The UN like most highly political organizations is built around the G8 nations and economics. There formulations are designed to do two things try the save humanity but most important try to save the world economy at the same time. The problem is Kyoto is problematic in that its policies promote continued pollution aimed at keeping the world economy afloat. If they were really interested in saving this planet, the UN would do away with pollution trading altogether and institute a crash rapid change to alternative energy and an end to global toxicity. But that is the truth and fantasy no truth is what the diplomats are about. As all diplomats do, they want us to believe that they are really interested in change. Change? Never!

I have talked with delegates from the UN member nations and many of them have said to me if they really said and voted for the ideas that some of us NGO's are saying and putting forward they would be recalled and never have a job again.

Most are still looking for the magic technological bullet that will save all and we can continue on the way we are going with ever more growth and ever more and greater GDP as the bankers advise. They too pay the UN bills and the UN needs money for that monolith on first avenue New York

But there really there isn't any quick fix. I am a filmmaker and have worked on the environmental change issues since 1978 so I have a fair amount of experience to speak. While LED lightbulbs is good and 40 MPG for cars is better it is not the at least the 80MPG that is necessary and refits for all existing cars rather than exporting them to the developing world which is presently being done and will pick up speed as restrictions rise in the western world. We continue to export the problem from the USA to other countries as if we don't share this world with other people. And while Jesse jackson talks of the black people of the world, his particular crusade its the people of the entire world at issue.

It was GE that killed the electric car not long ago who in Congress complained about that? Whether health care, big business, environment, energy alternatives, toxicity in the environment or any and all of these it comes down to who has the courage to talk about all of them rather than focusing on the head of a pin the one important issue. You want to hear about health care? The advance of environmentally based health problems by a toxic environment and air related pandemics is what we are looking at in the next few years with rising temperatures. The candidates are discussing universal health care? Try that on for the globe and all the sicknesses the policies of the USA have caused, three percent of the world's population the USA produces seventy three percent of global toxicity.You wonder where cancer comes from?

The people of the USA have been so ill informed as to what a change would really do and mean to this country and the change in leadership, they have forgotten that no one could be worse than George Bush. . . No one not even the dog catcher, at least the dog catcher has compassion for animals!

The real problem is not Kucinich as president, the problem is that he puts his emphasis on the wrong problem at the wrong time. The problem is getting him to address a credible platform of ideas. I say to him while impeachment is necessary, it is unlikely. There is not enough time and the issues most pressing are again avoided, like the environment and those really important issues before the congress now like kids health care! The issue of this election will affect the environment, economy and the future of the USA as no others. Yet if more than 50% of eligible voters cast their votes it will be a miracle because of regressive US election laws. It is compulsory for every one to vote in Australia. None of the candidates are really talking on the major points of the environment in association with the economy or health care and reform laws for elections.

The environmental news coming out is not new but it is very grave and keeps being pushed to more urgency as new research comes to light. If any one reading this comment cares to look at the website of NASA, the research papers of James Hansen in particular that were published long before Gore was on the scene and many since, they would understand that we really can not deal with much more than one degree to two and half degrees Fahrenheit of warming at its maximum to ward off the most serious effects of industrial societies pollution and to offset this growing catastrophe.

At about two and half degrees warming which is presently in the pipeline we will be dealing with about 550 ppm of carbon in the atmosphere, a rate actually above the tipping point of one and half degrees warming. This is the absolute figure to avoid the major positive feedback loops that are starting and scheduled to kick in by 2020 or earlier if nothing is done quickly. Positive feedback are starting now with Methane now being released on the tundra into the atmosphere a four times addition to greenhouse gasses and causing the poles and glaciers to melt more rapidly, or has no one noticed?

The below scenario excerpted from the climate articles here on commondreams tell us clearly without rapid change runaway climate change and their feedback loops are in reach within 10 to 30 years if nothing is done rapidly. The positive feedback loops will melt the remainder of the glaciers and perhaps dump Greenland into the sea as well. Also, the melting of additional ice-shelf's at the poles. That means perhaps a 3 to 30 foot ocean rise by the end of this century, but the process is beginning now and in 20 years or less without rapid change in economic direction the human race will reach a point of no return. The so called news and other media continue to bend the information toward the global economic agenda thus minimizing its importance. India for example is less concerned about climate change than they are about economic production thanks to the G8, although their neighbor Bangladesh is slipping into the sea . Still in India, there are several moves in the direction of smaller is better concepts of reality.

There will be sufficient human displacement of people on this planet to bring American citizens into a nightmare scenario that makes the present Mexican border problem a walk in the park. What about the transfer of health risks as a result of this problem? Not to mention water and food related issues and the economy, always the economy.

