The inconvenience of the sky being darkened by volcanoes is nothing to the lasting effects of all the carbon being thrown into the atmosphere and radically changing our climate by trapping the heat from the sun (once the clouds of ash have disappeared).
Science has correlated climate over the ages with core samples from ice sheets and found that carbon dioxide levels fluctuate or possibly drive, climatic events. Only recently has science been able to understand how this CO2 actually works to trap the heat in the atmosphere and by calling it the greenhouse effect gives us the basic understanding of what goes on.
Other gases are also responsible for containing the heat of our planet and some are far worse that CO2. See http://ghg.unfccc.int/index.html which shows that methane's Global Warming Potential (GWP) is much higher than that of CO2. However, since CO2 is the main contributor to the effects of Global Warming, the GreenHouse Gases are known collectively as CO2 emissions. Since a lot of the arctic permafrost is now melting, methane is now becoming more significant which is worrisome.
The good news is that the process of reducing pollution from CO2 emissions is well under way. It has got to be the most important thing for mankind to address as history has shown us the certain conclusion. The US government is not so sure that CO2 is responsible for all of the global warming although California is one of the states taking the opposite stance by aggressively promoting everything to do with the use of renewable resources. Russia agrees that CO2 is in its sights (it signed the Kyoto Protocol in 2004) but is unfortunate in having a massive and old energy infrastructure that will take time to upgrade.
To reach this point in discussions between nations, the countries that form the world's major polluters were identified from global CO2 emission statistics based on 1990 figures. At the meeting in Kyoto in 1997, China and India were therefore not significant polluters and the outcome was that those nations deemed responsible for significant CO2 emissions were given targets to reduce them. The US have used this non-inclusion of China and India as its reason to stay out of the Kyoto Protocol.
What emerged from the Kyoto meeting is that as each country produces CO2, it must be able to contain that CO2 by tree-planting or other processes that can absorb it, such as sequestration and changing farming methods. Or, if the CO2 it produces could in no way be swallowed up (sequestered) by these natural process (and that is usually the case), then there has to be a system to encourage or pay nations and their industries to reduce the CO2 they produce in the first place. If that country produces more CO2 than it can absorb, it must purchase an 'absorption ability' from another nation and the great thing about that is that developed nations are buying up huge chunks of rainforest simply that they may be preserved to absorb CO2. The Carbon Credit is this new currency and one Carbon Credit is equal to one Tonne of CO2 and is called a CO2e (CO2 equivalent). Costs are between US (ironically) $20 - 40 per credit.
Carbon Credits can be bought on the carbon market through a myriad of agencies that have appeared. Carbon Credits acquired from industry are done so by illustrating that they have employed methods which conserve energy compared to the way that industry usually utilizes that energy. It's called 'business as usual'. So if a denim mill in India goes to the efforts of using the local sewage farm to collect methane and then uses that methane to power its generators, then compared to the 'business as usual' way of making energy via a diesel generator, it has conserved a lot of CO2. In cases like that in India which was deemed to be a non-polluter back in 1990, the facts of CO2 reduction have to be verified to ascertain how many carbon credits have been earned and can go for sale. If this is done independantly of nations that have to meet CO2 reduction standards then these Carbon Credits are indeed called VERs (Verified Carbon Emissions). If however, financing and organisation of this CO2 reduction programme involves a nation that does need the Carbon Credits, then these are CERs (Certified Emission Reductions) and these command a higher value.
The same can be said in those developed nations where the simple act of recycling can generate Carbon Credits if it can be proven that the 'business as usual' practice of discarding whatever it is that is now recycled will save energy and hence earn Carbon Credits.
Needless to say that the processes for application and qualification for this and other energy saving practices that will earn Carbon Credits are too detailed to go into here. Just type in 'carbon trading' in a search engine and remember that agencies will be able to represent certain nations and practices better than others.
It's pretty simple really in forward thinking theory. All growing things absorp carbon which ultimately ends up in the soil. Planting trees reduces the carbon in the atmosphere but not if they are then cut down and burnt and crops that are planted and harvested will not actually store carbon within them. Crops can be farmed in such a way that the soils are not ploughed to let the stored carbon escape. Weeds and borders to fields can be encouraged. Forests can be left to stand. Fuel usage can be cut and power generation can be more efficient and all this reduced consumption of carbon will mean that less Carbon Credits will have to be purchased. In other words, any potential Carbon Tax will be lower.
That's where alternative technologies come in. We still have to go about our daily business and not pollute.
The money that purchases carbon credits is ultimately being used to further Carbon saving schemes. New Zealand has already funded some wind generation projects from the money gained from selling Carbon Credits from its acreage of woodland. There are complications to be conquered though. In Australia, Virgin has tried to introduce its airline but has been deterred by the need to offset its CO2 pollution by the purchase of Carbon Credits which makes them uncompetitive and the airline market generally has yet to overcome this hurdle. In fact it's a sign of the way that the Carbon market is going to affect businesses worldwide.
A global market may become less global if the cost of a product is measured in terms of total CO2 emissions. The end result will be that we may all be seeking to trade locally. Along with our new found local power generation facilities (solar, wind, fuel cell, biomass, hydro, tidal, wave, nuclear ??) we may see a shift away from massive corporations and a move back towards co-operatives. Made in China might be something people in Europe see less of. Alternatively, goods could be moved around the globe super efficiently and only the large corporations will be able to afford this (as they do now maybe!). The ramifications of the Kyoto Protocol are that it will affect the way we measure the cost of items. The development and fine-tuning of the terms of the Protocol are to be introduced in 2008 and it may seem to be a huge headache for businesses and governments alike. However, the increased chance of damaging climatic effects can already been seen. We need no reminder of why we should be very determined to reduce CO2 production as quickly as we can.
