8 ms·

> P.P.S. We're offsetting by 3x every bit of CO2 this creates via Cool Effect. Is this really how this carbon offset thing works? You release a bunch of green

by Alupis 6y ago

> P.P.S. We're offsetting by 3x every bit of CO2 this creates via Cool Effect. Is this really how this carbon offset thing works? You release a bunch of greenhouse gases - but it's "OK" because you pay money to some organization that might eventually plant some trees (or use your money to buy/rent fossil-fuel-burning machinery to orchestrate the planting of trees)? Seems like guilt-avoidance to me.

dwaltrip 6y ago
You are implying that carbon-offsetting is some sort of sham that doesn't do what it says it does. Can you please provide sources to backup your claims?
greenshackle2 6y ago
It is basically self-imposed carbon credits, since carbon credits are not politically viable or something.
zacmps 6y ago
Something like https://teamtrees.org/ https://teamtrees.org/ or https://trees.org/ https://trees.org/ seems like a more direct approach to me.
- Alupis 6y ago
  Seems exactly the same to me. You pay some other organization some amount of money, and now you get a free pass to do whatever you want. I had no idea this was really what everyone was talking about with carbon offsets.
  - danans 6y ago
    This: > You pay some other organization some amount of money, contradicts this: > and now you get a free pass and you aren't allowed > to do whatever you want. You pay for a specific amount of carbon offsetting, so you don't get to claim carbon neutrality if you exceed the amount you offset. Of course given that this is all voluntary someone could lie, but that would be asshole behavior, and if you did it at scale (i.e. if a corporation lied about it), you would be discredited - in reputation and potentially be facing civil lawsuits.
boston_sre87 6y ago
Yep, it is.
eat_veggies 6y ago
Yes, it's more than a bit like paying indulgences to the church to absolve yourself of sins. That's how a lot of companies can be "carbon neutral" by purchasing offsets and credits. I believe Tesla makes a significant amount of its money by selling these offsets to other companies.
- Alupis 6y ago
  Really? Even though the lithium for Tesla batteries is incredibly damaging to the environment to mine? Are we all buying into 21st Century Snake Oil here?
  - bpodgursky 6y ago
    It's really not, compared to uh, oil. And battery recycling technology is always improving. By the time the current Model 3s are retired, the vast majority of Lithium batteries will be recycled into new cars: > By 2025, it is estimated that about three-quarters of spent electric batteries will be reused and then recycled to harvest raw materials. https://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/renewable/the-afterlife-of-electric-vehicles-battery-recycling-and-repurposing/ https://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/renewable/the-aft...
  - ianlevesque 6y ago
    There are actual standards for the credits so that people don’t buy snake oil.
- jackdeansmith 6y ago
  If sin were a globally distributed problem where: 1. the aggregate amount of sin in the world caused suffering 2. indulgences actually reduced the aggregate amount of sin in the world then the indulgence system would make perfect sense. I agree there are problems with offsets and many of them aren't credible, but this indulgences metaphor has never made sense to me.
core-questions 6y ago
That's the gist of carbon credits and taxation, yes. The idea is that the finances work as a disincentive at scale, but in reality if your business has no other way to operate, you're just going to pay the tax and live with it. The airshed is, of course, indifferent to our financial games... Now, if it actually works to change your behaviour so that you don't emit as much carbon because you can profit on the difference, well, hey! That's a good thing! But I don't think most industries can just stop on a dime and pivot like that.... it may provide incentives in the long term, or it just might end up with all the costs passed back to the consumer, who may or may not actually have a choice where to spend their money. This is basically the worst case scenario, where it just ends up being a financial game and doesn't improve anything. I hear that the solution in this case is just to ramp it up higher so that it eventually forces people to demand change; but they might just demand a change to the tax if no other options are forthcoming. There's also the matter of catabolic processes, i.e. where something that emits less carbon is only financially feasible because of subsidies / taxes / etc. and in reality does not make economic sense to do. Any energy-generating technology that is not actually profitable without this is arguably taking in more energy than it produces, in the form of the externalities needed to enable it (i.e. fossil fuels that go into the building and maintenance of green energy projects).
Minor49er 6y ago
Penn and Teller came to the same conclusion on their show "Bullshit" back in 2008: https://ptbs.typepad.com/penn_teller_bullshit/ep_606_being_green/ https://ptbs.typepad.com/penn_teller_bullshit/ep_606_being_g... It's basically this millennium's version of the Catholic Church's indulgences.
