GreenYes Archives

[GreenYes Home] - [Thread Index] - [Date Index]
[Date Prev] - [Date Next] - [Thread Prev] - [Thread Next]


[GreenYes] Re: Recycle Offset Credits?


Title: [GreenYes] Re: Recycle Offset Credits?

Hello,

I agree with Curt.

A major flaw in our economic system is that most of the time it
ignores or worse yet perversely rewards those who consume and
pollute.

Recycling Offset Credits are a step in the other direction towards
integrating economy and environment and rewarding recycling efforts
that achieve success. In essence, they make recycling part a positive
part of the economic system.

As with any scheme, there will be problems. Some people will game the
system. In certain situations perverse, unintended consequences will
occur. But overall, it's a good idea and I commend Paul Roszel and
Recyclenet for setting the trading system up.

Some outcomes of Recycling Offset Credits.

1. It will generate funding for good projects that otherwise would not
likely be doable.

2. And I think one of the consequences of having a system like this in
place is that we are more likely to achieve efficiencies in recycling.
In a sense, it permits and encourages us to take advantage of the low-
hanging fruit, and pick them first, before spending time/effort/energy/
resources on more difficult savings.

3. It raises awareness of the value of recycling in offsetting GHG's.

However, I think in future the whole idea of Carbon Credits and GHG's
is going to be overtaken by the shortage of energy, and in the long
term we will probably achieve reductions in GHG's as the world's
economic system is starved for energy and produces less GHG's as a
result. When energy is expensive, rethink, reduce, reuse, repair and
recycle are going to go back to where they used to be as part of our
economy.

