Carbon Credit Purchase...!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: No where
Posts: 898
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Carbon Credit Purchase...!
Are these narcistic people for real..? Here we are in month one of our six month pay cut, and the senior management announce that they are purchasing another umpteen thousand tons of carbon 'credits'...!!! WTF? Surely after coercing millions from your staff, you don't then go and announce you are spending it on one of the great politically correct frauds of all time? I cannot believe the...a) ignorance, b) stupidity, c) arrogance,..or d) contempt that this announcement implies. I am sick (SICK) on hearing this. I am having to make a real sacrifice for the next half of a year, and these arrogant morons are loudly announcing that they are throwing it away on a fraud of epic proportions. Even if you (naively) believe in 'global warming', surely NOW is NOT the time to make such a decision. What utter pr*cks. 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: HKG
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would have thought the weekly reminder that "...we are cutting capacity by XX%" will have an environmental impact immediately and reduced our carbon emissions!? So we now pay for it aswell...wow!
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Lion rock bottom
Posts: 174
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This most likely is due to the forecoming European regulations affecting airlines. Operators flying within/to/from Europe will be taxed according to their carbon footprint, but I believe airlines have an option of buying carbon credit to offset that footprint instead, and this is probably where this is going.
One way or another, I hope you're not honestly believing that CX management would spend a cent to save the planet if they didn't have to. This is HK after all.
One way or another, I hope you're not honestly believing that CX management would spend a cent to save the planet if they didn't have to. This is HK after all.
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: SE Asia
Posts: 194
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
keep clam;)
Gents, relax.
1. - the Carbon Credits were purchased for the "fly greener" programme, which means that the passengers that opt to offset their CO2 emissions pay for it themselves.
2. - a 1t offset costs 8.62 GBP => 20.000t cost = £ 172500.00 total
it's a) peanuts, and b) it's not out of our (nor the company's) pockets.
It just makes good reading in the newspapers, that's all...
1. - the Carbon Credits were purchased for the "fly greener" programme, which means that the passengers that opt to offset their CO2 emissions pay for it themselves.
2. - a 1t offset costs 8.62 GBP => 20.000t cost = £ 172500.00 total
it's a) peanuts, and b) it's not out of our (nor the company's) pockets.
It just makes good reading in the newspapers, that's all...
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: hongkong
Posts: 47
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not so dumb
Yep,
Carbon credits will be a part of future business and the current price of the above said credits are cheap compared to future projections, once global growth returns and companies want to expand (particularly companies that use high quantites of aviation fuel). Carbon credits will only get more expensive, maybe to the tune of 400% more expensive over the next 4 or 5 years, so this may well be a smart move. Carbon credits will be a new and important tax to business, better to get prepared for it now, than later, when these credtis will probably cost more.
The managers at CX (read here swire group) have given little in the way of pay increases to their workers over the last 7 years, particularly aircrew. They wouldn't be buying these credits without a long term goal and future projections that justify this expendtiure in regard to the bottom line of the balance sheet.
Carbon credits will be a part of future business and the current price of the above said credits are cheap compared to future projections, once global growth returns and companies want to expand (particularly companies that use high quantites of aviation fuel). Carbon credits will only get more expensive, maybe to the tune of 400% more expensive over the next 4 or 5 years, so this may well be a smart move. Carbon credits will be a new and important tax to business, better to get prepared for it now, than later, when these credtis will probably cost more.
The managers at CX (read here swire group) have given little in the way of pay increases to their workers over the last 7 years, particularly aircrew. They wouldn't be buying these credits without a long term goal and future projections that justify this expendtiure in regard to the bottom line of the balance sheet.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: No where
Posts: 898
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Big Picture....the whole idea of 'carbon credits' will prove to be one of the greatest frauds in the history of civilization. Man is responsible for approximately 3% of total carbon emissions per year. All the so called 'carbon reduction' programs might influence man made sources by approx 5% of our total emissions. In other words, we might reduce world wide carbon emissions by .0015 %...!! And that is after spending and taxing to the tune of TRILLIONS of DOLLARS. Yea, that is a GREAT use of resources. What do you think we could accomplish if we spent that kind of money on disease prevention...? The looney left will destroy the world they naively think they are saving. God help us.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: hongkong
Posts: 47
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Air Profit irrespective of our views on the effectiveness of these scheme's, Carbon Emmission trading scheme's are going to be a part of future business. I am purely making the observation that the current price of these credits is probably low in contrast to future projections.
I am not endorsing nor criticising the merits of these scheme's, I am purely making the observation that Carbon credits are going to be a burden upon business in the future, and now may well be a pudent time to buy. CX wouldn't be spending the money if the
I am not endorsing nor criticising the merits of these scheme's, I am purely making the observation that Carbon credits are going to be a burden upon business in the future, and now may well be a pudent time to buy. CX wouldn't be spending the money if the
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: No where
Posts: 898
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Out of the total carbon emissions produced worldwide annually, man is responsible for between 3 and 4 percent. The majority is from the sea bed vents, volcanoes, and believe it or not....cow flatulence. This is verifiable from any legitimate and politically neutral scientific journal. As you can see, spending trillions of dollars to save maybe 5% of 3% (.oo15%)is the most pointless exercise in the annals of human folly. Furthermore, while we turn our societies upside down trying to shave a miniscule amount of emissions of our total, China and India will continue to add to the annual total far in excess of anything we save....and, as the math shows, to no consequene. The same amount of money dedicated to cancer research would be of far more help to the human race.
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Hotels everywhere
Posts: 217
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So you figure all the crap I see in the air here in Hong Kong has no affect whatsoever on the earth or our climate. Human created carbon is insignificant??
How to explain then that the carbon in the atmosphere has gone up by about 35% in the past 100 years?? More volcanoes? Or more cows ? (which by the way I count as human created carbon since we keep those cows)
How to explain then that the carbon in the atmosphere has gone up by about 35% in the past 100 years?? More volcanoes? Or more cows ? (which by the way I count as human created carbon since we keep those cows)
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: No where
Posts: 898
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
...localised pollution is a localised problem. Has no relevance on the greater issue of turning our western economies upside down in a futile attempt to 'change the climate'. As for increased carbon in the atmosphere, read the following:
The most important players on the greenhouse stage are water vapor and clouds. Carbon dioxide has been increased to about 0.038% of the atmosphere (possibly from about 0.028% pre-Industrial Revolution) while water in its various forms ranges from 0% to 4% of the atmosphere and its properties vary by what form it is in and even at what altitude it is found in the atmosphere.
In simple terms the bulk of Earth's greenhouse effect is due to water vapor by virtue of its abundance. Water accounts for about 90% of the Earth's greenhouse effect -- perhaps 70% is due to water vapor and about 20% due to clouds (mostly water droplets), some estimates put water as high as 95% of Earth's total tropospheric greenhouse effect (e.g., Freidenreich and Ramaswamy, “Solar Radiation Absorption by Carbon Dioxide, Overlap with Water, and a Parameterization for General Circulation Models,” Journal of Geophysical Research 98 (1993):7255-7264).
The remaining portion comes from carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide, methane, ozone and miscellaneous other "minor greenhouse gases." As an example of the relative importance of water it should be noted that changes in the relative humidity on the order of 1.3-4% are equivalent to the effect of doubling CO2.
The most important players on the greenhouse stage are water vapor and clouds. Carbon dioxide has been increased to about 0.038% of the atmosphere (possibly from about 0.028% pre-Industrial Revolution) while water in its various forms ranges from 0% to 4% of the atmosphere and its properties vary by what form it is in and even at what altitude it is found in the atmosphere.
In simple terms the bulk of Earth's greenhouse effect is due to water vapor by virtue of its abundance. Water accounts for about 90% of the Earth's greenhouse effect -- perhaps 70% is due to water vapor and about 20% due to clouds (mostly water droplets), some estimates put water as high as 95% of Earth's total tropospheric greenhouse effect (e.g., Freidenreich and Ramaswamy, “Solar Radiation Absorption by Carbon Dioxide, Overlap with Water, and a Parameterization for General Circulation Models,” Journal of Geophysical Research 98 (1993):7255-7264).
The remaining portion comes from carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide, methane, ozone and miscellaneous other "minor greenhouse gases." As an example of the relative importance of water it should be noted that changes in the relative humidity on the order of 1.3-4% are equivalent to the effect of doubling CO2.
Important distinction:
Because the greenhouse effect and its players vary with altitude and latitude there is often confusion over differing statements regarding the greenhouse potential of constituent gases.
Given the present composition of the atmosphere, the contribution to the total heating rate in the troposphere (the portion of the atmosphere of most interest -- it is the region from the surface to basically the top of the active weather zone) is around 5% from carbon dioxide and around 95% from water vapor.
However, in the stratosphere, the contribution is about 80% from carbon dioxide and about 20% from water vapor, although this makes a relatively small contribution to total greenhouse effect.
Naturally, calculations for the total atmosphere yield different results yet again, as does consideration of latitude and season but the net effect in which we are interested is that which can realistically be expected to have significant effect on life at the surface, thus average tropospheric greenhouse at 95:5% water to carbon dioxide and other minor greenhouse gases.
