Comments for In Balance

Comment on Do young people care about climate change less than everyone else? by Renee

Renee — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 19:04:49 +0000

Young people are a key sector for us to be engaging, especially urban youth as the majority of the world now lives in urban areas.
I think the issue of relevance you brought up is very important. We need to make climate change, being green much mor4e specific, concrete, tangible and relevant to everyday people.
Here are some questions to get the conversation going:
What does being green mean to you?
Does it have to do with your health? clean air to breathe? safe water to drink? safe food to eat? safe places to live? Diverse people in the community who know, respect, and support each other and care for the environment on a daily basis?
What role does time in nature play in understanding the need for environmental stewardship?
What role does knowing how food grows and where oxygen comes from play in becoming an environmental leader?
What role does having access to good paying jobs that improve a community play?
These all are part of my answer as to what being green means to me.

Comment on Carbon trading game – understanding the difference between the three basic types of environmental policy by Envirogirl

Envirogirl — Thu, 22 Oct 2009 11:50:37 +0000

Great idea and a brilliant way to help people and companies understand the impact of carbon emissions!

Comment on EU 2008 Carbon Dioxide Emissions Exceed Permits by 25 Percent by Bill Bartmann

Bill Bartmann — Fri, 04 Sep 2009 01:42:58 +0000

Excellent site, keep up the good work

Comment on Funding CCS through proceeds from government EUA auctions by Bill Bartmann

Bill Bartmann — Thu, 03 Sep 2009 17:12:24 +0000

Excellent site, keep up the good work

Comment on EUA sell-off is a natural reflection of economic recession by Is carbon still following oil? « In Balance

Is carbon still following oil? « In Balance — Sun, 23 Aug 2009 18:06:06 +0000

[...] carbon still following oil? In January I looked at European carbon prices to show how they were reacting to the economic recession. Today I had another look at these two [...]

Comment on Suspect carbon offsetting by Julio Weber

Julio Weber — Fri, 14 Aug 2009 02:56:00 +0000

Green Times – Your online journal and directory for the green industry. Designed to create awareness of environmental issues and promote Australian green businesses, Greentimes makes it easier for you to help protect the environment thanks to our green publication.

The Green Times team is looking for new writers!!

Any green related subject or experience you want to share with the world?!

Green Times

Comment on Suspect carbon offsetting by Dan

Dan — Thu, 06 Aug 2009 23:07:53 +0000

Unbelievably there is now another service like this called ‘Earth Aid’! They say they will sell their offsets to ‘companies who are prepared to pay a premium to support American homes’ or something similar…

Comment on Suspect carbon offsetting by Andy

Andy — Mon, 15 Jun 2009 15:36:01 +0000

I hope Norbit is not a representative of myEEX, because he doesn’t really understand what carbon credits are, or what additionality is, or the meaning of the word bonkers.

Paying people to reduce their emissions – that’s fine.

Creating carbon credits from those savings and then selling them on voluntary carbon markets – utterly utterly bonkers.

Comment on Suspect carbon offsetting by EJ

EJ — Mon, 08 Jun 2009 22:21:01 +0000

http://www.cheatneutral.com/

Comment on Suspect carbon offsetting by Dan

Dan — Tue, 19 May 2009 08:09:22 +0000

Thanks for your comment Norbit. My concern is less about the reductions made by the individuals (after all the impact of the scheme on them can’t be worse than zero) and more about the quality of the credits it’s selling. The success of myeex must rely on finding buyers for the credits. I’m sure you’re aware of all the criticisms of the voluntary market and it seems these credits are particularly susceptible to them. Do you have any plans for who your buyers will be?

Comment on Suspect carbon offsetting by Norbit

Norbit — Mon, 18 May 2009 20:05:58 +0000

Bonkers! I presume that’s a wildly enthusiastic endorsement. If I have misinterpreted the meaning of the colorful linguistic flourish, many apologies and I offer the following: people do things for many reasons: they’re nice people, they’re ethical, they care about the sustainability of the planet and sometimes they need money. the only proven sustainable motivation listed above is the last one: if “they need money” they’ll do things repeatedly. if people can get paid for reducing their emissions there’s a greater chance their efforts will be sustainable rather than a flash in the pan or a temporary fad. i guess people can moan and whine that such an effort won’t amount to squat but carping from the sidelines is like hoping a cure for a serious ailment won’t work because you don’t like the sound of the ingredients. bonkers.