Yet is seems the political discussion rests on the complete list of talking points in isolation, such as Clinton's health package and its cost, rather than what is really at stake which is human survival. These folks on the stage wanting to be president rarely talk to the complete interrelated package of all these issues and more. The media reduces the public debate to its most simplistic level and all here are arguing about one issue or another rather than the entire package which a true leader must address. The media keeps the public dumbed down for obvious reasons they represent the money people. As a result we become unable to talk about moving radically to deal with climate change the first and major issue which affects all other issues and is completely related to economic change.

The world does not have (much later) before a more aggressive approach to all the issues beginning with climate change now! Remember New Orleans? Within next 10 to 20 years is where it all hangs. If nothing is done very soon it will mark the beginning of the end for the human race. Those appear to be the facts and no technology will stop runaway climate change once it begins, indeed if we look at the melting poles the worst case is much more apparent than formerly believed . . .it has already begun!!

Perhaps it might be too late now, according to James Lovelock, in his view it has begun. James Hansen at NASA makes a very compelling case for the time frame for action within the time in office of the next president of the USA and so does the UN. I think anyone who really wishes to be informed should go to the websites of these people mentioned here or the IPCC. It is technical information but worth taking the time to inform yourself. The answer is to start working quickly for change and vote for those candidates who speak of change and another direction and who represent ideas rather than special interests. For example the best work would be to defeat the pro-business Clintons and elect Kucinich or Obama or possibly a joint ticket while we know they have an outside chance they are the best possibility for change.

But we all know business interests will prevail with Clinton capturing the vote and a pro-business vote is a vote against the environment. No one running on the democratic side could be worse than Bush. But anyone who can think understands that the business interests control the environmental agenda and most candidates. The republicans will continue the work of burying the planet as will pro-business democratic candidates most of whom have been bought, whether by health interests or anything else concerning big money.

The facts concerning climate science is what is important. What the environmental facts really suggest is economic depression in the West in the near term. But if we are really serious about saving the planet (no one wants to hear that if they are connected to big money) it means voting for economic and environmental legislation limiting pollution and green house gasses. . .in any event that is change!

But the environment, water, energy production these are the real issues of this election campaign but no one would dare mention them in association with change in economic direction for fear of defeat. A redirection and a retooling of the global economy and of America is in order and that is not a popular issue on Wall street or people invested in Wall street. . .most everyone in one way or another.

We have to change rapidly and move to a none-stop production of environmental invention and energy alternatives for the western world and developing nations rapidly. It also means rapid technology transfer for the developing world without delay, this may save us some time. A cut of 80% of the carbon emissions within the next 10 years is in order and it must be done beginning now and well on the way before 2012 the next date for Kyoto. Kyoto is a western world fabrication to tell us we can keep polluting while where figuring a way to deal with this crisis economically.

A change of the present direction of economic production and fast move in a different direction economically is required by anyone that can think and put simple figures in context of this crisis. The world is waiting for this move by the Americans and watch the dollar rise rapidly against other currencies once this plan would be announced if ever. This is why this upcoming election is so critical and the results of it will determine whether the human race survives. . . . It is that critical!

The economic change in direction could possibly reemploy a lot of people who have lost their work in the polluting industries. This is the challenge to America to remake itself after eight years of the Bush/Cheney regime. It is equivalent to a fight for survival that required the retooling of America at the outbreak of WW 2. It requires change in the so-called war on terror, a Bush fabrication advanced by the media which is a money centered mind conditioning creation and finally, it means leaving Iraq, and using those resources to fight the real enemy to survival, the western consumer, hydro carbon based, societies of the western world.

Who knows that might mean less of an investment in China and more of an investment the western world for a healthier environment? And the Chinese might follow that example as well.

Which candidate will say this to America? Which candidate will really tell the truth? If they did they wouldn't have a chance in this election because Americans don't want to hear that! Any one having the courage to really tell the truth would find themselves on the next train to Siberia; they would be shouted down by the crowds of people on the stump and many on this blog. saying what the hell do you know anyway? "This is too scary for me!"

But the economy is the issues and that is determined by the war in Iraq. The illegal Bush-war that Kucinich wants to impeach Bush/Chenney for creating but takes us into another direction and one not well thought out. He is focused on the lies of Bush rather than the future of the world.

The production of alternative energy will soak up the idle job market, indeed it is doing so now! With a shift to the priority of economic production and development directed at saving this world and its equilibrium, means in simple terms a crash economic change which is vitally necessary, without that we are done. If any one thinks that we can continue with an oil economy and business as usual with a consumer based society, they are living in the world of denial which so much of the western world occupies. The below is a light message compared with what the truth really is: from UN sources of information!

