An overview of various bills and pieces of legislation that mention or involve carbon credits. However, since I do not have access to real-time legislative databases, I can only offer general information based on historical and notable bills up until my knowledge cutoff in 2023.

Carbon credits are often included in bills related to climate change, environmental protection, and carbon emissions reduction. Here are some notable examples of U.S. legislation and proposals that have referenced or been associated with carbon credits:

1. American Clean Energy and Security Act (ACES) of 2009              
•  Overview: This bill, often referred to as the Waxman-Markey Bill, was a significant piece of climate change legislation that passed the House of Representatives but stalled in the Senate. It included provisions for a cap-and-trade system, which would have created a market for carbon credits.
• Carbon Credit Provisions: The bill aimed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by creating a system where businesses could buy and sell allowances (carbon credits) to meet emission reduction targets. It was a central feature of the bill's approach to limiting emissions.

2. Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act (CEJAPA) of 2009
• Overview: Introduced in the Senate by Senators John Kerry and Barbara Boxer, this bill was another attempt to address climate change by creating a cap-and-trade system.
• Carbon Credit Provisions: Similar to ACES, the bill proposed carbon allowances that could be traded, effectively creating a carbon credit market for companies to buy and sell carbon emissions allowances.

3. Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) Legislation
• Overview: Various bills related to carbon capture and storage have mentioned carbon credits as a way to incentivize businesses to adopt CCS technologies. These bills are aimed at reducing carbon emissions through direct removal of CO2 from industrial processes.
• Carbon Credit Provisions: In some of these proposals, carbon credits were offered as a reward for companies that capture and store carbon emissions in permanent geological formations.

4. Energy Innovation and Carbon Dividend Act (EICDA)
• Overview: This proposed bill aims to reduce carbon emissions by implementing a carbon fee at the source of fossil fuel production and distribution, with revenue returned to the public in the form of dividends.
• Carbon Credit Provisions: Though not strictly a cap-and-trade system, carbon credits have been discussed in relation to this proposal as a mechanism to offset emissions or generate additional revenues for projects like carbon sequestration or renewable energy.

5. Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) 2021
• Overview: While not primarily focused on carbon credits, this bill includes provisions for funding various climate-related projects and technologies, including those that support the creation of carbon credits (such as carbon capture technologies and renewable energy initiatives).
• Carbon Credit Provisions: The act mentions funding for carbon reduction projects and environmental justice initiatives that could potentially link to carbon credit markets, especially in the context of promoting low-carbon technologies.

6. Build Back Better Act (2021)
• Overview: While the Build Back Better Act did not pass in its original form, it contained various provisions related to climate change and carbon emissions reduction.
• Carbon Credit Provisions: Among its provisions, the bill proposed tax incentives for carbon sequestration and other technologies that could generate carbon credits. These credits could be traded or used to meet compliance targets for emissions reductions.

7. Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act)
• Overview: Passed in 2021, the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act contained several provisions for climate and energy-related projects, some of which could involve carbon credit schemes.
• Carbon Credit Provisions: Funding for renewable energy and carbon capture projects could create opportunities for generating and trading carbon credits, although carbon credits themselves were not the main focus.

8. The Paris Agreement (Global Agreements, with U.S. Participation)
• Overview: While not a U.S. bill, the Paris Agreement includes carbon credit mechanisms like Article 6, which creates a framework for carbon credit trading between countries.
• Carbon Credit Provisions: Under Article 6 of the Paris Agreement, countries can trade carbon credits to meet their emission reduction targets. The U.S., as a signatory, is involved in international carbon credit markets, and there have been discussions about how domestic legislation might align with these international rules.

9. State-Level Legislation
• California Cap-and-Trade Program: One of the most notable state-level programs in the U.S., California's cap-and-trade system, involves carbon credits as part of its broader emissions reduction strategy. This system allows businesses to buy and sell carbon credits to meet state-imposed emission reduction targets.  
• Other States: States like Washington, New York, and Oregon have also proposed or implemented carbon credit systems, sometimes as part of broader cap-and-trade or carbon pricing frameworks.