Comment on Camp for Climate Action has a common sense failure by Andy

Andy — Wed, 11 Mar 2009 08:26:04 +0000

I agree with this post. Climate change is too important and deserves an analysis more sophisticated than ‘markets are bad’. Whether it’s enough, it is the case that the EU has the most sophisticated environmental regime out there.

Roger makes an interesting point, but it’s not necessarily markets that are the root cause here. Economies that don’t (or didn’t) have market based economies like the Soviet Union, Eastern Europe and China were actually far worse polluters.

Comment on Camp for Climate Action has a common sense failure by Roger

Roger — Tue, 10 Mar 2009 22:35:55 +0000

Well, it’s fair enough that they would feel that way. Markets and profiteering have been the root cause of the environmental problems, so how can they fix it? It’s like making drug dealers and pimps responsible for managing crime in a neighborhood. They might do the job for a while, but as soon as they think they can get away with it they’ll be back to their old habits.

Comment on Camp for Climate Action has a common sense failure by Roger

Roger — Tue, 10 Mar 2009 22:35:41 +0000

Well, it’s fair enough that they would feel that way. Markets and profiteering have been the root cause of the environmental problems, so how can they fix it? It’s like making drug dealers and pimps iresponsible for managing crime in a neighborhood. They might do the job for a while, but as soon as they think they can get away with it they’ll be back to their old habits.

Comment on Lack of CDM progress at Poznan will be the major sticking point for negotiations over the next year by CDM Consultant

CDM Consultant — Tue, 10 Mar 2009 06:29:24 +0000

Well versed Description.I also read this this article.And I found this is very informative and factually correct information about CDM Progress. In recent time Carbon credit is a big factor in carbon market.

Comment on Daft ethics: we are insignificant, go and pester someone else (rant) by bbizbor

bbizbor — Tue, 17 Feb 2009 19:19:44 +0000

Я смотрю вас здесь уже заспамили

Comment on EUA sell-off is a natural reflection of economic recession by Gordon

Gordon — Tue, 03 Feb 2009 22:25:03 +0000

Interesting read. I think people forget that the ETS is just a tool to curb emissions used when otherwise we would just carry on growing them. Clearly there are times when fuel pricing and demand will naturally lower emissions and the ETS has little effect. The bottom line is that emissions are being lowered and the ETS will continue to reduce emissions when demand and gas prices pick up and we switch back to coal.

CER substitution for EUA’s is also diluting the value of EUA’s, this may self correct as we see the low prices start to make new projects look uneconomic and the CER market drys up increasing the demand for EUA’s

Comment on Is prayer behind energy prices? by ofriedo

ofriedo — Fri, 28 Nov 2008 20:12:43 +0000

Yes, but if one considers the distance to the next best church that most people (expect for the Amish) have to cover by car, I think it would be best (in terms of demand etc.) not to go praying at all….So please, everyone, do your praying at home.

Comment on Solid start for Reggie by Dan

Dan — Tue, 25 Nov 2008 22:45:17 +0000

Hi Josh
I’d take a look at the ‘voluntary’ market, where the buyers are people & companies who buy to be socially responsible. There are a range of standards out there that you can look through and see if your project meets them. I don’t think you’d be eligible for RGGI (it allows five project types: * End-use energy efficiency improvements; * Converting non-forested land to forested land; * Landfill gas capture; * Agricultural methane capture; and * Reducing sulfur hexafluoride from electric transmission and distribution) but if you have a properly additional project you might be able to find more money anyway. Try the Voluntary Carbon Standard for a starter.
Dan

Comment on Solid start for Reggie by Josh Saunders

Josh Saunders — Tue, 25 Nov 2008 19:44:13 +0000

Dan,
Keiser Homes is a modular home manufacturer located in Maine. We will be running an incentive this winter that will give away free Energy Star construction features (such as Dense Pack Cellulose insulation in exterior walls). I’m interested in determining if we would be able to sell carbon offsets based on the resulting decreases in energy used to heat these homes (generally a 30-40% reduction when compared to the average home based on the HERS index). I know we can’t do do if the customer pays for the upgrades, but where can I find out more about if these “offsets” are saleable to RGGI or otherwise (Connecticutt?) and, if so, how to go about doing so?

Thanks,
Josh Saunders
Keiser Homes