# The 21st century indulgence



## Big Don (Nov 17, 2012)

In Catholic theology, an *indulgence* is the full or partial remission of temporal punishment[SUP][/SUP] due for sins which have already been forgiven. The indulgence is granted by the Catholic Church after the sinner has confessed and received absolution.[SUP][/SUP] An indulgence is thus not forgiveness of sin nor release from the eternal punishment associated with hell in Christian beliefs.[SUP][/SUP] The belief is that indulgences draw on the Treasury of Merit accumulated by Christ's superabundantly meritorious sacrifice on the cross and the virtues and penances of the saints.[SUP][4][/SUP] They are granted for specific good works and prayers.[SUP][/SUP]

 Indulgences replaced the severe penances of the early Church[SUP].[/SUP]  More exactly, they replaced the shortening of those penances that was  allowed at the intercession of those imprisoned and those awaiting  martyrdom for the faith.[SUP][/SUP]

 Alleged abuses in selling and granting indulgences[SUP][/SUP] were a major point of contention when Martin Luther initiated the Protestant Reformation (1517).


A *carbon credit* is a generic term for any tradable certificate or permit representing the right to emit one tonne of carbon dioxide or the mass of another greenhouse gas with a carbon dioxide equivalent (tCO[SUB]2[/SUB]e) equivalent to one tonne of carbon dioxide.[SUP][1][/SUP][SUP][2][/SUP][SUP][3][/SUP]

 Carbon credits and carbon markets are a component of national and  international attempts to mitigate the growth in concentrations of greenhouse gases  (GHGs). One carbon credit is equal to one metric tonne of carbon  dioxide, or in some markets, carbon dioxide equivalent gases. Carbon  trading is an application of an emissions trading approach. Greenhouse gas emissions are capped and then markets are used to allocate the emissions among the group of regulated sources.
 The goal is to allow market mechanisms to drive industrial and  commercial processes in the direction of low emissions or less carbon  intensive approaches than those used when there is no cost to emitting carbon dioxide and other GHGs into the atmosphere. Since GHG mitigation projects generate credits, this approach can be used to finance carbon reduction schemes between trading partners and around the world.
 There are also many companies that sell carbon credits to commercial  and individual customers who are interested in lowering their carbon footprint on a voluntary basis. These carbon offsetters  purchase the credits from an investment fund or a carbon development  company that has aggregated the credits from individual projects. Buyers  and sellers can also use an exchange platform to trade, such as the  Carbon Trade Exchange, which is like a stock exchange for carbon  credits. The quality of the credits is based in part on the validation  process and sophistication of the fund or development company that acted  as the sponsor to the carbon project.  This is reflected in their price; voluntary units typically have less  value than the units sold through the rigorously validated Clean Development Mechanism.[SUP][4][/SUP]


----------



## arnisador (Nov 17, 2012)

A couple of differences: This is science, not superstition; and, carbon credits create a limit on the amount of emissions without specifying who gets to create those emissions. get back to me when the church puts a limit on the amount of sin--say, by having their priests lat off the alter boys, for a start.


----------



## billc (Nov 17, 2012)

Wow, going after the priests was original.  Carbon credits will work just as well as the Church indulgences did, but these will cost us much more.

And on Carbon credits...just one article of many...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2007/jun/16/climatechange.climatechange



> And how much carbon has BA offset from the estimated 27m tonnes which its planes have fired into the air since that high-profile moment in September 2005? The answer is less than 3,000 tonnes, less than 0.01% of its emissions - substantially less than the carbon dispersed by a single day of its flights between London and New York. The scheme has been, as BA's company secretary, Alan Buchanan, put it to a House of Commons select committee earlier this year, "disappointing".





> One company, Equiclimate, which is run by Christians and recommended by the government, has sold thousands of tonnes of offset which are now worthless in financial and environmental terms. It bought up some of the special permits which allow European companies to emit specified amounts of carbon. The idea was to sell them to customers who would "retire" them, thus cutting the amount of carbon which those companies could produce. But the European commission distributed 170m too many of the permits and so the thousands which have been bought by Equiclimate's customers make no difference at all. People may believe they are offsetting the emissions from their patio heaters by signing up to the Calor Gas offsetting scheme, but the sad fact is that Calor Gas is relying on 5,000 tonnes of EU permits which it bought from Equiclimate when most of the permits were already worthless. "We chose them because they were recommended by government," a Calor Gas executive said.
> The British government itself has been caught out over emissions from its presidency of the G8 in 2005. The then environment secretary, Margaret Beckett, said that all carbon emissions from all meetings and travel linked with the one-year presidency would be neutralised. Delegates to the Gleneagles summit in July 2005 were given certificates declaring that all their carbon emissions were being offset. But it hasn't happened. The plan was to spend £150,000 in Kuyasa, a suburb of Cape Town in South Africa, refitting shack-like homes with insulated roofs instead of corrugated iron, and providing solar panels for electricity and long-life bulbs for light. But the project, which would cut carbon emissions as well as helping needy people, has run into bureaucratic, financial and practical problems. The environment department, Defra, says it is keeping it under review. The project's leader, Shirene Rosenberg, says she is still fighting to keep it alive with no start date on the horizon.


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 17, 2012)

Carbon dioxide is an essential gas for all life on the planet. Carbon credits mean that some can afford to live a little more while others cannot.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Nov 18, 2012)

arnisador said:


> A couple of differences: This is science, not superstition; and, carbon credits create a limit on the amount of emissions without specifying who gets to create those emissions. get back to me when the church puts a limit on the amount of sin--say, by having their priests lat off the alter boys, for a start.



Really?  This is your take-away from Big Don's discussion?  At attack on the Catholic Church?

It's frankly despicable and unacceptable.


----------



## Big Don (Nov 18, 2012)

arnisador said:


> A couple of differences: This is science, not superstition; and, carbon credits create a limit on the amount of emissions without specifying who gets to create those emissions. get back to me when the church puts a limit on the amount of sin--say, by having their priests lat off the alter boys, for a start.



Bigot much?


----------



## Tez3 (Nov 18, 2012)

Big Don said:


> Bigot much?



Needs to learn to spell too, it's altar boy. I'd imagine an alter boy is something completely different....


----------



## Big Don (Nov 18, 2012)

Tez3 said:


> Needs to learn to spell too, it's altar boy. I'd imagine an alter boy is something completely different....



Alter boy = Boy with a few changes?


----------



## shesulsa (Nov 18, 2012)

*needs a map*

Just for clarity ... I'd like to read in the OP's own words the EXACT comparison he's trying to make here.  Layman's terms, please.

Comment: Already criticism of opinion and spelling?  Crap, we haven't even started TALKING yet!


----------



## Tez3 (Nov 18, 2012)

Not a criticism of spelling merely a comment, sometimes spelling is important, it can change the nature of the conversation if someone means one thing and we think it's another! Also sometimes something is needed to lighten the atmosphere when things are about to erupt which is what seems to be happening here as fter th crass altar boy comment.


----------



## arnisador (Nov 18, 2012)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Really?  This is your take-away from Big Don's discussion?  At attack on the Catholic Church?
> 
> It's frankly despicable and unacceptable.



Who sold indulgences? Buddhists?


----------



## arnisador (Nov 18, 2012)

Big Don said:


> Bigot much?



How so? Have you not heard about the Catholic Church sex scandal? This thread is about comparing science to the practices of the Catholic Church, isn't it? Am I misremembering who sold indulgences, or which religious organization is most closely associated with sexual molestation of children?


----------



## arnisador (Nov 18, 2012)

Tez3 said:


> Needs to learn to spell too, it's altar boy.



Ah, a spelling flame! Well, that demolishes my point.


----------



## arnisador (Nov 18, 2012)

Tez3 said:


> as fter th crass altar boy comment.



In keeping with the long-standing Internet tradition that all spelling flames contain an error of their own...


----------



## shesulsa (Nov 18, 2012)

Should we just ask the thread to be shut down now? Cuz... y'all on the freeway to nowheresville IMHO.
Sent from my MB886 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Nov 18, 2012)

arnisador said:


> Who sold indulgences? Buddhists?