The net total atmosphere greenhouse effect then is about 90% water (as vapor and cloud droplets) and 10% carbon dioxide and other minor greenhouse gases. Remember that atmospheric properties in the Polar winter are tremendously different from the tropics, say during the monsoon rain season. Thus people may be correct citing widely varying greenhouse figures, always providing they are specific about the where and when. Unless otherwise specified this document refers to global net total atmosphere yearly average effect 90:10 H2O:CO2.
Because the greenhouse effect and its players vary with altitude and latitude there is often confusion over differing statements regarding the greenhouse potential of constituent gases.
Given the present composition of the atmosphere, the contribution to the total heating rate in the troposphere (the portion of the atmosphere of most interest -- it is the region from the surface to basically the top of the active weather zone) is around 5% from carbon dioxide and around 95% from water vapor.
However, in the stratosphere, the contribution is about 80% from carbon dioxide and about 20% from water vapor, although this makes a relatively small contribution to total greenhouse effect.
Naturally, calculations for the total atmosphere yield different results yet again, as does consideration of latitude and season but the net effect in which we are interested is that which can realistically be expected to have significant effect on life at the surface, thus average tropospheric greenhouse at 95:5% water to carbon dioxide and other minor greenhouse gases.
The net total atmosphere greenhouse effect then is about 90% water (as vapor and cloud droplets) and 10% carbon dioxide and other minor greenhouse gases. Remember that atmospheric properties in the Polar winter are tremendously different from the tropics, say during the monsoon rain season. Thus people may be correct citing widely varying greenhouse figures, always providing they are specific about the where and when. Unless otherwise specified this document refers to global net total atmosphere yearly average effect 90:10 H2O:CO2.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: No where
Posts: 898
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
...a few more salient points:
- The temperature effect of atmospheric carbon dioxide is logarithmic, not exponential.
- The potential planetary warming from a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide from pre-Industrial Revolution levels of ~280ppmv to 560ppmv (possible some time later this century - perhaps) is generally estimated at around 1 °C.
- The guesses of significantly larger warming are dependent on "feedback" (supplementary) mechanisms programmed into climate models. The existence of these "feedback" mechanisms is uncertain and the cumulative sign of which is unknown (they may add to warming from increased atmospheric carbon dioxide or, equally likely, might suppress it).
- The total warming since measurements have been attempted is thought to be about 0.6 degrees Centigrade. At least half of the estimated temperature increment occurred before 1950, prior to significant change in atmospheric carbon dioxide levels. Assuming the unlikely case that all the natural drivers of planetary temperature change ceased to operate at the time of measured atmospheric change then a 30% increment in atmospheric carbon dioxide caused about one-third of one degree temperature increment since and thus provides empirical support for less than one degree increment due to a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide.
- There is no linear relationship between atmospheric carbon dioxide change and global mean temperature or global mean temperature trend -- global mean temperature has both risen and fallen during the period atmospheric carbon dioxide has been rising.
- The natural world has tolerated greater than one-degree fluctuations in mean temperature during the relatively recent past and thus current changes are within the range of natural variation. (See, for example, ice core and sea surface temperature reconstructions.)
- Other anthropogenic effects are vastly more important, at least on local and regional scales.
- Fixation on atmospheric carbon dioxide is a distraction from these more important anthropogenic effects.
- Despite attempts to label atmospheric carbon dioxide a "pollutant" it is, in fact, an essential trace gas, the increasing abundance of which is a bonus for the bulk of the biosphere.
- There is no reason to believe that slightly lower temperatures are somehow preferable to slightly higher temperatures - there is no known "optimal" nor any known means of knowingly and predictably adjusting some sort of planetary thermostat.
- Fluctuations in atmospheric carbon dioxide are of little relevance in the short to medium term (although should levels fall too low it could prove problematic in the longer-term).
- Activists and zealots constantly shrilling over atmospheric carbon dioxide are misdirecting attention and effort from real and potentially addressable local, regional and planetary problems.
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Over There
Posts: 740
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Purchasing Carbon Credits to benefit Global Warming is like saying the oceans are rising too high, you are no longer allowed to throw rocks into the water.
It's a scam and it's so insignificant it's ridiculous!
It's a scam and it's so insignificant it's ridiculous!
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: now a paxdoggiedog too...
Posts: 51
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Geez, and there I was trusting the best minds and the most distinguished scientists the world has to offer, practically all of whom (if you've ever put your nose into a Scientific American or a New Scientist) have reached consensus that global warming IS a threat and IS largely due to human activity... when all I had to do was log on to PPRUNE and discover it's all bollox!!!
Next thing they'll want us to believe we really walked on the moon...
Next thing they'll want us to believe we really walked on the moon...