I'm sorry, but I'm still trying to catch up with this topic; trying to get my head around this. Maybe someone out there can help.

Let's say I'm a huge star in the alt-rock scene or something. I make so many millions of dollars from my albums and my concerts. Because of that, I also happen to be responsible for quite a bit of secondary consumer packaging (waste) to promote myself, as well as alot of exhaust from my private jet and motorcade.

That being said, I have questions about the following:

1. Who are these people that are telling me that I can "offset" my unbalanced share of my own industrial waste? What are their names and what are they offering? Can I get a package deal on carbon offset credits? Who do I contact? What's the name of these companies?

2. What am I getting in return? Am I investing in some environmental cause or something that promises to fix everything with all the pollution credits I bought, or. . .what? What's the portfolio look like?

Waiting with anticipation and baited breath here. This is prolly the one subject that I have been trying so hard to figure out, but gotten nowhere with.

Thanks in advance, and please, no speculative replies.

-PJ

The guy who invented the Pet Rock is nothing compared to this Carbon fiasco. It almost as if people are wanting to buy air. (not radio air)

Will Media Report Global Warming Carbon Credit Fraud?

Um.....No.

Carbon credits are just another liberal piece of feel-good nonsense to help liberals "feel better" about their lifestyles. If you really believe that global warming is caused by fuel emissions, get rid of your private jet. Don't pay a company to encourage "others" to use less energy to make up for your extravagance.

Remember Barbra Streisand's list of things that "we" could do to reduce energy use? I'm still waiting to see a photo of that laundry-filled clothesline in her back yard......

Just as soon as the son of the deposed defense minister of Ghana despsits my share of his late fathers 100 million dollars in my bank account i'm going to make my next killing in carbon offsets

I wonder how long it will be before someone does an accounting of Dr. Al Gore's English Carbon Credit company to see what it actually has done with the money it collected? How much an annual salary was Dr. Al Gore receiving again as a board member? And how much did Dr. Al Gore spend on purchasing carbon credits in any one year?  Now that will be a juicy story...

I would like to point out something that was briefly touched on by some in the past.  If the carbon credits were used to plant trees, what rate of CO2 consumption was used?

1. tree species grow at different rates and hence have different rates of CO2 uptake, so what trees species are being planted and where?

2. the rate of CO2 uptake must change over the life of the tree, i.e. does a 1 yr old tree take up more CO2 than a 5 yr old tree, etc. What is the efficacy of 20 yr old tree to a 30 yr old tree and at what point do you cut it down to make room for a new tree?  What do you do with the old tree since burning it just puts all the CO2 you stored back into the air making the entire concept worthless.  Or does everyone think they will just keep planting trees until we run out of land?

3. If the total amount of CO2 uptake is based on the life expectancy of the tree, then too few trees are being planted in any one year to offset the CO2 produced in that year, i.e. the uptake of CO2 always lags the production by at least 20 or 30 years under that regime.  To be effective, any tree planting program must plant enough trees to uptake all the CO2 produced in that year.  Because in the following years, those trees need to uptake CO2 for the years you failed to begin the practice in the first place. If you want the CO2 to go back to where it was in the 1900s then you must take more CO2 out than you put into the air.

4. Related to item 1 on tree species, different trees have different albedo (reflectivity of sunlight) which either promote warming temperatures aside from CO2 or promote cooling.  On the whole were the trees that were planted warming or cooling the area in which they were planted?

“The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane.” – Marcus Aurelius

Is planting trees for carbon credit offsets fraud?  Read the following & deciede for yourself.

The following are excerpts from an article in The View magazine of Hamilton, Ontario, Canada, several months ago.  (I am not sure of the exact date)  The MSM won't use an alternative view even if it's from an lab in the left wing whacko capitol of the world, San Fran.

STOP GLOBAL WARMING!!!!  How can you stop something that has not been proven to exist?

"A study released last month by Lawrence Livermore National
Laboratory in San Francisco showed that, in certain latitudes,
planting trees has minimal impact on reducing global warming
and, in some cases, may worsen the situation.
Tree plantations, or carbon sequestration, are one strategy
endorsed by Kyoto to combat climate change. The theory goes
like this: trees act as a filter, absorbing carbon from the
atmosphere and scuttling it into the earth when leaves fall or
trees decay, reducing carbon dioxide emissions and cooling the
planet. Or so it was thought.
The Livermore study was one of a number released in the
past year that fingered trees, widely believed to be part of the
solution to climate change, as part of the problem.
Perhaps the most damning evidence came from the Max
Planck Institute. Scientists there discovered that trees emit up to
one–third of the planet’s methane, a potent greenhouse gas
second only to carbon dioxide. The results were surprising. First,
because it was believed that methane could only be produced in
low oxygen areas, but also because, well, they’re trees. Since
when do trees have emissions?
The evidence was conclusive. No longer were trees a passive
bystander in climate change, they were actively causing it."

I knew that carbon credits were akin to the contents of a used baby diaper. ROFLMAO!

Newsbusters should put a poll up to guess just how long it will be before the MSM picks up on this. If ever.

I bet Rush, and Sean are going to have a field day with this today.

This is brought to you by the same people that gave us food for oil. What do you expect.

Something that does something?

The world is filled with suckers who keep falling for flim flam artist in the UN, the democratic party and Hollywierd. Though Hollywierd is probably just convenient fools. As we've seen this last week.

"The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule.”   H.L. Mencken

Thanks Noel. You just bankrupted my new home based business. And after I went and bought an new printer to print the carbon credit certificates on...:-(

Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!

Global "Lukewarming" ... it's all about a pack of antichrists that have created a false doctrine based on science falsely so called.

The Bible puts the floodlight of the truth on these yayhoos from at least a hundred different angles ...

1 Timothy 6:20-21

(20) O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and OPPOSITIONS OF SCIENCE FALSELY SO CALLED :

(21) Which some professing have erred concerning the faith. Grace be with thee. Amen.

Ephesians 4:14

That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and CARRIED ABOUT WITH EVERY WIND OF DOCTRINE, BY THE SLEIGHT OF MEN, and cunning craftiness, WHEREBY THEY LIE IN WAIT TO DECEIVE;

Matthew 15:9

But in vain they do worship me, TEACHING FOR DOCTRINES THE COMMANDMENTS OF MEN.

Colossians 2:20-22

(20) Wherefore if ye be dead with Christ from the rudiments [false standards] of the world, WHY, as though living in the world, ARE YE SUBJECT TO ORDINANCES [mischief framed in unjust laws],

(21) (Touch not; taste not; handle not;

(22) Which all are to perish with the using;) AFTER THE COMMANDMENTS AND DOCTRINES OF MEN?

Psalms 94:20

Shall the throne of iniquity have fellowship with thee, WHICH FRAMETH MISCHIEF BY A LAW?