Norm Ruttan
iWasteNot Systems
www.iwastenotsystems.com






On Jun 30, 4:56 pm, dakl...@no.address wrote:
> Neil,
>
> Thanks for this:
>
> Sorry to reply in two emails -- I hit send prematurely. My point is
> basically this: carbon credits do nothing to reduce emissions per se,
> nor are they designed to. They turn GHG reductions into a form of
> currency, which can then be moved around. The idea behind carbon
> credits is that whatever emissions reductions are going to be made can
> be made more CHEAPLY by bringing a market function into play. But it's
> the cap, or other emissions control measures, that actually reduce
> emissions.
>
> as your initial post seemed pretty non-responsive.
>
> Yes, credits need caps to be effective. I would agree that
> cap-and-trade systems are an insufficient response to the climate
> challenge.
>
> But, your attempt to somehow seperate the credits from the cap makes
> me wondering just what it is your critiquing.
>
> On 6/30/08, Curt McNamara <mcnam...@no.address> wrote:
>
>
>
> > To go back to my argument: How does Curt McNamara, Inc. (or Neil
> > Tangri, Inc.) balance our emissions without credits?
>
> > Yes they are imperfect. Yes folks will take advantage of them. Yes I
> > can imagine a world where there is something better.
>
> > What we teach our students: there is no perfect company, no perfect
> > product. In many ways working for the worst company is the best idea
> > because your efforts will have the largest results. "We got here with
> > a million little bad decisions, we will get out with a million little
> > better decisions."
>
> > As a consumer I can shop around to find credits with the best
> > backstory. Every year I can upgrade / change to whoever is doing the
> > best job. Today the best companies are third party certified.  They
> > are not perfect, yet they are improving and I don't have a better
> > answer.
>
> >                                                    Curt
>
> > On Jun 30, 2008, at 2:56 PM, Neil Tangri wrote:
>
> >> Hi folks,
>
> >> Thanks for your thoughts. It's good to have a measured conversation
> >> about this.
>
> >> On the issue of "increasing":  If the company didn't have access to
> >> carbon credits, it would have to reduce its actual emissions
> >> further. In effect, the company is increasing its emissions over its
> >> cap and then paying for the difference with carbon credits. Carbon
> >> credit fans like to argue that it makes no difference: sticking to a
> >> cap with or without credits emits the same GHGs. But that is only
> >> true if the carbon credit system is airtight (forgive the pun).
> >> Experience demonstrates that there are lots of projects generating
> >> credits that shouldn't, or in fact have negative consequences for
> >> the climate (not to mention other environmental issues).
>
> >> all the best,
>
> >> Neil
>
> >> dakl...@no.address wrote:
> >>> I disagree also.
> >>> Neil's statement: when you accept carbon credit financing, you are
> >>> essentially selling your saved emissions to someone else who is
> >>> going to
> >>> increase their emissions by the same amount.
> >>> I work with companies that have developed and live by carbon caps.
> >>> They use credits to remain at or under their caps, NOT to "increase"
> >>> their emissions.
> >>> We know what the carrying-capacity for carbon is projected at.
> >>> Decrying off-set credits as a "pyramid scheme" when they are an
> >>> intregal part of the efforts to reduce the overall carbon output
> >>> seems
> >>> short-sighted - at best.
> >>> On 6/30/08, Curt McNamara <mcnam...@no.address> wrote:
> >>>> I disagree with your assessment. In my case (and my students)
> >>>> there is
> >>>> nothing practical to do to get us to one earth. The only piece
> >>>> left is
> >>>> to buy offsets as far as I can tell. Would be glad to hear of other
> >>>> approaches!
>
> >>>> Lifestyle summary:
> >>>> Eat low on pyramid (vegan or close), local food. Shared housing. All
> >>>> practical energy improvements in housing. Pay for green energy
> >>>> (wind).
> >>>> Bike everywhere. Car miles ~2K/year. Limited air travel (teaching).
> >>>> Can get to ~1.75 earths.
>
> >>>>http://www.myfootprint.org/en/
>
> >>>>                                                                                Curt
>
> >>>> On Jun 30, 2008, at 1:06 PM, Neil Tangri wrote:
>
> >>>>> Hi all,
>
> >>>>> Your points about a pyramid scheme and various other flaws in the
> >>>>> carbon
> >>>>> credit process are important. But there is an even deeper flaw in
> >>>>> the
> >>>>> whole scheme: when you accept carbon credit financing, you are
> >>>>> essentially selling your saved emissions to someone else who is
> >>>>> going to
> >>>>> increase their emissions by the same amount. So it is a trade
> >>>>> off: you
> >>>>> can avoid emissions (for example, by recycling), or you can get
> >>>>> paid
> >>>>> for
> >>>>> those emissions, and have no net gain to the climate.
>
> >>>>> cheers,
>
> >>>>> Neil
>
> >>>>> retroworks wrote:
> >>>>>> I met Paul Roszel in Chicago at the WR3A sponosored Recycling
> >>>>>> Today
> >>>>>> electronics conference (great turnout by the way).  In my opinion
> >>>>>> there may be no better advocate and expert on recycling in North
> >>>>>> America than Paul.  What he wants to do with the credits is to
> >>>>>> reposition recycling in the environmental discourse.
>
