Bizarrely when the mainly methane gas from the West Atlas rig caught fire it became CO2 with less GWP. Perhaps the carbon traders will want to sell credits from that episode. Even the coal mining industry presents measurement problems with some 'gassy' coal seams releasing methane as they are excavated, perhaps adding up to 30% to the GWP of the later coal burning. You would think however the number of tonnes of coal burned in power stations would be accurately recorded. Maybe not since we now know the International Energy Agency fudged the numbers on oil production and Chinese factory data is now suspect.

I agree it is unproductive to waste time attempting each farm's net emissions ie how many cow farts and whether gum trees put on weight. Let's assume CO2 estimates from coal, oil and gas are reasonably accurate and focus on that. That means that free permits and offsets to the fossil fuel industries must be drastically curtailed. They are the obvious targets and should get the detailed monitoring. Secondary economic effects may limit the growth of meat and dairy in any case.

I don't understand the enthusiasm of controlling carbon flows for carbon already in the biosphere. The underlying problem is apparently caused by us digging up carbon and adding it to the biosphere. This is what has to be controlled.

Trying to control carbon flows strikes me as near impossible. It will add huge complexities to already complex and difficult to implement rules. The push for it looks to be coming from foresters and farmers who want to get their nose into the CO2 trading scheme trough.

The whole topic is bulltish

Unfortunately not the sort of bulltish which produces assessable methane or you can spread on the garden to encourage the roses

I was at a presentation breakfast recently (my Victorian Taxes being abused by public servants… at least I got a coffee and croissant out of it) to do with carbon trading and some “NGO” representative I happened to end up sat next to told me she was there to make sure everything was “ethical”…

I am not sure who appointed her as the “public conscience” and was not inclined to ask but I did point out to her, and her naivety, that unless it (carbon trading) was commercially viable, it stood no chance of ever being “ethical”.

I do not think she enjoyed being told the facts of life … not that I care… NGOs, ETS and the like is just techno-babble jargon, designed to employ the otherwise unemployable.

Carbon trading will not put a roof over your head, food on your table or milk (from all those farting cows) in your cup .

Carbon trading is designed to stealthily tax or otherwise diminish ones quality of life, not enhance it, by forcing us to support the fanciful and unproven aspirations of the pointless

Again,I ask someone to tell me where to find the science that proves that CO2 is a pollutant.
If we are going to charge our farmers for farting animals, what will they do in Africa where herds of farters far exceed those we have here and most of them are in National Parks! Will they get rid of elephants? Gnu's, Zebra? If they don't get rid of them, who will pay for their methane?
It has not been scientifically proven that these minute traces of so called green house gases are controlling our climate.
Why not read what the late Rhodes Fairbridge thought about it and you can also contact Richard Mackey. http://www.griffith.edu.au/conference/ics2007/pdf/ICS176.pdf
Just because carbon traders have persuaded politicians that they will make big bucks out of trading carbon credits (and we'll look after you Kevin and Malcolm) there is no excuse for ignoring sciencs.
Rudd, Wong et al accuse sceptics of scaring the public. What did Al Gore do? Didn't the IPCC set out to scare the world?
Read what Dr Vincent Gray wrote about this. http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=2010

Farting does NOT add to CO2 in the atmosphere.
Farts are CO2 and methane and are only produced AFTER the human or animal has eaten a plant or an animal that has eaten a plant.
The methane decays to CO2 in a few weeks.
The plant has taken CO2 from the air to build its structure.
The fart is THE SAME CO2.
It goes round and around.
Only fossil carbon adds to CO2 in the air.

Undidly, I'd never thought of it that way, tho I have often wondered about the figures on the thousands of litres of water it takes to produce a kilogram of beef, because I know from close observation that a lot of the water that goes in at one end of a cow soon comes out the other end and back into the water cycle.

Phoenix94, CO2 is not a pollutant, but increasing the amount in the atmosphere will change things in a way that will not be comfortable for homo sapiens - and as fossil fuels are finite and we will have to do without them one day, why not get cracking on the alternatives and stop pandering to the coal industry.