Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : The *NEW* Frank Coluccio Technology Forum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Frank A. Coluccio who wrote (29352)	2/19/2009 10:42:47 AM
From: Jorj X Mckie	1 Recommendation Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 46821

Hi Frank, I've actually posted quite a bit about the whole CO2/Global Warming thing. When you consider the fact that humans generate only a couple of percentage points of the total CO2 emitted into the atmosphere, even if we cut our CO2 output in half, that only reduces the total CO2 emissions by a percentage point. One volcanic eruption can offset any reduction in CO2 emitted into the atmosphere. More importantly, there is no clear causal relationship between the rise in CO2 and global warming. This coupled with the fact that the planet seems to be on a bit of a cooling trend makes the whole reduction of CO2 argument a bit specious. If you look at the issue scientifically and objectively, it has to have either political or economic motives and NOT environmental. Therefore it is not surprising that there is no real environmental benefit to the policies behind the green movement.

To: Frank A. Coluccio who wrote (29352)	2/21/2009 5:31:27 PM
From: Asymmetric	Respond to of 46821

"Wind Turbines in Europe Do Nothing for Emissions-Reduction Goals" I think the title of the Der Speigel article is misleading and somewhat deceptive. The way the article SHOULD read is that trading of emissions credits (RECS - renewable energy credits) has undermined the benefits that come with construction of wind and solar. RECS were conceived as a way of incentivizing companies that installed renewables. It was another way you could get or make money for "doing good" or going green. By installing wind or solar, you were certified by some trade organization or association and then given credits which you could then sell in one of the open energy trading markets and make money. Companies that weren't compliant, would be forced to go out onto these markets and purchase RECS to offset the amount of carbon emissions they were in violation of. This is what's been happening transnationally between "green" Germany, and "dirty" eastern Europe, etc. What the article points out to me, is that the trading mechanism in RECS needs to be adjusted so that there is actually a net benefit as far as total carbon emission from the money that was spent on all these renewable projects. Bottom line - The trading mechanism or theory of RECS is flawed and ends up being counterproductive. I don't think anyone can argue that when choosing on a specific project whether to install Wind Turbines as opposed to a coal plant, one would end up not offsetting carbon emissions had you chosen to build the coal generating plant. And yes - as far as better home insulation - it is a well known fact, that the greenest kilowatt is the kilowatt that is never used. - A.

To: Frank A. Coluccio who wrote (29352)	2/23/2009 8:45:04 AM
From: Frank A. Coluccio	Respond to of 46821

Counterpoint du jour re Cap & Trade: Apparently, according to this piece (vs. #msg-25425231 which claimed the opposite), the European system does mitigate carbon emissions: -- Cap And Trade Works!, by Clark Williams-Derry February 20, 2009 European climate program reduces emissions. A few years back, Europe's cap-and-trade system, called the ETS, was taking a beating in the press. Some of the criticism was legit: the program really did make some silly missteps in the early years. The biggest bungles were tied up with how the ETS handed out emissions permits. First, they decided to give them out for free -- which, as we've discussed ad nauseum, was a recipe for windfall profits for the firms that got free permits. And second, for lack of reliable emissions data, the ETS handed out more permits than firms actually needed. Ultimately, the glut of permits led to a collapse in the price of carbon, and very little progress in reducing emisisons. worldchanging.com A hat tip to Alexander Harrowell. ------