Castwell's Fed-Up LLC

JC, glad to see the old American way to fame and fortune still alive. It appears you are going up against the DNR here, but then competion is good and always leads to a better product or service....sometimes. I think I once saw a DNR stainless tanker dumping some fingerlings into a stream and another time a lake. It has been good to know all that tossing and turning at night after a day of releasing a little smolt and watching it turn belly up and float ondown into Snapping Turtle range will now be made up by the good deeds of FED UP LLC.
Your competition will be a boon to the reproduction of our sport and the satisfaction knowing even the little guy can move a mountain when it comes to conservation. Do you take PayPal?

I, for one, cannot figure what the problem is with
the idea of CO2 credits(which Castwell seems to be
casting aspersions to). I mean, many folks point out that emissions control would be hard on the Western nation's economies, so if purchase of CO2 credits
goes toward easing of that economic strain(which it
would, in some small way), where is the harm. Odd, I mostly tend to hear such allusions from the same folks who disparage the whole concept of man-made
global warming, which might well impact the whole
sport of trout fishing in this part of the world.
What might be the connection?

The basic concept of Renewable Energy Credits (REC's), which seems to be the term used by the companies issuing them and their major proponents, is not the problem. The basic proposition is this: for whatever energy consumption you cannot feasibly replace with renewable sources of energy in stead of carbon emitting sources, you donate the amount of money that would produce the equivalent amount of renewable energy.

Well, if that were how it were being done, that wouldn't be such a bad idea. But that is NOT how it is being done. Instead, it's a blatant confidence game that sells pollution indulgences at grossly discounted rates, claiming "benefits" to the environment hundreds or even thousands of times greater (future benefit) than the actual dollar amount spent could acquire NOW...let alone years down the road. Furthermore, people purchase these credits from firms set up by the very people encouraging folks to purchase them, and those folks take a windfall profit from these purchases by playing on people's guilt. And...in the meantime...everybody keeps on polluting. They just now feel better about it.

Helping folks feel better about polluting is NOT a sound conservation strategy. That is intuitively obvious to the casual observer! Say you see someone tossing trash into your favorite trout stream. You walk up and say, "Wow! That's horrible, isn't it? Stream pollution. But if you pay me $5 each day you fish, you can still toss that trash in the river; but I will donate that money to the Boy Scouts for you and they will clean up your mess. Isn't that great?" So the guy agrees and hands you $5. He goes on downstream and tosses his beer can in the river guilt-free. Then, you donate $1 to the Boy Scouts, who tell you they can't clean up the stream for less than $100 to cover logistics costs. So you go out and get 20 polluters to donate the $5 each. And these 20 folks are dumping way more trash in the river than the BSA can clean up per outing on $100 to cover expenses. But those 20 guys are now "guilt-free" polluters. So they even pollute MORE. But you're making $4/person per day of fishing and claiming to be cleaning up the stream...which is just getting worse. Get the picture?

Well, that would be BETTER than what's going on with RECs! REC's make NO CLAIM to actually reduce carbon emissions. They claim that they will...SOMEDAY...with ZERO guarantees.

Great explanation, SM.... I was trying to explain this to someone over the weekend, but I couldn't quite put it in such good words... maybe it was the beer?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hazmat

Great explanation, SM.... I was trying to explain this to someone over the weekend, but I couldn't quite put it in such good words... maybe it was the beer?

---

Call me crazy, but I have a fundamental problem with anyone calling themselves an environmentalist or conservationist because they PAY OTHERS NOT TO POLLUTE while they THEMSELVES go right on polluting way more than the average person.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SilverMallard

The basic concept of Renewable Energy Credits (REC's), which seems to be the term used by the companies issuing them and their major proponents, is not the problem. The basic proposition is this: for whatever energy consumption you cannot feasibly replace with renewable sources of energy in stead of carbon emitting sources, you donate the amount of money that would produce the equivalent amount of renewable energy.

Well, if that were how it were being done, that wouldn't be such a bad idea. But that is NOT how it is being done. Instead, it's a blatant confidence game that sells pollution indulgences at grossly discounted rates, claiming "benefits" to the environment hundreds or even thousands of times greater (future benefit) than the actual dollar amount spent could acquire NOW...let alone years down the road. Furthermore, people purchase these credits from firms set up by the very people encouraging folks to purchase them, and those folks take a windfall profit from these purchases by playing on people's guilt. And...in the meantime...everybody keeps on polluting. They just now feel better about it.

Helping folks feel better about polluting is NOT a sound conservation strategy. That is intuitively obvious to the casual observer! Say you see someone tossing trash into your favorite trout stream. You walk up and say, "Wow! That's horrible, isn't it? Stream pollution. But if you pay me $5 each day you fish, you can still toss that trash in the river; but I will donate that money to the Boy Scouts for you and they will clean up your mess. Isn't that great?" So the guy agrees and hands you $5. He goes on downstream and tosses his beer can in the river guilt-free. Then, you donate $1 to the Boy Scouts, who tell you they can't clean up the stream for less than $100 to cover logistics costs. So you go out and get 20 polluters to donate the $5 each. And these 20 folks are dumping way more trash in the river than the BSA can clean up per outing on $100 to cover expenses. But those 20 guys are now "guilt-free" polluters. So they even pollute MORE. But you're making $4/person per day of fishing and claiming to be cleaning up the stream...which is just getting worse. Get the picture?

Well, that would be BETTER than what's going on with RECs! REC's make NO CLAIM to actually reduce carbon emissions. They claim that they will...SOMEDAY...with ZERO guarantees.

---

You are a scholar and a gentleman, Sir! My hat is off to you.
You are the first person I have heard from lately that even understands the issue.

Bravo!

This all sounds like a table top game that used to be popular at the carnivals.
It was called "Tossing the Broad".
You take tree cards, one of which is a Queen and then slightly fold the cards. Place them all face down and move them about the table very gently in random patterns. Allow the "guest " to fing the "Queen" a few times. Of course the game gets a little better with a friendly wager. You get the point of course . In the end the guest leaves with very little. When done correctly the guest doesnt even know that hes been had . He leaves with the feeling that he was just soooo darn close :lol: .PT Barnum was credited with a phrase about these folkes.
Thats what carbon credits are . Tossing the public. SilverMallard hit it pretty well on the head. Theres a lot more to it, but his is a pretty good readers digest short version. If you care to study carbon credits it makes a good read.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by perch

This all sounds like a table top game that used to be popular at the carnivals.
It was called "Tossing the Broad".
You take tree cards, one of which is a Queen and then slightly fold the cards. Place them all face down and move them about the table very gently in random patterns. Allow the "guest " to fing the "Queen" a few times. Of course the game gets a little better with a friendly wager. You get the point of course . In the end the guest leaves with very little. When done correctly the guest doesnt even know that hes been had . He leaves with the feeling that he was just soooo darn close :lol: .PT Barnum was credited with a phrase about these folkes.
Thats what carbon credits are . Tossing the public. SilverMallard hit it pretty well on the head. Theres a lot more to it, but his is a pretty good readers digest short version. If you care to study carbon credits it makes a good read.

---

Thanks. Cuz "Reader's Digest Condensed Versions" are NOT my forte! :lol: