all taxes on income and replace with a national sales tax.