"The world needs to spend 1.6 percent of global economic output annually through 2030 to stabilize the carbon stock and meet the 3.6-degree Fahrenheit temperature target. Rich countries, the biggest carbon emitters, should lead the way and cut emissions at least 30 percent by 2020 and 80 percent by 2050. Developing nations should cut emissions 20 percent by 2050, the UNDP says."

The above is letting you down lightly is really not what the actual projections are. The world crisis will crash in on its regional global populations is what the information below is saying. There really is no place in this discussion for a 5.4 to 7.2 Fahrenheit degree rise in temperature. . . .this scenario painted with the these numbers below is a different planet closer to Mars not Earth. The news media play with numbers like the lottery. We can tolerate one degree and perhaps two and half degrees warming at the outside, . . .in the next 50 to 90 years. . .that's it!!!!! An additional 3 degrees to four degrees Fahrenheit is three more degrees greater than this climate and its creatures can sustain or endure without collapse!! This quoted from the recent UN assertions here in commondreams and from the real information by scientists not political organization:

"a temperature rise of between 5.4 and 7.2 degrees Fahrenheit (3 and 4 degrees Celsius) would displace 340 million people through flooding, droughts would diminish farm output, and retreating glaciers would cut off drinking water from as many as 1.8 billion people, the report says." this is an understatement and conservative.

The above report is economically associated and conservative as well as misleading!!! Forget this idea of 5.4 to 7.2 Fahrenheit of warming that is the Martian landscape because it allows for the runaway positive feedbacks to take hold. Whomever believes this world can sustain this degree of warming is either working for the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think tank or is gathering this information from the laboratory at XXON/Mobile or its publiscists!!??????

Meanwhile the group here is discussing who will give us better health care on a dying planet and impeachment of Bush a good way to avoid dealing with the truth. We can be suspect of anyone who says they have the truth. The need for understanding this current cast of characters wanting to be president is important. None of this group has the faintest idea of what we are really dealing with in terms of global warming numbers concerning the environment, and if they did they would not tell the public. They know it's bad and their advisers are telling them they can't deal with this issue to get elected by the masses.

The masses? Unless you have not heard, these are the people above who are worrying where their next bag of groceries comes from and the money to pay the rent! They really don't give a damn about the environmental issues. . And have no time for thinking about 10 to 20 years from today that has no realty attached to it for most Americans or the rest of the four and half billion people on this Earth in the same situation. . . .

Or, for the rest of the population working for and controlled by big business and big money. . .that is what this election is really about and if one thinks about the complexity of all these interrelated issues we know that we can not beat the odds business will win. That means the future for humanity is limited even for the one percent that has everything.

Sure elect Edwards, Obama, or Kucinich or any combination of most of the Democrats that are not funded by big business for this election. This is the reality of this time we still live on this, still beautiful planet.

The idea behind carbon permits is as follows:

1. Determine the amount carbon that we are willing to emit. (This of course is difficult, and will require agreements by governments that can enforce regulations.)

2. Allocate or auction the permits where the number of permits is based on the amount of carbon we decided to emit. (Again this can be difficult. Permits can be allocated based on a number of criteria including past emissions, population, GDP etc. Whatever way we decide to do it, someone will complain. Auctioning might be better and the money can be used to reduce other taxes or to increase carbon reduction R&D.)

3. Once the permits are allocated you must have a permit to emit. If you wish to emit carbon and you don't have the permit, then you must buy one. If the markets work correctly, those who are good at creating new technology or being efficient at reductions will abate their emissions and sell the permits to those who cannot come up with solutions. As such the price of the permits should end up being the marginal cost of abatement for all parties involved.

This is also known as cap and trade. The cap is the amount of carbon that we set and the trade refers to the fact that all parties are allowed to then trade permits depending on needs.

Some sectors are easier to deal with than others. For instance the power sector is easy since there are relatively few power plants. Each corporation can be allocated a number of permits and they can be easily regulated. Other sectors, such as transportation can be more difficult. In particular transportation can be problematic. We can allocate or auction the permits to the car companies or to the oil companies or we could give them to individuals. I myself would prefer that I was given my own permits because I could sell them to someone who drives an SUV.

If we allocated them to car or oil companies, then the price of using these options would rise and those of us who choose other modes would benefit.

There can be a windfall given to corporations on the first round if permits are given, but after that there will need to be a reduction in the emission of gases and the corporations would need to adapt. Those that come up with more efficient technology would benefit and those that won't will not do as well.

Remember that in the 1970's the US car companies said they couldn't be more efficient. The Japanese led the way in improvements and the are now leading the world in this sector. The same will be true of those corporations who learn to adapt. We should expect that the Europeans, who have the lead in adopting GHC permits, will get a head start on new technology. It is in our interest to start to deal with this problem.

