Better than CarbonNeutral...

[yesthattom]

http://www.cheatneutral.com/

Click it. You know you want to.

Comments

[gulfie.livejournal.com]

Finally a completely understandable by everyone version of why carbon credits are moronic.

It's precious, thank you.

[leatherfish.livejournal.com]

Hmmph! I am annoyed that I, a poly person who faithfully follows all of her agreements, cannot serve to offset someone else's cheating.

[sierra-nevada.livejournal.com]

Pollution credit trading systems were used to reduce SO2 emissions in the USA that were creating acid rain in Canada, two decades ago. The two keys to that market system are to set the pool size correctly to begin with (requires measurement), and shrink the size of the pool every year until you hit your new maximum-allowed emissions level. Properly done, it works, and there's no reason we can't do this with CO2 also.

However, if you don't want to use such a system, I await your constructive suggestion as to how we should put a proper price on CO2 emissions so that an appropriate level of economic resources are directed towards their reduction. Right now, it's an unpriced externality.

[gulfie.livejournal.com]

Like many things 'done right' it can 'work'. Most things 'are not' and 'do not'.


To attain sustainability a closed loop must be constructed. If a local producer can not or will not operate a closed loop on site, then locating the a suitable sink for there production is valuable.

The problem arises in most carbon sinks. The carbon is not permanently sequestered. At any point a non cheater, can be converted into a cheater
and the original cheater is still off the hook. For example using a forest as a carbon sync. What happens when a forest fire shows up, or some loggers?


Setting up a system of blinds isn't a way to solve the underlying problem of the cheating, or even the underlying problem of people making relationship commitments they are unwilling or unable to maintain.


However making money off of other people's shame... well that's just a good old time family value.

In fact

[mrfantasy.livejournal.com]

I would argue the negation of cheating is not merely "not cheating" but something else. If you average cheating and not cheating together it's still half-cheating.

Polyamory might actually be an activity that can offset unfaithful cheating!

[awfief.livejournal.com]

A proper price on CO2 emissions would be the preventative price of a few class action lawsuits of, say, people who get sun poisoning in Australia/Argentina/Antarctica (all 17 of them) because of the hole in the ozone layer.

Companies, like people, have to be properly motivated. Instead of private organizations soliciting donations to plant trees or somesuch, if the onus and responsibility was placed on the companies responsible, then we'd have a much better system, that has worked for other systems (think credit card fraud: once the responsibility was placed in the hands of the corporations instead of the hands of the people, all sorts of great things started to happen. To wit, we're still technically responsible for the first $50 for all credit card fraud, and all of checking account fraud, but no bank would risk the publicity of making a customer pay for checking account fraud, nor pay the $50 maximum for credit card fraud.)

[sierra-nevada.livejournal.com]

You're confusing CO2 emissions with CFCs which eat ozone (the component of the upper atmosphere which shields the surface of the earth from a large fraction of UV), are entirely artificial (i.e. they do not occurr naturally), and whose production has been banned.

CO2 is a little hard to ban: you (and every other animal on this planet) exhale it in every respiration cycle. Oh, and burning just about anything organic produces it. It is abundant in nature.

Putting prices on things is how you motivate companies; that's what makes it possible to properly calculate resource allocations to everything we do in the economy. I'm not arguing against that at all.

[yesthattom.livejournal.com]

FOUL!

Serious reply to a funny post. 5 minutes in the penalty box.

You both have to stand in the corner with no internet access for 5 minutes.

[awfief.livejournal.com]

oops, you're right. however, there certainly is a way to measure carbon footprint, and certainly there are effects, such as global warming, differing weather patterns, etc. nobody would be fined for breathing too much, but large companies/events could be taxed with a greenhouse tax, that goes to an org like FEMA or others who help those damaged by effects of too much carbon dioxide.

the point is that there is a way.