Comments on: Carbon trading is not about the climate http://www.climateconversation.wordshine.co.nz/2010/01/carbon-trading-is-not-about-the-climate/ Taking the heat out of global warming Sun, 19 May 2013 06:39:15 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2 By: Richard http://www.climateconversation.wordshine.co.nz/2010/01/carbon-trading-is-not-about-the-climate/comment-page-1/#comment-21085 Richard Fri, 29 Jan 2010 09:47:17 +0000 http://www.climateconversation.wordshine.co.nz/?p=3144#comment-21085 Your comments are very helpful, Barry. I hadn't made that connection — that it probably doesn't matter how many extra trees we plant. It is mysterious! Your comments are very helpful, Barry. I hadn’t made that connection — that it probably doesn’t matter how many extra trees we plant. It is mysterious!

]]> By: Barry Brill http://www.climateconversation.wordshine.co.nz/2010/01/carbon-trading-is-not-about-the-climate/comment-page-1/#comment-21035 Barry Brill Tue, 26 Jan 2010 11:49:17 +0000 http://www.climateconversation.wordshine.co.nz/?p=3144#comment-21035 A recent and very authoritative scientific paper by Dr Wolfgang Knorr of Bristol University, has created a flurry of interest in scientific circles. Knorr found that only 45% of CO2 emissions remain in the atmosphere and that this percentage has remained static for the last 150 years. The remaining 55% is always sequestered in the biosphere (vegetation) and the hydrosphere (the seas). It seems, then, that the volume of CO2 being sequestered by the global biosphere is predetermined by some inscrutable law of nature which science has not yet plumbed. It makes no difference how many trees or shrubs or algae might be growing at any given time. So, how can we say that additional pine trees will increase the percentage of CO2 taken up by the biosphere? There's no science behind the scheme of carbon credits. Only money. A recent and very authoritative scientific paper by Dr Wolfgang Knorr of Bristol University, has created a flurry of interest in scientific circles. Knorr found that only 45% of CO2 emissions remain in the atmosphere and that this percentage has remained static for the last 150 years. The remaining 55% is always sequestered in the biosphere (vegetation) and the hydrosphere (the seas).

It seems, then, that the volume of CO2 being sequestered by the global biosphere is predetermined by some inscrutable law of nature which science has not yet plumbed. It makes no difference how many trees or shrubs or algae might be growing at any given time. So, how can we say that additional pine trees will increase the percentage of CO2 taken up by the biosphere?

There’s no science behind the scheme of carbon credits. Only money.

]]>