<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss
version="2.0"
xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
> <channel><title>Comments on: Another Good Article on Good and Bad of Carbon Trading Solutions to Deforestation</title> <atom:link href="http://www.triplepundit.com/2006/10/another-good-article-on-good-and-bad-of-carbon-trading-solutions-to-deforestation/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" /><link>http://www.triplepundit.com/2006/10/another-good-article-on-good-and-bad-of-carbon-trading-solutions-to-deforestation/</link> <description>Business, Better. Since 2005</description> <lastBuildDate>Fri, 10 Feb 2012 07:33:00 +0000</lastBuildDate> <sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod> <sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency> <generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator> <item><title>By: Anonymous</title><link>http://www.triplepundit.com/2006/10/another-good-article-on-good-and-bad-of-carbon-trading-solutions-to-deforestation/comment-page-1/#comment-14270</link> <dc:creator>Anonymous</dc:creator> <pubDate>Thu, 03 Apr 2008 10:35:27 +0000</pubDate> <guid
isPermaLink="false">http://www.triplepundit.com/wordpress/2006/10/another-good-article-on-good-and-bad-of-carbon-trading-solutions-to-deforestation/#comment-14270</guid> <description>blahblahblahblahblahblahblahblah </description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>blahblahblahblahblahblahblahblah</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> <item><title>By: todbrilliant</title><link>http://www.triplepundit.com/2006/10/another-good-article-on-good-and-bad-of-carbon-trading-solutions-to-deforestation/comment-page-1/#comment-14269</link> <dc:creator>todbrilliant</dc:creator> <pubDate>Thu, 26 Oct 2006 21:26:34 +0000</pubDate> <guid
isPermaLink="false">http://www.triplepundit.com/wordpress/2006/10/another-good-article-on-good-and-bad-of-carbon-trading-solutions-to-deforestation/#comment-14269</guid> <description>An interesting twist to the debate that I haven&#039;t seen discussed is the &quot;exit strategy&quot; that carbon credits gives land owners. That is, if the $$ given for preserving forests is a one-time payment, and is equivalent to the amount paid for reforestation, would it not be more advantageous to chop the trees, reap profit as grazing land, then later reforest the land for a final windfall? Of course, there is the cost of the trees and felling/planting labor, but over the course of X years, this may be more than offset by annual income. </description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>An interesting twist to the debate that I haven&#8217;t seen discussed is the &#8220;exit strategy&#8221; that carbon credits gives land owners. That is, if the $$ given for preserving forests is a one-time payment, and is equivalent to the amount paid for reforestation, would it not be more advantageous to chop the trees, reap profit as grazing land, then later reforest the land for a final windfall? Of course, there is the cost of the trees and felling/planting labor, but over the course of X years, this may be more than offset by annual income.</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> </channel> </rss>
<!-- Performance optimized by W3 Total Cache. Learn more: http://www.w3-edge.com/wordpress-plugins/

Minified using apc
Page Caching using disk: enhanced
Object Caching 240/241 objects using disk: basic

Served from: www.triplepundit.com @ 2012-02-10 02:56:15 -->