Also, CO2 is only one, although the most significant GHG. There is also CH4, NO2. These pose additional problems, related to farming, cattle and sheep.

Doug,

But how does it do this? My questions were not rhetorical ones.

For example, I have taken a number of specific measures so I use much less fossil fuel than my neighbors - including a rather uncomfortable -6C ride to work on my electric scooter this morning. So, how do I go about putting the IPO together for my "carbon stocks"? And, just like the rest of the modern capitalist economy, won't my neighbors mostly just earn their money playing speculative-bubble arbitrage games with these carbon stocks rather than actually reduce their emissions any? Considering that carbon emissions continue to grow rapidly among Kyoto signatories, is this what is happening?

You may reply "your tiny individual consumer reductions aren't worth the effort. Only big industries and utilities play the game". But it is exactly the decisions of billons of "end-users" - notably car-and home-owners around the world that are causing the problem?

I already outlined the "big picture" in my first post. CO2 ultimately comes only from oil/gas and coal producers. So, the pollutant that must be controlled isn't the CO2 - it is the fuels themselves. Instead of this capitalist-speculation shell game, why don't we just put a carbon tax, or just mandatory production limits on these fuels based on their carbon content. This will raise the price - and then the "market will work it's magic". What could be simpler?

Oh! I forgot, we can't do that, no matter how effective, it would be is "evil socialism"!

Come on you guys....a little bit of reading will get you beyond this point. Google "carbon finance" and read any of the guides available. The clean development mechanism is one of various paths available to get to the objective of getting aggregate emissions and inventories under control and help get the world's economy on the road to real aggregate emissions reductions. WWF's point about additionality is important. Additionality is an essential aspect/threshold of the project approach to incentivising project investment, the use of existing technologies and the development and roll out of new technologies...the real world objectives of the flexible market mechanisms introduced with the Kyoto Protocol. Continued discussion on the limitations of trading carbon instruments (and there are many) outside discussions of the big picutre only helps those that need to get the big picture in focus look instead to focus on the wrong issue. It is all about getting people to do business better than business as usual and to do so via projects that would not ordinarily happen...please read up and get properly engaged. It really is important not to confuse Kyoto with carbon neutrality. The real and important steps many individuals and non-regulated businesses are taking to go neutral are commendable but must be kept in context. Efficiency and conscientiousness are really important but misplaced if the background objective of stabilising and then reducing aggregate net emissions globally is not kept front and centre.

Every time it is my turn to pick up kids at school (carpool) I see several cars running for as much as 20 minutes in the parking lot waiting for the kids to come out because it is too cold or hot. This common response to $3.15 gasoline kind of blows the whole concept of carbon credits.

When it was hot I stayed in the shade. Now that it is cold I stand in the school if it is too uncomfortable in the car.

But then again, I am a cheapskate.

All I can say about this is, Duh.

The UN should broker an agreement to cap and reduce carbon emissions by all nations, and it should be up to the member nations to decide how to meet its quotas.

Straight carbon taxes should be imposed, as stiff as needed to meet the goals. The proceeds should be used to fund public transportation, new energy resources, and general tax relief. Simply tax coal and oil, and maybe give tax credits for planting forests and other carbon sink efforts.

The only reason for this stupid trading system is the "free-market" ideology against taxation and in favor of nifty-sounding "market" schemes (except single-payer health insurance, which is a market system). It is a fraud from the start, pretending to avoid imposing higher prices (yet it can't work if it doesn't end up doing just that) and it is a setup that invites massive fraud, since it requires somehow keeping track of who is doing what and what impacts that has, in a hugely complicated system. A straight tax makes much more sense, as everyone who has thought about it seriously seems to agree.

Perrrrfecccct Tijuana. GREAT!

Can someone explain, how this "carbon trading" works? It seems to be a deliberately over-complicated shell-game.

Ultimately, virtually all antropgenic carbon emissions come from just:

Oil well heads
gas well heads
coal mine tipples
tar sand/oil shale processing plant output

That's it!

And, carbon sinks come from:

tree planting - of dubiuos long-term benefit - since there is probably little follow up on how many of the trees get cut down prematurely or will die off from climate-clhange indiced droughts.

Underground or sea bed sequestration - unproven and not a single full-scale scheme to do this currently being planned (someone correct me if i'm wrong)

Ocean fertilization - considered only a last-ditch effort to avert disaster, due to possible unintended consequences.

That's about it...

So can someone explain how this trading scheme works? I do all kinds of specific things to to reduce my personal contributon to greenhouse gas -can I sell credits and make some money?