3 ms·
Fundamentally I agree but only if choosing to do both, not either or. To truly reverse the emissions an individual or company has, Carbon Removal is really the
by kisamoto 6y ago
Fundamentally I agree but only if choosing to do both, not either or.
To truly reverse the emissions an individual or company has, Carbon Removal is really the only way.
Carbon credits _can_ encourage businesses to reduce their emissions (and if a company has money to help - great!) but reducing a third-parties emissions is not a green-light to justify my own wrongdoings.
If I emit a ton and pay credits to offset a ton, a ton is still out there. If I emit a ton and remove a ton I am at net zero emissions.
- bioipbiop 6y ago> If I emit a ton and pay credits to offset a ton, a ton is still out there The basic idea is to allow companies to ramp down their emissions by releasing fewer credits each year. I could see a compromise being that one carbon credit is worth a tonne of carbon emissions, but two tonnes of sequestered carbon. So companies would have to pay for the removal of some factor of what they produce.
- kisamoto 6y agoI like it - having the ability to both support sequestering and the transitioning of others with a single "credit".