- dwaltrip 6y ago
  From your link: > There is evidence for global warming, though there's considerable reason to believe this is simply part of a natural cycle. There is some evidence that humans may contribute at least a bit to the change (though many sources suggest that human pollution is insignificant compared with forest fires, volcanos, etc.). This is underhanded, weasel-word denialism. "Many sources suggest" my ass... Let's not give any credibility to this kind of bullshit.
  - La1n 6y ago
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penn_%26_Teller:_Bullshit!#Libertarianism https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penn_%26_Teller:_Bullshit!#L... The show pretends to be just about calling out "bullshit", but sprinkles in a lot of politics and opinions.
  - yreg 6y ago
    They also did an episode about recycling being bullshit, which was full of misinformation. Great magicians, but dishonest skeptics.
    - savanaly 6y ago
      But doesn't everyone sort of agree now that it really is bullshit? Were they right but for the wrong reasons?
      - jackdeansmith 6y ago
        Plastic recycling is mostly B.S., it's difficult and so energy intensive that it's usually better for the environment to landfill the old plastic and make new stuff. Metal and paper recycling is very environmentally sound though.
MCOfficer 6y ago
Yes, it is. But it's still a LOT better than silently ignoring it, which is the standard today.
- read_if_gay_ 6y ago
  Ignoring burning a few sheets of paper. The horror.
smarx007 6y ago
Carbon Offsetting is a practice frequently applied to go Carbon Neutral or Carbon Negative. For some reason, Net Zero is considered "more comprehensive" than Carbon Neutral according to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_neutrality https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_neutrality. What you are expecting is what many call Zero Carbon (and obviously the right path to aim for).
danans 6y ago
> You release a bunch of greenhouse gases - but it's "OK" because you pay money to some organization It's about cleaning up after yourself. Clearly in the case of this machine, whose carbon impact is tiny compared to nearly every other combustion based machinery we use, the intent is symbolic. > ...that might eventually plant some trees (or use your money to buy/rent fossil-fuel-burning machinery to orchestrate the planting of trees)? For a reputable carbon offset, those carbon costs are accounted for in the offset, so even with them, it's a net-negative carbon transaction. > Seems like guilt-avoidance to me. That's besides the point. If it offsets the carbon produced, then it works, and it doesn't matter what the psychological motivation is. But I agree that there is a problem with offsets: In a saner world we'd be imposing carbon taxes instead of this, but this is where we are today, with CO2 mitigation effectively taking the form of "donations".
- Alupis 6y ago
  Many organizations with good intent and survive on donations end up astray - see Red Cross and Haiti. Donating money to some organization that claims they will plant trees to offset some amount of greenhouse gas emissions is a lot like trusting the American Red Cross to build houses and schools after a disaster. You're hoping they do what they promise (and instead of doing that, the American Red Cross billed majority of the donations as "Administrative Fees"[1]). So, in reality you may or may not be "cleaning up after yourself". Actually, you're not cleaning up after yourself... you're outsourcing that job (and don't actually care if it gets done) so you can feel free to release more greenhouse gases. [1] https://www.npr.org/2015/06/03/411524156/in-search-of-the-red-cross-500-million-in-haiti-relief https://www.npr.org/2015/06/03/411524156/in-search-of-the-re...
  - markdown 6y ago
    > see American Red Cross and Haiti. FTFY. The Red Cross is a reputable organisation that does wonderful work across the developing world. The American Red Cross is the corrupt one.
    - Alupis 6y ago
teraflop 6y ago
You could apply the same logic to any economic activity. You mean I can just take a book from a bookstore, depriving others of the chance to read it, and it's somehow "OK" because I paid money to some organization that might eventually use it to print another copy?
- abraae 6y ago
  Not the same. Stealing books from a bookshop - ILLEGAL. Pumping CO2 into the air and contributing to the global ecosystem's destruction - LEGAL.
  - sellyme 6y ago
    Who's talking about stealing?
landryraccoon 6y ago
This is a counterproductive attitude. If you pit climate responsibility against people living their lives, climate responsibility will lose, full stop. In the short term, human beings are the way they are, and you won't be able to change human nature before the climate is destroyed. People offsetting their consumption is way, way better than people saying "If you just want me to suffer, fuck it. I'm going to embrace being an asshole and do what I want." For example, I'm going to throw some logs on the fireplace over Christmas. I can either find a way to offset my emissions elsewhere, or just say fuck it, those environmentalists are assholes so screw them. It's probably better for both of us if I donate, because not having a fire is off the table.
