On Plantar being one of the first projects to generate emissions credits: yes, this does seem quite hypocritical and all your criticisms are quite valid. However, this does not disprove the idea of carbon trading per se. Rather, it suggests, as you mention, that it is very hard to quantify what is a carbon sink. From one perspective the inclusion of carbon sinks in the carbon trading system effectively means that scarcity is not a factor in a carbon market. Supply and demand exist in the system and supply is not constant (meaning that it is not accurate to describe the system as a cap-and-trade one, like the US acid rain system), meaning that the market equilibrium for carbon may very well settle at a point higher than desired. One imagines that if governments or others try to reduce supply the price will simply rise, giving greater incentive for the making of further carbon sinks and ultimately not shifting the market price of carbon emissions much. The creation of carbon sinks might not be desireable because they would most likely be in form of such things like fast growing bamboo and because countries would just petition for more and more of their existing forests to be counted as sinks. And so, we probably won't see a decrease in emissions due to market pressures (in fact, there could even be an increase).

A cap-and-trade system, on the contrary, would place far more pressure on emitters to come up with new, less polluting methods, as costs could only be controlled by individually emitting less or the market price going down (which would happen because everyone else is emitting less). Ultimately the carbon sink mechanisms can be seen as nothing more than a political tool, an offering by developed countries to developing ones to participate in anti-global warming efforts by providing them with a no cost method of breaking even in the reduction of carbon emissions (which is fair enough--global warming has been almost entirely caused by industrialization in the developed countries). Of course, developed countries gain a backdoor also, as they can gain credits by financing emissions reduction programs in developing countries, including carbon sinks. Only if funding carbon sinks is seen as more expensive than funding emission-reduction programs will actors on the carbon trading market be compelled to reduce their emissions. Thus, whether carbon sinks will be effective is questionable and remains to be seen.

That 1946 ticket would cost over $3000 dollars, but what was the service like? Was it comparable to first class or economy? Of course, it would have taken a lot longer, as there were no jet airliners yet. Would it have stopped over in Newfoundland? However, if the service was more like that in first class, maybe there isn't such a huge price differential.

While it's not a perfect analogy, the success of Spain and Ireland in the EU shows that poorer countries such as Romania and Bulgaria can join the EU and all can prosper. This was accomplished, of course, by massive development funds from the richest states, particularly Germany, over two decades. The success of the Central and Eastern European countries is not a given yet, though there is encouraging evidence that membership has been good, or at worst neutral, for both existing and new EU member-states. What lessons could we draw from this in the US? Put simply, prosperity can spread from the rich countries to the poorer ones in international partnerships but it takes a great investiment of money and time on the part of the rich countries to make it work. Patience and perseverance are key virtues.