We were talking about indulgences.  You were not.  You took the opportunity to take a crass and vulgar potshot at the Catholic Church.  If you wish to pretend otherwise, fine.  You're being an offensive jerk; pardon me for taking note of it.


----------



## shesulsa (Nov 18, 2012)

Sorry, this is The Study. No? If we are talking about religion specifically alone and not something political, would this not be better in another forum? And are we seriously incapable of recognizing the "indulgences" of certain priests or are we only discussing certain indulgences?

You'll have to remember this girl ASKED for a map.

Sent from my MB886 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## elder999 (Nov 18, 2012)

"Carbon credits," and "cap and trade" both represent free-market solutions to a real problem, something that most Republicans profess a love for, oddly enough. WHen similar measures were imposed on SO2 and NOX emissions, those emissions were reduced. They were reduced because a market had been created for their reduction. Now, you hardly ever hear about "acid rain" anymore- a coal plant that reduces its tons of daily SO2 emissions by more than 90% is a reality.


----------



## shesulsa (Nov 18, 2012)

Aaand... WTF does this have to do with the Catholic church???

Sent from my MB886 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Nov 18, 2012)

shesulsa said:


> Aaand... WTF does this have to do with the Catholic church???
> 
> Sent from my MB886 using Tapatalk 2



Seriously, you can't see the comparison?  Big Don's not the first person to make the comparison between the selling of indulgences and the selling of credits for carbon emissions.

http://spectator.org/archives/2009/07/15/granting-environmental-indulge

http://www.nickloper.com/2010/05/cap-and-trade-indulgences-for-the-21st-century/

http://real-economics.blogspot.com/2011/01/cap-and-trade-new-indulgences.html


----------



## elder999 (Nov 18, 2012)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Seriously, you can't see the comparison? Big Don's not the first person to make the comparison between the selling of indulgences and the selling of credits for carbon emissions.
> 
> http://spectator.org/archives/2009/07/15/granting-environmental-indulge
> 
> ...




Except that they're all wrong. The system is set up to generate solutions to the problem by creating a trade system. It's done so in the past for other pollutants, something that's conveniently forgotten in the argument.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Nov 18, 2012)

arnisador said:


> Who sold indulgences? Buddhists?


Ha Ha Ha!


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Nov 18, 2012)

elder999 said:


> Except that they're all wrong. The system is set up to generate solutions to the problem by creating a trade system. It's done so in the past for other pollutants, something that's conveniently forgotten in the argument.



I actually wasn't arguing that it is or is not a valid comparison.  I was explaining that Big Don was making the comparison, which shesulsa seemed not to be grasping.  It seemed rather clear to me.


----------



## billc (Nov 18, 2012)

Some thoughts on cap and trade...

http://www.americanthinker.com/prin...nthinker.com/2010/05/capandtrade_is_back.html





> Presently, 40 percent of CO[SUB]2[/SUB] emissions in the United States are
> derived from electricity generation, 35 percent from transportation, and 25
> percent from business, industry, and natural gas to heat homes.
> 
> ...


----------



## arnisador (Nov 18, 2012)

elder999 said:


> Except that they're all wrong. The system is set up to generate solutions to the problem by creating a trade system. It's done so in the past for other pollutants, something that's conveniently forgotten in the argument.



...as is the fact that eliminating all emissions is presently unrealistic, but giving people incentives--the cost of the credits--to make changes isn't.

Very different from Indulgences, where the Church had an unlimited supply because it was just a verbal promise. The limited number of credits raises prices--fixed supply, clear demand--which incentivizes novel approaches.


----------



## shesulsa (Nov 18, 2012)

I guess I'm still trying to wrap my head around sin lay-away and the justification of such. 

Likewise, this sounds like a fancy name for putting off what needed to happen yesterday and getting to wear the halo regardless... doesn't seem to matter if it's religion or environmental commerce.

Sent from my MB886 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 18, 2012)

elder999 said:


> Except that they're all wrong. The system is set up to generate solutions to the problem by creating a trade system. It's done so in the past for other pollutants, something that's conveniently forgotten in the argument.



The difference is that all human activity could potentially qualify as a tradable commodity. Every human could potentially be trading carbon credits, even for the most mundane things. Carbon credits is the ultimate global economic management system.


----------

