I remember when I first heard of these certificates there was a scandal
that some were not genuine. It appeared that Russians and others simply
printed them and sold them.
They are now a multi billion dollar argument in the election.

They have value because companies can buy them instead of reducing
their CO2 emissions. There is a market that buys & sells the
certificates and so establishes their value.
The present price is I believe around $60.

My interest has arisen because I wondered what would happen if a
company bought one million dollars worth to offset their CO2
emissions and so avoid expensive plant upgrades.
Then one day the scientific consensus on global warming changed and it
was decided that the earth was not warming but some cooling was evident.

The value of the certificates would disappear. Would the government
pay back the company their one million dollars ?
At present the government and opposition are arguing about B$40 & B$60

Genuine or not. Does this trading actually make any difference to the amount of carbon dioxide in the air: say, will we notice a drop off in the greening of the world and a loss of production that the increase in CO2 has brought about?

Bazz once action starts there will be no turning back
The buying and selling of such things, in my view tries to say it is ok to pollute your own country and help keep others clean

Bazz,
The thing about scientific consensus is that it's driven by evidence. Right now there's an enormous amount of evidence of warming. If cooling is observed we'd look at what's causing it, but the scientists wouldn't blindly claim the warming trend had stopped even if the bloggers did.

_____________________________________________________________________________________

ttbn,
In isolation, the trading wouldn't make much difference, But when combined with countries committing to reduce their carbon footprint, it makes a lot of difference as it greatly reduces the cost of doing so.

Any evidence that the CO2 increase has actually increased agricultural production? I know there are instances where it's reduced the demand for water, but AIUI these have not been sufficient to counteract the decrease in rainfall in those places.

_____________________________________________________________________________________

Belly,
When the effects of this pollution are global not local, the location where the pollutant is being released into the atmosphere doesn't matter.

Aiden no defense know and knew that but feel more comfortable if we each clean up our own country or help other do so

"In isolation, the trading wouldn't make much difference, But when combined with countries committing to reduce their carbon footprint, it makes a lot of difference as it greatly reduces the cost of doing so".

Fact: Australia is naively working " in isolation" while the biggest polluters like China and India are going full steam ahead, building coal-powered electricity generators non-stop, taking our industries, and sniggering up their sleeves at us. Yes. There is evidence of greening and increased production.

Ttbn,

A drop-off in the greening of the world ? I don't think so:

https://notrickszone.com/2019/04/22/new-study-the-recent-co2-increase-has-had-an-even-greater-earth-greening-impact-than-previously-thought/

I'm pretty ignorant of all this but I'm curious:

1. How much CO2 does the world's biomass absorb in its growth processes relative to the amount of CO2 being produced ? How much excess CO2 is being produced each year over and above what the world's biomass can process ? And what impact would mass re-forestation have on reducing that 'excess' CO2, say across the north of Australia ?

2. Yes/no: is more CO2 produced in the manufacture and maintenance of solar panels and wind farms over their lifetimes, than they save ?

3. I wonder what they're teaching kids in schools these days about photosynthesis and the take-up of CO2 by plant-life ? That CO2 is a poison ? That somehow plant-growth would be faster without CO2 ? That there would still be plant-growth if there was no CO2 in the atmosphere ?

Joe

Loudmouth, sorry but that is a furphy.

According to satellite imaging & the description of Oz by the early explorers, there are now more trees in Oz today, than at first settlement.

With aboriginal burning, Oz was rather park like. Scattered trees in grass land was the order of the day. Yes we chopped down many trees in some areas, but what was once naturally open grassland, the cessation of aboriginal burning, has become scrub so thick it is basically useless to cattle or wildlife.

The 10,000 acre paddock across the river from me is a perfect example. 25 years ago we used to train our eventers & show jumpers in there, galloping through the open bush, jumping natural jumps. Today the grazier has given up. Maintaining the paddock as good grazing with out burning was too costly, & he has let it go. He gave up burning due to the complaints of recently arrived acreage development folk. There are huge amounts of litter on the ground, & the brambles are so thick, you would be scratched to pieces if you rode through at more than a walk. The next fire will be very dangerous.

What we need is a return to logging of native forests, to extract mature carbon filled logs, allowing space for new growth.

Sorry, Hasbeen, I'm a slow learner: which bit is a furphy ?

Joe

That we need more trees Loudmouth. We have more than we should have.

As I said, if we want trees to absorb more CO2, & I can't imagine why we would, we should be seriously harvesting more trees for their timber, allowing more space fro new young growing trees.

I too must admit that I am not up with all this GW, CC and CO2.
Just a naive question.
I keep hearing about 'greenhouse effect'.
Is not a 'greenhouse' somewhere to grow plants?
If that is so, is it not a good thing to be in a situation where places that cannot normally grow food, might just be able to do so?
I know I'm missing some details in making this leap of faith, but how can this CO2 phenomenon, be turned or used to our advantage?
Is/are there any such options.
If trees absorb CO2, what other plant life does the same?
Cabbage? tomatoes? and so on.
I've remained on the fence on this issue, only stepping down every now and then to clarify one of the many things I don't understand about it.
I am still skeptical, and as long as we have reports rebuking some of the 'science'? I must keep an open mind, and keep asking questions until I can see a clear and un-challenged path to the correct answer.

Belly,
How you feel is irrelevant. As the problem is global, helping others to reduce their emissions (by paying them to do so) is just as effective as reducing our own. Ten years ago it was probably more cost effective than most of the improvements we could have mad ourselves, although I doubt that is the case today.
________________________________________________________________________________________

ttbn,
Australis's refusal to cooperate with other countries on this has been used by countries like India and China as an excuse to do nothing.