10. International Carbon Credit Legislation
• European Union Emissions Trading System (EU ETS): While this is not a U.S. bill, it is one of the largest carbon credit systems globally and has influenced U.S. discussions on carbon pricing and trading.

Carbon credits are tracked through a system called carbon credit registries, which are managed by both government bodies and private entities. Here’s an overview of how the process works:

 1. Issuance of Credits: Carbon credits are issued when a company or organization demonstrates they have reduced greenhouse gas emissions by a certain amount, typically equivalent to one metric ton of carbon dioxide (CO2) or its equivalent in other greenhouse gases. (IE Methane =25 CO2 Credits) These credits can be generated from various activities, such as renewable energy projects, forest conservation, or carbon capture technologies.  

2. Registration: Once a project generates carbon credits, they are registered with a carbon credit registry. These registries are centralized platforms that keep track of the issuance, transfer, and retirement of carbon credits. Major registries include the Verified Carbon Standard (VCS), Gold Standard, and California's cap-and-trade system (for California's carbon market), among others.  

3. Tracking and Verification: Carbon credits are tracked through unique serial numbers that ensure they are not double-counted or sold more than once. Each credit is associated with a specific project that has been verified by third-party auditors to ensure the claimed emissions reduction is real, additional (wouldn’t have happened otherwise), and permanent.  

4. Trading and Transfer: Carbon credits can be bought, sold, and traded on markets. These markets can be voluntary (e.g., for companies offsetting their carbon emissions) or compliance-based (e.g., in the case of a government-regulated emissions reduction system). When carbon credits are transferred, the registry updates the ownership and ensures that the credits are retired once used for their intended purpose (e.g., offsetting emissions).

5. Retirement: When a carbon credit is used to offset emissions or meet regulatory requirements, it is "retired" from the registry. This means it is no longer available for trade or reuse. The retirement process ensures that the credits are only counted once toward emissions reductions. This system helps prevent fraud and ensures transparency in the carbon credit market. It also ensures that carbon reductions are tracked efficiently, providing credibility to the carbon offsetting process.

The following is a response I made via email to a newspaper reporter:

I chose not to answer anymore of the dialog going on when everyone was copied. I am completely dismayed at the brazen disregard for human life. It is not that people don’t know that the cobalt mines are killing kids in their 20’s. Kids in third world countries are forced to the mines, not by choice, but by force. The completely illogical conclusion in the last email string helped me become more aware that my conversation is not met with sincerity, but with agenda only mindsets.

This is slavery.

We —the powerful United States—require third world countries to commit to never use any hydrocarbon power in their process. If they don’t agree, the U.S. forbids them to trade with the world. What are they supposed to do? It’s simply slavery. We are so happy they don’t have to starve to death in our country. But they can starve in their own country.

The rational that a person can put solar at their house, and everything will be alright is as inconceivable of a concept to me as anything I have heard. Do you really think they care about having enough power to run an air conditioner, or turning on a light? The narrative that they cannot build a power grid to serve all the houses is illogical. How about they build power plants that can generate power for a factory. They can work on serving homes in the future. Maybe the homes can be served by solar. To restrict their ability to thrive will be our guilt. We get the feel-good moment to use our electric vehicles and solar panels while we know and ignore that the chemicals involved to make them are killing kids in third world countries. They need power that only (at this point) hydrocarbon power can deliver.

Third world countries cannot run factories and generate high volumes of goods to trade with the world from wind and solar. Battery back-up cannot generate heat to make plastics, metals, carbon fiber, process other materials. Process this….. in the early 90s there was great panic that coal fired power plants were spewing contaminants into the atmosphere. They required scrubbers to be put on the smokestacks to correct the issue. These power plants hired the best engineers in the world to design and implement millions of dollars into getting the desired out come. (You are emitting xyz at this level, and we need it to be x) The engineers designed the equipment to achieve the requirement. After millions of dollars and good faith expenses, now the goal post has been moved to say, ummm not enough. Why? Who made the decision that certain elements must be cleaned, but now it’s not enough. This insincerity is killing a nation, and killing young children all over the world, all driven by power and greed.

