Kyoto

[silverback]

But they keep saying that farmers are going to be paid for their good stewardship of the land and the carbon sinks they produce. They wouldn't lie would they?

[cakadu]

We'll know that the government is serious about environmental sustainability when they start paying landowners for the environmental goods and services (EGS) that they provide. How that will transpire is anyone's guess at this point in time. If there is an Ag Policy Framework II, which I understand is currently being worked on, it will focus more on EGS.

Just how much is clean drinking water worth? What price can be put on keeping natural areas in their present, or an improved state? What is a carbon sink worth - have they come up with any actual figures yet?

Cowman, you might now a little more about this - have you any idea as to why it is the Red Deer Chamber of Commerce that is leading the push for carbon credits and payment in this area? I wouldn't necessarily have viewed them as the frontrunner, however, there could be a valid reason why they are.

What sort of middlemen do you see being created in terms of the trading in carbon credits? Will some of the value of the credits get lost in the buying and selling - just like it is the processor that makes the lions share on an animal, even though the producer does the bulk of the work.

What is the anticipated start date for carbon credits to start trading? I know 2008 was the target date, but has that changed at all?

[cowman]

Well I'm not all that up on carbon credits, but I do believe Amsterdam has a commodity market where they are trading them right now?
I suspect the chamber of commerce is all for it because it will put a lot of money into the ag sector that wouldn't be there otherwise? Farmers buy a lot of stuff in Red Deer?
However consider this: What is accomplished by trading carbon credits other than a transfer of wealth? Yea, the farmers might make a few bucks at industries expense, but in the big picture nothing will really change? The polluters will still be polluting...it will just cost them a bit more?
Now if you were a industrial polluter, in Canada, would you want to pay more if it was possible for you to relocate to China or India or who knows where?
How many countries are opting out of Kyota?
Consider this: Why would you want to build a petro chemical plant in Canada when you could build it in the USA? Why pay the carbon tax if you don't have to? And if you think the petro chemical industry isn't a benifit to Alberta then you haven't seen the money they spend at Joffre!

[cowman]

cowman, I had a tour of the Joffre facilities the other day, and you are certainly correct in the dollars spent there !
I am sure that the entire carbon credits issue will mean costs to industry passed on to consumers one way or the other.

[farmers_son]

Check out:

http://www.iowafarmbureau.com/special/carbon/default.aspx

The Carbon Credit Aggretation Pilot Project.

[cowman]

Kyoto is nothing more than a cash cow for the government. A way to rip off the consumer and the energy producer? For what? Absolutely nothing!
Bush is playing this one right. Pollution, worldwide will actually increase in a big way, while the wealthy industrial western countries will lose industry, jobs and real wealth!
When you look at the people behind this scheme, what do you find? How about our own little commie...Maurice Strong?

[cakadu]

So to play devil's advocate here, there is a growing movement to bring development to third world countries - witness the recent Live 8, the call to end world poverty etc. If we are going to help poor countries develop, then shouldn't we move industries and viable businesses to these countries? Or do we just keep accumulating the wealth here and gripe about what we have to pay to the government etc.?