China's continued construction of coal fired power stations is not economic - it's still going for political reasons, but demand for their use has stopped increasing. China's CO2 emissions peaked in 2015 and started to fall.The government then induced a construction boom which brought them back up, but this is unlikely to be sustained. Meanwhile solar power is booming; 8% of electricity generation last time I checked, but doubling every 3 years.

And just saying there's increased greening and increased production is insufficient. For it to be attributed to CO2, it has to be shown that it's not just down to other factors like better irrigation, better genetics, fewer rabbits etc.

________________________________________________________________________________________

ALTRAV,
It's called the Greenhouse effect because it results in things being warmer than they otherwise would be. The way it does so(by absorbing and reradiating infrared) is totally different from a greenhouse (which does so by stopping convection).

Almost all plants absorb CO2 - there are a few parasitic exceptions, but even most parasitic plants absorb CO2.

And a higher atmospheric CO2 concentration does benefit plants and even decrease the water they need. Unfortunately the other effects of increased CO2 (like more frequent and more severe El Niño events) are likely to counteract those benefits.

Loudmouth,

1. I can't remember what proportion of the increased CO2 is being absorbed by plants. How much do you want to know it? What I can say of hand is that it is significant, but still the atmospheric concentration has risen from 280ppm in preindusrrial times to 410ppm today.

2. Back in the 20th century, solar panels may have produced more CO2 than they saved. But those days are long gone – the manufacturing process is far more efficient now (as are the cells themselves), and IIRC they typically break even in their first year.

3. Why do you speculate on misinformation? CO2 is a poison at much higher concentrations, but that's irrelevant. Everyone knows some CO2 is essential for plant life, but that doesn't mean we should continue to increase its concentration.

_____________________________________________________________________________________

Hasbeen,
The parklike parts of Australia were on the east coast, which is relatively wet. It's safe to say there are more threes there now than before, but not to extrapolate that to the whole country! There are very large areas where the trees have been felled to make way for cropping and grazing, and also some once forested areas that have died because of overgrazing. There are also places were water bores have resulted in many more trees.

Australia has had many different environments, and these have changed in different ways. And if there were more native forests around, logging them wouldn't be so controversial now.

Hasbeen,

You suggest: " .... if we want trees to absorb more CO2, & I can't imagine why we would, we should be seriously harvesting more trees for their timber, allowing more space for new young growing trees."

Well, yeah. That's more or less the point. There's never enough trees, and of course timber trees of commercial or nutritional value should be chosen, for furniture, etc., building, fruit etc.

I don't know how much a dozen small nuclear reactors (for power) might cost, along with half a dozen desalination plants, pumping water into a watering system across the north of Australia, maybe south of the Kimberley and Arnhem Land and above the central ranges in Queensland, to water a belt of trees, say, 100 km wide. A belt 200,000 sq km might eventually contain two billion trees, so plenty of building material etc., coming mature every year forever. Maybe ten thousand people employed permanently, planting, maintaining, milling, transporting.

What's not to like ?

Joe

Loudmouth, 'what's not to like'?
Nothing!
It sounds like a plan to me.
Now just give it a minute and all the left whinge wallies, will come out of the woodwork, (or those very trees you speak of) and tell you 'what's not to like', or what's not to their liking.
As long as we keep getting resistance from a bunch of school kids, barely out of nappies and still suckling on their mothers teet, thinking they are informed enough to make ANY decision, we will never see anything resembling progress.
All these people would see is the cutting down of trees, and totally ignore the planting and re-afforestation being done in the follow-on.
But as long as we allow the children to have an opinion, we are always going to get one, even though it will always be wrong.
Loudmouth,for any such ideas as yours to get a look in, we need to get rid of the greens, for starters, then anyone who opposes any progress in the name of the environment.
I would not mind if the greens kept opposing whatever they wanted, but, they do not come up with anything resembling a workable, affordable, timely alternative.
Their childish, precocious attitude only serves to demonstrate their beliefs do not work.
They are inefficient, lacking in performance and reliability, and far too expensive to make them worth considering.
This is so, because they are not an informed party and discard any suggestions that would see them compromise their, green, position, even if it is the right thing to do.
If you want to know where to begin, GET RID OF THE GREENS!

Well, the kids are leaving school and going straight to the voting booths !

And there-in lies one of the major problems with this country.
We have children voting in mental deficients to run the country.
I'm pleased you have identified this glaring problem.
If only we could convince those who are too blind or set in their ways to see.
Maybe, just maybe something could be salvaged from this whole mess of a world we currently live in.

What's not to like is that the northern country is more productive growing beef, not trees.

Why the hell would you spend a fortune on power & water to grow trees where they don't want to grow naturally. The only possible reason is that you have fallen for the global warming scam.

If you want to grow trees, all you have to do is cut down some of the trees in Victoria Tasmania & NSW that have grown naturally, that we are not allowed to harvest because of some stupid green dogma, & plant replacement trees.

Cut down those trees, & more will grow in their place, & a whole industry can be re-established in native forests. This harvesting is economic & helpful to the ecology, & will greatly reduce wild fires.

What is not to like, unless you are a ratbag greenie, with no real idea of how nature works.

Private tree plantations just don't work economically. Trees grow too slowly to return even the council rates on a property. I have been mowing around a couple of gum trees, saplings when I bought the place, on my front road verge for 27 years. One is now 5" diameter & the other under 4". I have also spent 10 years avoiding cutting down a silky oak seedling that appeared, it is less than an inch. Bird planted silky oak seedlings have been appearing all over the place since the 5 I planted 25 years ago achieved full bloom & seed production.

These trees are nice to have, but looking around here, it will be another 40+ years before any 20 year old trees are worth harvesting. Growing trees for timber is a job for native forests not agriculture, & if we ever regain our senses that is what native forests will be used for.