4 ms·

What an awful, dangerous headline. At the end of the day some economic incentive is needed to get people to put land back into forest, healthy pasture, wetlands

by gdubs 7y ago

What an awful, dangerous headline. At the end of the day some economic incentive is needed to get people to put land back into forest, healthy pasture, wetlands. This is an in-depth look at the current challenges — the lack of accountability, the potential moral hazard of cheap offsets — that comes off as reckless due to the article’s overall framing. If you believe in climate change and believe that it’s a civilization threatening crisis, then capturing carbon is critical. Healthy land is vital in that fight. What we don’t have yet — but are moving towards despite what it looks like here in the US — is more vigorous taxation of carbon to more accurately reflect the negative externalities. With high enough taxes on carbon, there would be a squeeze on the carbon credit market and prices would go up significantly. With more money on the line, people would get more serious about accurate measurement and accountability. It’s currently the Wild West — the carbon market needs to mature and become more sophisticated along side more strict pricing on carbon emissions. A less reckless article would frame the challenges we need to solve rather than blasting that credits for reforestation is bad.

nkurz 7y ago
A less reckless article would frame the challenges we need to solve rather than blasting that credits for reforestation is bad. I care a lot about environmental degradation, and I disagree. The point of the article is that the existence of carbon credits encourages people to continue their current unsustainable lifestyles rather than making deeper changes that actually work: "In case after case, I found that carbon credits hadn’t offset the amount of pollution they were supposed to, or they had brought gains that were quickly reversed or that couldn’t be accurately measured to begin with. Ultimately, the polluters got a guilt-free pass to keep emitting CO₂, but the forest preservation that was supposed to balance the ledger either never came or didn’t last." Yes, there are secondary benefits to landscape preservation, but if it is true that carbon credits are not offsetting the environmental damage that they claim to, I think it's fair to say that their existence causes harm. It is a problem if people are spending money on an expensive placebo instead of actually working toward a actual solution. I think your disagreement with the author is that you feel current carbon credit system is already a partial positive, and that the system will naturally evolve toward being more effective. Rather than a placebo, it sounds like you think it's more like an aspirin that will eventually evolve to become an actual cure . Is there evidence that points in that direction?
- gdubs 7y ago
  Forests and sustainable land-use management sequester massive amounts of carbon. Full stop. They're up on the list of recommended actions by the IPCC. We need to be doing it. And landowners aren't going to do it for free; they need to be paid. Like I said, there is a potential moral hazard with credits – companies think they can offset and continue emitting. Currently this is possible because carbon, in general, is still ridiculously inexpensive. Aggressive carbon taxes are ultimately what's going to bring down emissions. Once economic constraints are in place, you still need to reduce carbon. And again, forests are one of the best ways to do this. My problem with the article is that it's flippant towards carbon credits. It's highlighting problems with the current implementation, and using that to make a judgment about the whole idea of carbon credits. We need a carbon tax, and we need better standards of accountability. These are solvable problems.
  - tim333 7y ago
    The other moral hazard is if you pay people to not cut down forests it encourages all the worlds forest owners to request payment for leaving them alone or threatening to chop them if not paid.
  - neura 7y ago
    I don't know what the term for this is, but it's a common issue with trying to get people to stop doing something, if you make it a fiscal penalty, they're almost always more likely to do it because now you've made it OK as long as the penalty is paid. Best example I can come up with is child card services and care takers arriving late for pickup. I've seen studies that show adding a monetary penalty, even per minute at pretty high rates, results in even later pickups because there's no guilt for being late, as long as their following the rules (pay money) vs just being late, where there's some amount of guilt for not honoring the agreed upon rules. I'm guessing this has to be a similar situation. These companies can now comfortably play within the rules by just paying money. Until that amount of money is greater than any ongoing costs plus initial risks, I think we'll see companies just "paying the tax".
    - 7y ago
autokad 7y ago
> "capturing carbon is critical. Healthy land is vital in that fight." The oceans represent something like 93% of carbon capture.
- all2 7y ago
  I'm curious, do you know how water and air conditions affect carbon capture rates (and would you be willing to explain it to me)?
- mistrial9 7y ago
  reading "The State of the Carbon Cycle" 2018 USGCRP it is not so easy to sum up.. basically, there is "flux" which is the activity of both uptake and production.. the coastal zones have a lot of organic matter, so the flux is very active, while open oceans are different. Rivers carry carbon to the oceans and dump it in sediment, mostly.. do you count that ? and, the differences between anthropogenic sources, which are changing, and the base rates, which are changing more slowly, are hard to separate because we can only observe total activity as best as possible..
- woodandsteel 7y ago
  The problem is that when the oceans absorb carbon, they become more acidic.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
woodandsteel 7y ago
Can you point to any present carbon credit programs that are working well?

by gdubs 7y ago

nkurz 7y ago

A less reckless article would frame the challenges we need to solve rather than blasting that credits for reforestation is bad. I care a lot about environmental degradation, and I disagree. The point of the article is that the existence of carbon credits encourages people to continue their current unsustainable lifestyles rather than making deeper changes that actually work: "In case after case, I found that carbon credits hadn’t offset the amount of pollution they were supposed to, or they had brought gains that were quickly reversed or that couldn’t be accurately measured to begin with. Ultimately, the polluters got a guilt-free pass to keep emitting CO₂, but the forest preservation that was supposed to balance the ledger either never came or didn’t last." Yes, there are secondary benefits to landscape preservation, but if it is true that carbon credits are not offsetting the environmental damage that they claim to, I think it's fair to say that their existence causes harm. It is a problem if people are spending money on an expensive placebo instead of actually working toward a actual solution. I think your disagreement with the author is that you feel current carbon credit system is already a partial positive, and that the system will naturally evolve toward being more effective. Rather than a placebo, it sounds like you think it's more like an aspirin that will eventually evolve to become an actual cure . Is there evidence that points in that direction?

gdubs 7y ago
Forests and sustainable land-use management sequester massive amounts of carbon. Full stop. They're up on the list of recommended actions by the IPCC. We need to be doing it. And landowners aren't going to do it for free; they need to be paid. Like I said, there is a potential moral hazard with credits – companies think they can offset and continue emitting. Currently this is possible because carbon, in general, is still ridiculously inexpensive. Aggressive carbon taxes are ultimately what's going to bring down emissions. Once economic constraints are in place, you still need to reduce carbon. And again, forests are one of the best ways to do this. My problem with the article is that it's flippant towards carbon credits. It's highlighting problems with the current implementation, and using that to make a judgment about the whole idea of carbon credits. We need a carbon tax, and we need better standards of accountability. These are solvable problems.
- tim333 7y ago
  The other moral hazard is if you pay people to not cut down forests it encourages all the worlds forest owners to request payment for leaving them alone or threatening to chop them if not paid.
- neura 7y ago
  I don't know what the term for this is, but it's a common issue with trying to get people to stop doing something, if you make it a fiscal penalty, they're almost always more likely to do it because now you've made it OK as long as the penalty is paid. Best example I can come up with is child card services and care takers arriving late for pickup. I've seen studies that show adding a monetary penalty, even per minute at pretty high rates, results in even later pickups because there's no guilt for being late, as long as their following the rules (pay money) vs just being late, where there's some amount of guilt for not honoring the agreed upon rules. I'm guessing this has to be a similar situation. These companies can now comfortably play within the rules by just paying money. Until that amount of money is greater than any ongoing costs plus initial risks, I think we'll see companies just "paying the tax".
  - 7y ago

autokad 7y ago

> "capturing carbon is critical. Healthy land is vital in that fight." The oceans represent something like 93% of carbon capture.

all2 7y ago
I'm curious, do you know how water and air conditions affect carbon capture rates (and would you be willing to explain it to me)?
mistrial9 7y ago
reading "The State of the Carbon Cycle" 2018 USGCRP it is not so easy to sum up.. basically, there is "flux" which is the activity of both uptake and production.. the coastal zones have a lot of organic matter, so the flux is very active, while open oceans are different. Rivers carry carbon to the oceans and dump it in sediment, mostly.. do you count that ? and, the differences between anthropogenic sources, which are changing, and the base rates, which are changing more slowly, are hard to separate because we can only observe total activity as best as possible..
woodandsteel 7y ago
The problem is that when the oceans absorb carbon, they become more acidic.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

woodandsteel 7y ago

Can you point to any present carbon credit programs that are working well?