3 ms·

If emissions cease completely then there's much less need for the prize fund. The point of the prize system is that it avoids the government picking winners. Th

by mrob 7y ago

If emissions cease completely then there's much less need for the prize fund. The point of the prize system is that it avoids the government picking winners. The money is distributed by objective measurement. But admittedly "net removed carbon" (meaning carbon removed from the air - carbon released into the air by the removal process) has some subjectivity in the "by the removal process" part. What qualifies as part of the process? This problem could be avoided by limiting applicants to countries with the fossil fuel tax + import tariffs, and judging purely on carbon recovered. Just reducing consumption is not pulling carbon out of the air so it would score zero, and it's a highly ineffective solution (we've been trying it for decades, but CO2 levels keep increasing).

eru 7y ago
Reducing consumptions works quite well, if you look at eg GDP / carbon released. But so far without a carbon tax there hasn't been much incentive to reduce CO2 release in absolute levels. A gram of carbon saved is equivalent to a gram of carbon captured. > This problem could be avoided by limiting applicants to countries with the fossil fuel tax + import tariffs, and judging purely on carbon recovered. I am not sure how that's avoiding the problem at all? Btw, how would you judge the brilliant idea of growing trees?
- mrob 7y ago
  The reason I said "net carbon captured" was to avoid the "cobra effect" of people releasing carbon deliberately so they can capture it, or of people using fossil fuel powered carbon capture that releases more than it captures. If they are paying high taxes on fossil fuels then it will quickly become unprofitable, so in that case it's not a serious problem. Assuming they are not later burnt, growing trees qualifies as carbon capture. I now realize the tax would have to be on all forms of CO2 emissions, not just fossil fuels, otherwise the captured carbon would be re-burned.

by mrob 7y ago

eru 7y ago

Reducing consumptions works quite well, if you look at eg GDP / carbon released. But so far without a carbon tax there hasn't been much incentive to reduce CO2 release in absolute levels. A gram of carbon saved is equivalent to a gram of carbon captured. > This problem could be avoided by limiting applicants to countries with the fossil fuel tax + import tariffs, and judging purely on carbon recovered. I am not sure how that's avoiding the problem at all? Btw, how would you judge the brilliant idea of growing trees?

mrob 7y ago
The reason I said "net carbon captured" was to avoid the "cobra effect" of people releasing carbon deliberately so they can capture it, or of people using fossil fuel powered carbon capture that releases more than it captures. If they are paying high taxes on fossil fuels then it will quickly become unprofitable, so in that case it's not a serious problem. Assuming they are not later burnt, growing trees qualifies as carbon capture. I now realize the tax would have to be on all forms of CO2 emissions, not just fossil fuels, otherwise the captured carbon would be re-burned.