I am absolutely certain that many people in the 17 & 1800’s watched slavery happen and did nothing to stop it. Sure, they didn’t participate, in fact they may have voted for it, but they saw it happen and did nothing but defend the slave owners for their greed as well. I am no scientist, I am not a coal miner, I am a critical thinker who once I begin to unravel the deception, I search it to the end.

Many times when missionaries are teaching someone, the person they are teaching reaches out to their current pastor or religious leader to be at a discussion. Why? Its because they don’t feel comfortable with what they know and they trust others rather than doing their own research. It’s easier to just blindly trust others to defend what is becoming more and more indefensible. If your true concern is that of the port and the money behind it, I am certain that there will be adequate accounting for the money so that there is not an abuse of tax dollars.

Marlo Oaks is our elected State Treasurer. Does he have concerns? I don’t know, but I do trust that he is watching the money. We have an elected Legislature that seems to be conservative. They will watch the dollars.

Please don’t assume that I wrote any portion of this email in anger or frustration, it is written simply to encourage you to do your own research. Try to search it on your own. Lets make sure we are not holding others in slavery for our own greed. We are… We all shop the discount stores like Walmart, Amazon etc. Their profit is in the purchasing, not is raising the prices of goods. They can only purchase at unbelievable prices if third world countries are kept in poverty. If you really want to understand what is happening on a larger scale, ask yourself why the United Nations require third world countries to teach in their schools that homosexuality is an acceptable union. If they teach it, they can have access to aids vaccines, if they don’t they will not be permitted to access the medication to fight against aids. I have read the agreements.

Just do your own research. I am not trying to change the mindset of your entire friend group, but maybe I can save this one starfish and it will make a difference.

The expense that illegal immigration is having on our schools, doctors/hospitals and our roads is without calculation. One first stab at the issue would be to charge the originating country where the illegal aliens came from, “their country of origin” for the education of the children. I realize that the country of origin is not going to pay the United States a big fat check, but we can charge it against the trade imbalance of their country. The schools, doctors, police etc can gather this information as they function in their respective responsibilities.

The same could happen with crime. Charge the legal system expenses against a trade imbalance. Those in our country driving illegally and cause an accident while not insured, charge against the imbalance. These are not bad people. These are people who seek a better way of life, and I welcome them. However, they must come the legal and correct way.

There are many who are trying to immigrate the right way, but at this point will have no chance to get to the U.S. legally because the system is overwhelmed by those who came in illegally. While there is no question that the boarder is wide open, we must realize there is nothing stopping those who are here with the intent of destroying the United States.

WHEREAS, production of natural resources on federal lands; including coal, oil, natural gas, and timber is critical to the American economy and the Sanpete way of life-while decreasing America's reliance on foreign imports and enhancing our geopolitical security; and WHEREAS, mismanagement of federal lands, including reductions in timber harvesting, prescribed burning, and vegetation treatments has contributed to the degradation of certain federal lands and increased the risk of catastrophic wildfires, insect infestations, and watershed impairment; and WHEREAS, the principles of multiple use and sustained yield, as enshrined in the Federal Lands Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA), outline a path to protect land and water in the United States; while simultaneously balancing the sustainable use and extraction of natural resources from federal land for the benefit of the American people and recreational enjoyment of the same; and WHEREAS, FLPMA requires the United States Forest Service to coordinate with local governments and attempt to achieve consistency with local government plans to the greatest degree possible; and WHEREAS, the extraction of natural resources, agriculture, and recreation-based tourism on federal lands in Sanpete County is the primary engine of economic activity in the County- providing high paying jobs, mineral lease royalties, sales and property taxes paid by the natural resource industry and associated industries, and revenues created by tourism; NOW THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE MANTI CITY COUNCIL: 1. The Manti City Council hereby opposes any additional conservation protections or restrictions placed on federal lands within Sanpete County in pursuit of the current Forest Service Land Management Plan and Executive Order 14008 without the express written consent of the Sanpete County Commission.