> >>>>>> I spoke frankly with him about the 'greenwashing' potential of
> >>>>>> all of
> >>>>>> these credits (as Mary Lou Van Deventer aptly describes some of
> >>>>>> these
> >>>>>> 'campaigns').  I have suspicions that the carbon offset credits
> >>>>>> could
> >>>>>> be a 'pyramid scheme'... imagine the same gas guzzler being sold
> >>>>>> from
> >>>>>> company to company, traded every week, each company using it,
> >>>>>> registering their footprint while they have it, and then selling
> >>>>>> it
> >>>>>> to
> >>>>>> the next company, and claiming a greenhouse gas reduction.
> >>>>>> That's an
> >>>>>> oversimplified exaggeration, but when 99% of companies are not yet
> >>>>>> registered, it does seem to me that any company rich enough to
> >>>>>> upgrade
> >>>>>> their trucks will look greener than any company buying the used
> >>>>>> truck...
>
> >>>>>> Anyway, in regards to Recycling Offset Credits, I would trust
> >>>>>> RecycleNet to be very open to setting rules on the system which
> >>>>>> did
> >>>>>> not encourage abuse or greenwashing.   Paul was able to
> >>>>>> intelligently
> >>>>>> discuss the potential 'poster child fatigue" of environmental
> >>>>>> campaigns.  He is capable of discussing even the diminishing
> >>>>>> returns
> >>>>>> of 'zero waste' (where I have sacreligiously suggested that the
> >>>>>> very
> >>>>>> last item recycled, like a can from an island or from the bottom
> >>>>>> of
> >>>>>> the ocean, will be inefficient and do environmental harm).
> >>>>>> RecycleNet's goal is to keep RECYCLING as a relevant activity as
> >>>>>> 'green' activities (so labelled - did you know there is a green
> >>>>>> credit
> >>>>>> card?) gobble up more space on the daily news.
>
> >>>>>> I would encourage RecycleNet to continue with this, because the
> >>>>>> current media appetite for consumable environmental headlines is a
> >>>>>> given and if he doesn't put Recycling Credits out there, some
> >>>>>> other
> >>>>>> even less worthy environmental 'issue' could take our place.
> >>>>>> As the
> >>>>>> Grateful Dead sang, "might as well be me".
>
> >>>>>> On Jun 19, 3:08 pm, Mary Lou Van Deventer <marylou...@no.address>
> >>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>> At Urban Ore, one of our managers is investigating this carbon-
> >>>>>>> offset
> >>>>>>> idea for our company.  Our attorney just asked me if the
> >>>>>>> manager is
> >>>>>>> head of the Greenwashing Department.  We're kind of ambivalent
> >>>>>>> about it.
>
> >>>>>>> Mary Lou Van Deventer
> >>>>>>> Urban Ore
> >>>>>>> 900 Murray St.
> >>>>>>> Berkeley, CA 94710
> >>>>>>> marylou...@no.address
>
> >>>>>>> On Jun 19, 2008, at 12:00 PM, Jewell, Rebecca wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>http://www.foxbusiness.com/story/markets/industries/technology/recycl
> >>>>>>>> ...
> >>>>>>>> SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH, Jun 19, 2008 (MARKET WIRE via COMTEX) ----
> >>>>>>>> Paul
> >>>>>>>> Roszel, Chairman of RecycleNet Corporation (OTCBB: GARM)is
> >>>>>>>> pleased
> >>>>>>>> to introduce the Recycling Offset Credit (ROCs) program. This
> >>>>>>>> program provides a certified measurement system to recognize and
> >>>>>>>> reward companies for their recycling efforts. RecycleNet will
> >>>>>>>> issue/
> >>>>>>>> award Recycling Offset Credits (ROCs) for each ton of material
> >>>>>>>> recycled by participants.
> >>>>>>>> As a result of the increased awareness of climate change and
> >>>>>>>> global
> >>>>>>>> warming, more and more people have become concerned about
> >>>>>>>> greenhouse
> >>>>>>>> gas emissions and are developing strategies to reduce their
> >>>>>>>> carbon
> >>>>>>>> footprint. Many companies, individuals and institutions have
> >>>>>>>> implemented carbon neutral goals.
> >>>>>>>> The Recycling Offset Credits (ROCs) program is an effort to
> >>>>>>>> provide
> >>>>>>>> a universally recognized standard to measure and certify
> >>>>>>>> recycling
> >>>>>>>> efforts and to demonstrate the economic impact of the recycling
> >>>>>>>> industry. Recycling Offset Credits (ROCs) may be used to
> >>>>>>>> calculate
> >>>>>>>> an equivalent offset of your carbon footprint.
> >>>>>>>> RecycleNet Corporation invites any company, institution or
> >>>>>>>> organization to participate in the voluntary ROCs program by
> >>>>>>>> reporting materials recycled. There is no fee to participate and
> >>>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>> program is open and applicable to anyone in all stages of the
> >>>>>>>> recycling/reverse distribution supply chain.
> >>>>>>>> For more information and to participate in the Recycling Offset
> >>>>>>>> Credits program please visitwww.recycle.net/offsetcredits.
> >>>>>>>> About RecycleNet
> >>>>>>>> RecycleNet operates The Online Secondary Commodities Exchange.
> >>>>>>>> Founded in 1995, RecycleNet created a powerful platform to
> >>>>>>>> facilitate the international trade of secondary commodities.
> >>>>>>>> RecycleNet Corporation enables trade on a local, national and
> >>>>>>>> international basis with customized sites locating markets
> >>>>>>>> around
> >>>>>>>> the world in many different commodities. On any given day, there
> >>>>>>>> are
> >>>>>>>> in excess of $200 million in new
>
> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -


[GreenYes Home] - [Date Index] - [Thread Index]
[Date Prev] - [Date Next] - [Thread Prev] - [Thread Next]