http://www.eia-international.org/exp...er-next-decade

The Environmental Investigation Agency is warning of a possible disaster
if China bans trading of climate credits for the incineration of HFC-23,
thus making it no longer financially viable to destroy the gas, which is
15,000 times more damaging to the climate than CO2.

I don't want to start a war here, but what do people who know about such
things think of this.

Hugh

--

Hugh Newbury

www.evershot-weather.org

On Tuesday, June 25, 2013 9:11:38 AM UTC+1, Hugh Newbury wrote:
http://www.eia-international.org/exp...er-next-decade



The Environmental Investigation Agency is warning of a possible disaster

if China bans trading of climate credits for the incineration of HFC-23,

thus making it no longer financially viable to destroy the gas, which is

15,000 times more damaging to the climate than CO2.



I don't want to start a war here, but what do people who know about such

things think of this.



Hugh



--



Hugh Newbury



www.evershot-weather.org

I wonder if this is just brinkmanship by Beijing, possibly trying to gain leverage over not devaluing the renminbi? A devaluation there could create a credit crunch that would dwarf what happened in the west in 2008. There's a political angle there somewhere

On 25/06/2013 09:11, Hugh Newbury wrote:

http://www.eia-international.org/exp...er-next-decade


The Environmental Investigation Agency is warning of a possible disaster
if China bans trading of climate credits for the incineration of HFC-23,
thus making it no longer financially viable to destroy the gas, which is
15,000 times more damaging to the climate than CO2.

I don't want to start a war here, but what do people who know about such
things think of this.

It isn't really news. This carbon credits scam was identified 5 years
ago and now industry is kicking back against attempts to prevent abuse.

They were making more money by making the impurity and trading credits
than by selling the end product refridgerant. Utter policy madness!

See for example:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/...l#.UclkwfnVB8E

(not sure if there is a paywall in the way) Google "HFC 23 CDM UNFCCC"
and you should get a direct link and maybe a cached copy.


--
Regards,
Martin Brown

Third time lucky? Apologies if this is an apparent repeat.

On 26/06/13 08:16, Martin Brown wrote:
On 25/06/2013 09:11, Hugh Newbury wrote:

http://www.eia-international.org/exp...er-next-decade



The Environmental Investigation Agency is warning of a possible disaster
if China bans trading of climate credits for the incineration of HFC-23,
thus making it no longer financially viable to destroy the gas, which is
15,000 times more damaging to the climate than CO2.

I don't want to start a war here, but what do people who know about such
things think of this.

It isn't really news. This carbon credits scam was identified 5 years
ago and now industry is kicking back against attempts to prevent abuse.

They were making more money by making the impurity and trading credits
than by selling the end product refridgerant. Utter policy madness!

See for example:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/...l#.UclkwfnVB8E


(not sure if there is a paywall in the way) Google "HFC 23 CDM UNFCCC"
and you should get a direct link and maybe a cached copy.



Thanks Martin. I had no idea it was old news, and I read the NS too! I
actually got this from the FT, where it is behind a paywall.

Hugh

--

Hugh Newbury

www.evershot-weather.org

On Wednesday, 26 June 2013 08:16:56 UTC+1, Martin Brown wrote:
On 25/06/2013 09:11, Hugh Newbury wrote: http://www.eia-international.org/exp...er-next-decade The Environmental Investigation Agency is warning of a possible disaster if China bans trading of climate credits for the incineration of HFC-23, thus making it no longer financially viable to destroy the gas, which is 15,000 times more damaging to the climate than CO2. I don't want to start a war here, but what do people who know about such things think of this. It isn't really news. This carbon credits scam was identified 5 years ago and now industry is kicking back against attempts to prevent abuse. They were making more money by making the impurity and trading credits than by selling the end product refridgerant. Utter policy madness! See for example: http://www.newscientist.com/article/...l#.UclkwfnVB8E (not sure if there is a paywall in the way) Google "HFC 23 CDM UNFCCC" and you should get a direct link and maybe a cached copy. -- Regards, Martin Brown Third time lucky? Apologies if this is an apparent repeat.

Another point about this is that HFC-23, which is nothing more than trifluoromethane or fluoroform (CHF3) is, according to my knowledge, not a substance that destroys the ozone layer though it certainly chemically resembles those that do. Its production is therefore limited by fewer protocols than a known ozone-depleter.

Tudor Hughes, Warlingham, Surrey

On 28/06/2013 01:14, Tudor Hughes wrote:
On Wednesday, 26 June 2013 08:16:56 UTC+1, Martin Brown wrote:
On 25/06/2013 09:11, Hugh Newbury wrote: http://www.eia-international.org/exp...er-next-decade The Environmental Investigation Agency is warning of a possible disaster if China bans trading of climate credits for the incineration of HFC-23, thus making it no longer financially viable to destroy the gas, which is 15,000 times more damaging to the climate than CO2. I don't want to start a war here, but what do people who know about such things think of this. It isn't really news. This carbon credits scam was identified 5 years ago and now industry is kicking back against attempts to prevent abuse. They were making more money by making the impurity and trading credits than by selling the end product refridgerant. Utter policy madness! See for example: http://www.newscientist.com/article/...l#.UclkwfnVB8E (not sure if there is a paywall in the way) Google "HFC 23 CDM UNFCCC
" and you should get a direct link and maybe a cached copy. -- Regards, Martin Brown Third time lucky? Apologies if this is an apparent repeat.

Another point about this is that HFC-23, which is nothing more than trifluoromethane or fluoroform (CHF3) is, according to my knowledge, not a substance that destroys the ozone layer though it certainly chemically resembles those that do. Its production is therefore limited by fewer protocols than a known ozone-depleter.

Tudor Hughes, Warlingham, Surrey

All the HFC compounds are less enduring than the ozone depleting CFCs
that they replaced and degrade somewhat more rapidly in the atmosphere.
However, this one is a very potent GHG and relatively stable.

It is a few thousands of time more effective as a GHG than CO2 and stays
around for about a half life of 300 years.

Not a good idea to be pumping it out just for the hell of it.

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/news/quarte...increases.html

The carbon credits market is corrupt and corrupting and has become
nothing more than a vehicle for spivs and speculators and merchandise
free carousel fraud. Basically just what you expect from bankers.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown