BobR wrote:
On Jul 10, 9:08 am, dpb wrote:
BobR wrote:
On Jul 9, 7:13 pm, dpb wrote:
BobR wrote:
dpb wrote:
George wrote:
Smitty Two wrote:
Yes they're still wasting energy, but that doesn't mean carbon credits
don't help solve the pollution problem. ...
I respectfully disagree. If Gore and friends wanted to "help the
environment" they need to live exactly like they want everyone else to...
...
OTOH, in open market, the way to make progress is to make it
economically viable and the credits markets may have a role to play
...
Carbon Credits are another scam that just pads one mans pocket with
anothers guilt.
Have to see in the longer term, methinks...but, if they can create a
market, can't see as those who can, shouldn't. ...
I recently had a long and heated argument with my boss and his boss
over raising some prices for medical procedures. The reason they
wanted to raise the prices was that one of the insurance providers was
so stupid that they were paying more for some services than they
should and they believe we should be taking advantage of the
opportunity and NOT leaving any money on the table. I argued that we
should instead be fair and not take advantage of the providers
stupidity. I ultimately won the argument even though the cost over
the next two years will be several hundred thousand in potiential lost
revenue.
Simply because a market can be created due to the stupidity and
gullability of others, it never makes it right to take advantage of
others just because you can. I staked my job on that belief and I
will continue to do so even if it means that I must look for another
job.
I think there's no comparison here, personally. Overbilling (which is
fundamentally what they were wanting to do) is indeed at least unethical
(although certainly widespread enough it has lost even the shred of
shame once associated with it) if not illegal and probably covered in
the agreement w/ the insurance company under their general rules of
reimbursement. I'd venture there would be at least a remote likelihood
that down the road another arm of the insurance company or
Medicare/Medicaid might well come calling for restitution if the
practice were followed.

A credits market is another animal entirely -- whether you think it a
reasonable policy or not, it is open and reasonably transparent and both
parties are able to play or not as they choose. Don't see any ethical
issue there as long as all parties follow the rules and those rules are
up front. That it is organized so that the broker makes a profit is
part of those rules that everybody in the game understands.

The comparison which you clearly missed is on the basis of what is
fair and not what is legal. ...

No, I didn't miss anything--I said "ethical", you said "fair". I submit
same concept, different word.

The same fairness holds true on the issue of so called "carbon
credits". There is no guarantee that what you are paying for is
actually being delivered and absolutely no oversight in any form. It
is little more than another scheme to make a few people rich while
easing the guilt of those who are too damn hung up on their excess
consumption to actually take action to reduce their usage. The only
thing you got right is that both parties have the right (at least for
now and until the liberal do gooders make it mandatory) to NOT buy
into the stupidity.

Well, same issue comes to play -- it relies (again as I said in the part
on openness) on ethical behavior. Again, whether someone has it or not
isn't anything you can legislate. If there is an agreement of what the
credits are to produce, that is verifiable.

Whether you think the concept is a scam or not isn't really of any
particular import. Perhaps some who are offering are, some aren't.
(That's the part I noted is where motives are harder to impute other
than by subsequent action.) Either way, free market forces will sort it
out (as they should imo).

--