Science has correlated climate over the ages with core samples from ice sheets and found that carbon dioxide levels fluctuate or possibly drive, climatic events. Only recently has science been able to understand how this CO2 actually works to trap the heat in the atmosphere and by calling it the greenhouse effect gives us the basic understanding of what goes on.
Other gases are also responsible for containing the heat of our planet and some are far worse that CO2. See http://ghg.unfccc.int/index.html which shows that methane's Global Warming Potential (GWP) is much higher than that of CO2. However, since CO2 is the main contributor to the effects of Global Warming, the GreenHouse Gases are known collectively as CO2 emissions. Since a lot of the arctic permafrost is now melting, methane is now becoming more significant which is worrisome.
The good news is that the process of reducing pollution from CO2 emissions is well under way. It has got to be the most important thing for mankind to address as history has shown us the certain conclusion. The US government is not so sure that CO2 is responsible for all of the global warming although California is one of the states taking the opposite stance by aggressively promoting everything to do with the use of renewable resources. Russia agrees that CO2 is in its sights (it signed the Kyoto Protocol in 2004) but is unfortunate in having a massive and old energy infrastructure that will take time to upgrade.
To reach this point in discussions between nations, the countries that form the world's major polluters were identified from global CO2 emission statistics based on 1990 figures. At the meeting in Kyoto in 1997, China and India were therefore not significant polluters and the outcome was that those nations deemed responsible for significant CO2 emissions were given targets to reduce them. The US have used this non-inclusion of China and India as its reason to stay out of the Kyoto Protocol.
What emerged from the Kyoto meeting is that as each country produces CO2, it must be able to contain that CO2 by tree-planting or other processes that can absorb it, such as sequestration and changing farming methods. Or, if the CO2 it produces could in no way be swallowed up (sequestered) by these natural process (and that is usually the case), then there has to be a system to encourage or pay nations and their industries to reduce the CO2 they produce in the first place. If that country produces more CO2 than it can absorb, it must purchase an 'absorption ability' from another nation and the great thing about that is that developed nations are buying up huge chunks of rainforest simply that they may be preserved to absorb CO2. The Carbon Credit is this new currency and one Carbon Credit is equal to one Tonne of CO2 and is called a CO2e (CO2 equivalent). Costs are between US (ironically) $20 - 40 per credit.
Carbon Credits can be bought on the carbon market through a myriad of agencies that have appeared. Carbon Credits acquired from industry are done so by illustrating that they have employed methods which conserve energy compared to the way that industry usually utilizes that energy. It's called 'business as usual'. So if a denim mill in India goes to the efforts of using the local sewage farm to collect methane and then uses that methane to power its generators, then compared to the 'business as usual' way of making energy via a diesel generator, it has conserved a lot of CO2. In cases like that in India which was deemed to be a non-polluter back in 1990, the facts of CO2 reduction have to be verified to ascertain how many carbon credits have been earned and can go for sale. If this is done independantly of nations that have to meet CO2 reduction standards then these Carbon Credits are indeed called VERs (Verified Carbon Emissions). If however, financing and organisation of this CO2 reduction programme involves a nation that does need the Carbon Credits, then these are CERs (Certified Emission Reductions) and these command a higher value.
The same can be said in those developed nations where the simple act of recycling can generate Carbon Credits if it can be proven that the 'business as usual' practice of discarding whatever it is that is now recycled will save energy and hence earn Carbon Credits.
Needless to say that the processes for application and qualification for this and other energy saving practices that will earn Carbon Credits are too detailed to go into here. Just type in 'carbon trading' in a search engine and remember that agencies will be able to represent certain nations and practices better than others.
It's pretty simple really in forward thinking theory. All growing things absorp carbon which ultimately ends up in the soil. Planting trees reduces the carbon in the atmosphere but not if they are then cut down and burnt and crops that are planted and harvested will not actually store carbon within them. Crops can be farmed in such a way that the soils are not ploughed to let the stored carbon escape. Weeds and borders to fields can be encouraged. Forests can be left to stand. Fuel usage can be cut and power generation can be more efficient and all this reduced consumption of carbon will mean that less Carbon Credits will have to be purchased. In other words, any potential Carbon Tax will be lower.
That's where alternative technologies come in. We still have to go about our daily business and not pollute.
The money that purchases carbon credits is ultimately being used to further Carbon saving schemes. New Zealand has already funded some wind generation projects from the money gained from selling Carbon Credits from its acreage of woodland. There are complications to be conquered though. In Australia, Virgin has tried to introduce its airline but has been deterred by the need to offset its CO2 pollution by the purchase of Carbon Credits which makes them uncompetitive and the airline market generally has yet to overcome this hurdle. In fact it's a sign of the way that the Carbon market is going to affect businesses worldwide.
A global market may become less global if the cost of a product is measured in terms of total CO2 emissions. The end result will be that we may all be seeking to trade locally. Along with our new found local power generation facilities (solar, wind, fuel cell, biomass, hydro, tidal, wave, nuclear ??) we may see a shift away from massive corporations and a move back towards co-operatives. Made in China might be something people in Europe see less of. Alternatively, goods could be moved around the globe super efficiently and only the large corporations will be able to afford this (as they do now maybe!). The ramifications of the Kyoto Protocol are that it will affect the way we measure the cost of items. The development and fine-tuning of the terms of the Protocol are to be introduced in 2008 and it may seem to be a huge headache for businesses and governments alike. However, the increased chance of damaging climatic effects can already been seen. We need no reminder of why we should be very determined to reduce CO2 production as quickly as we can.
 |
ARTICLES |
Articles are invited under this Carbon Credits section. Please send enquiries to Contact.
