Enough with the “your point is only valid if it’s 100% and mine’s valid if it’s 0.1%” bullshit.
You just want to pretend that the scam is working and will work more if it’s expanded rather than do what every single scientist with expertise in relevant areas and without tons of conflicts of interest say is the only real solution.
Which one of your complaints wasn’t about how a carbon offset system should be implemented rather than the notion itself is bad?
To say that it carbon offsets can be gamed and thus the entire system is awful is a little silly. It’s sort of like saying “too many people cheat on their taxes, we shouldn’t have taxes!” Instead of, y’know, better regulation and enforcement.
In this case, you have one of the most PR savvy people on Earth, I’d be surprised if her team didn’t find a legit carbon offset (which is exactly how we say, compensate farmers for not burning the amazon for the lucrative farmland etc.)
As for the only real solution, if you’ve been paying attention, you’ll note most of those scientists have for years suggested a carbon tax as a way to transition to net zero. Well, in the face of government inaction, carbon offsets are the free market filling the gap in the meantime. Are they imperfect? Absolutely! But are programs like this how we fund and develop the transition to net zero? Also absolutely!
They include implementing new technologies which would otherwise not be cost effective for companies, upgrading older technologies before their phase out date or just interesting projects like diverting methane from landfills to be used as natural gas.
So basically they get to pollute as much as they want so long as they pay, rather than just forcing them to implement these “non cost effective solutions”
Im sure the money goes to good things but it just seems like an inefficient solution. We should be punishing companies for their pollution, not encouraging them to pollute as much as they want so long as they pay their dues
I strongly recommend reading about carbon taxes. They’re pretty much unanimously supported in the scientific community as how to develop and implement the tech we need to get through to a zero emissions world.
Carbon offsets are as close as we currently have to such a plan right now. While imperfect, they are a start in the right direction and are already helping to fund the projects we need to fund.
Ironically, these schemes are some of the most efficient. By putting a price on carbon, we allow all corners of the free market to innovate and find solutions.
Government can’t just snap its fingers and create new carbon sequestration technology. Nor is it the best positioned to assess which new technologies are going to be the right fit for which job. (Unless you want to vastly expand and fund the civil service.)
If some company is willing to fund the green revolution, have at it. Unless you have a scheme to convince everyone to stop eating beef, flying and driving, putting a price on carbon is generally the agreed upon best solution.
Enough with the “your point is only valid if it’s 100% and mine’s valid if it’s 0.1%” bullshit.
You just want to pretend that the scam is working and will work more if it’s expanded rather than do what every single scientist with expertise in relevant areas and without tons of conflicts of interest say is the only real solution.
Which one of your complaints wasn’t about how a carbon offset system should be implemented rather than the notion itself is bad?
To say that it carbon offsets can be gamed and thus the entire system is awful is a little silly. It’s sort of like saying “too many people cheat on their taxes, we shouldn’t have taxes!” Instead of, y’know, better regulation and enforcement.
In this case, you have one of the most PR savvy people on Earth, I’d be surprised if her team didn’t find a legit carbon offset (which is exactly how we say, compensate farmers for not burning the amazon for the lucrative farmland etc.)
As for the only real solution, if you’ve been paying attention, you’ll note most of those scientists have for years suggested a carbon tax as a way to transition to net zero. Well, in the face of government inaction, carbon offsets are the free market filling the gap in the meantime. Are they imperfect? Absolutely! But are programs like this how we fund and develop the transition to net zero? Also absolutely!
The system is designed to be gamed, it’s working as intended. It’s a complete bullshit sham that isn’t doing a single thing for the climate
Here’s a list of projects from just my province.
https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/environment/climate-change/public-sector/offset-portfolio
They include implementing new technologies which would otherwise not be cost effective for companies, upgrading older technologies before their phase out date or just interesting projects like diverting methane from landfills to be used as natural gas.
So basically they get to pollute as much as they want so long as they pay, rather than just forcing them to implement these “non cost effective solutions”
Im sure the money goes to good things but it just seems like an inefficient solution. We should be punishing companies for their pollution, not encouraging them to pollute as much as they want so long as they pay their dues
I strongly recommend reading about carbon taxes. They’re pretty much unanimously supported in the scientific community as how to develop and implement the tech we need to get through to a zero emissions world.
Carbon offsets are as close as we currently have to such a plan right now. While imperfect, they are a start in the right direction and are already helping to fund the projects we need to fund.
Ironically, these schemes are some of the most efficient. By putting a price on carbon, we allow all corners of the free market to innovate and find solutions.
Government can’t just snap its fingers and create new carbon sequestration technology. Nor is it the best positioned to assess which new technologies are going to be the right fit for which job. (Unless you want to vastly expand and fund the civil service.)
If some company is willing to fund the green revolution, have at it. Unless you have a scheme to convince everyone to stop eating beef, flying and driving, putting a price on carbon is generally the agreed upon best solution.