- Razengan 6y ago
  At some point someone with more money than you is saying fuck it, their comfort is more important than yours, and you’re just going to have to suck it up.
- TedDoesntTalk 6y ago
  > I can either find a way to offset my emissions elsewhere, or just say fuck it, You could also, you know, not burn firewood? There’s a reason no home built in the last 20 years in many states do not have wood-burning fireplaces.
  - scrollaway 6y ago
    You're making the GPs point quite nicely, in that it absolutely doesn't sound like it's worth dealing with you, and it's making me want to throw my hands in the air and say "fuck it, if I try to offset my emissions I'll just get whiners like TedDoesntTalk all up in my face, so i might as well not offset anything". You're making things worse. So, from one fellow environmentalist to another, keep it to yourself, for the good of the planet.
  - webmaven 6y ago
    > > I can either find a way to offset my emissions elsewhere, or just say fuck it, > You could also, you know, not burn firewood? You apparently missed where he literally said: > > because not having a fire is off the table.
jacobwilliamroy 6y ago
Carbon offsetting is different from indulgences, because the offset is actually calculated and verifiable. You pay some money to cover some materials and labor, that labor will result in x amount of carbon-dioxide being sequestered over a certain amount of time. You can actually go and research this stuff if you're so skeptical. There are actual explanations for how everything works, so it is in absolutely no way like a catholic indulgence, where you never actually know if the money you're spending is doing anything. You can actually go on the web and find answers to all your questions. Yes, I mean you, specifically.
young_unixer 6y ago
> Seems like guilt-avoidance to me. Isn't that what 99% of people, companies and governments are doing anyway? Doing things that look or sound green, while (voluntarily or not) ignoring the actual damage we're doing. For example, my country banned plastic bags on the supermarket and everyone rejoiced, but no one has any intention to talk seriously about environmental problems. It's all a bunch of empty slogans and feel-good discourse.
savanaly 6y ago
I see this comment all the time and I'm never sure which of the two stances (or a third? don't want to pigeonhole you) people hold: a) Offsets don't do what they claim to do, as in the earth in the universe where you give the offset has the same carbon problem as the one in the universe where you don't make the offset, or b) Offsets are bad even if they do work. There's something morally repugnant about them even if logically they are moral. From your wording and most of the responses I assume you hold a, but the tone and comparisons to indulgences, etc. make me think you actually (also?) hold b? I personally hold the contrary opinion to b, but I'm not sure about a) so I'm always a little skeptical of the companies claiming to use carbon offsets. But the problem is definitely one of technology (measuring and holding people accountable to the offsetting) rather than an inherent philosophical contradiction in the concept of offsets.
- btilly 6y ago
  I hold a third opinion. Offsets are a promise to get rid of carbon for a price. There is a strong incentive to cheat and make the promise, collect the money, then do less than you promised to do. No matter what accountability mechanisms you create, eventually someone will fail to be completely honest, and will deliver cheap offsets as a result. The result is good prices. Eventually the failures of the market to actually deliver on their promise will become a scandal, but those scandals take a long time to materialize so we won't hear about it for a long time. Which means it might or might not work, and we probably won't hear much about it if it doesn't. Making this less hypothetical, go read https://features.propublica.org/brazil-carbon-offsets/inconvenient-truth-carbon-credits-dont-work-deforestation-redd-acre-cambodia/ https://features.propublica.org/brazil-carbon-offsets/inconv... for some investigative reporting on how often carbon offsets aren't actually doing what is promised. The result? In the two large scale programs that have evaluations, the results were that 85% of efforts undertaken under the Clean Development Mechanism were likely ineffective, and 75% of those under Joint Implementation likewise were. And yet, despite documentation of how ineffective those programs are, do you hear a lot of public scandals about ineffective carbon offsets? Between perverse incentives and the history of failure, I do not expect future programs to do better. Nor do I expect to hear much about the failures that I think are going on.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
contravariant 6y ago
Well you can't really expect those kind of solutions to scale. Burning a few bits of paper is small enough that you don't really need to worry all that much though.
tsjq 6y ago
I agree. Also, isn't the Kyoto protocol / carbon credits thing a very similar concept? Cmiw

by Alupis 6y ago

dwaltrip 6y ago

You are implying that carbon-offsetting is some sort of sham that doesn't do what it says it does. Can you please provide sources to backup your claims?

greenshackle2 6y ago

It is basically self-imposed carbon credits, since carbon credits are not politically viable or something.

zacmps 6y ago

Something like https://teamtrees.org/ https://teamtrees.org/ or https://trees.org/ https://trees.org/ seems like a more direct approach to me.

Alupis 6y ago
Seems exactly the same to me. You pay some other organization some amount of money, and now you get a free pass to do whatever you want. I had no idea this was really what everyone was talking about with carbon offsets.
- danans 6y ago
  This: > You pay some other organization some amount of money, contradicts this: > and now you get a free pass and you aren't allowed > to do whatever you want. You pay for a specific amount of carbon offsetting, so you don't get to claim carbon neutrality if you exceed the amount you offset. Of course given that this is all voluntary someone could lie, but that would be asshole behavior, and if you did it at scale (i.e. if a corporation lied about it), you would be discredited - in reputation and potentially be facing civil lawsuits.

boston_sre87 6y ago

Yep, it is.

eat_veggies 6y ago

Yes, it's more than a bit like paying indulgences to the church to absolve yourself of sins. That's how a lot of companies can be "carbon neutral" by purchasing offsets and credits. I believe Tesla makes a significant amount of its money by selling these offsets to other companies.

Alupis 6y ago
Really? Even though the lithium for Tesla batteries is incredibly damaging to the environment to mine? Are we all buying into 21st Century Snake Oil here?
- bpodgursky 6y ago
  It's really not, compared to uh, oil. And battery recycling technology is always improving. By the time the current Model 3s are retired, the vast majority of Lithium batteries will be recycled into new cars: > By 2025, it is estimated that about three-quarters of spent electric batteries will be reused and then recycled to harvest raw materials. https://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/renewable/the-afterlife-of-electric-vehicles-battery-recycling-and-repurposing/ https://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/renewable/the-aft...
- ianlevesque 6y ago
  There are actual standards for the credits so that people don’t buy snake oil.
jackdeansmith 6y ago
If sin were a globally distributed problem where: 1. the aggregate amount of sin in the world caused suffering 2. indulgences actually reduced the aggregate amount of sin in the world then the indulgence system would make perfect sense. I agree there are problems with offsets and many of them aren't credible, but this indulgences metaphor has never made sense to me.

core-questions 6y ago

That's the gist of carbon credits and taxation, yes. The idea is that the finances work as a disincentive at scale, but in reality if your business has no other way to operate, you're just going to pay the tax and live with it. The airshed is, of course, indifferent to our financial games... Now, if it actually works to change your behaviour so that you don't emit as much carbon because you can profit on the difference, well, hey! That's a good thing! But I don't think most industries can just stop on a dime and pivot like that.... it may provide incentives in the long term, or it just might end up with all the costs passed back to the consumer, who may or may not actually have a choice where to spend their money. This is basically the worst case scenario, where it just ends up being a financial game and doesn't improve anything. I hear that the solution in this case is just to ramp it up higher so that it eventually forces people to demand change; but they might just demand a change to the tax if no other options are forthcoming. There's also the matter of catabolic processes, i.e. where something that emits less carbon is only financially feasible because of subsidies / taxes / etc. and in reality does not make economic sense to do. Any energy-generating technology that is not actually profitable without this is arguably taking in more energy than it produces, in the form of the externalities needed to enable it (i.e. fossil fuels that go into the building and maintenance of green energy projects).

Minor49er 6y ago

Penn and Teller came to the same conclusion on their show "Bullshit" back in 2008: https://ptbs.typepad.com/penn_teller_bullshit/ep_606_being_green/ https://ptbs.typepad.com/penn_teller_bullshit/ep_606_being_g... It's basically this millennium's version of the Catholic Church's indulgences.

dwaltrip 6y ago
From your link: > There is evidence for global warming, though there's considerable reason to believe this is simply part of a natural cycle. There is some evidence that humans may contribute at least a bit to the change (though many sources suggest that human pollution is insignificant compared with forest fires, volcanos, etc.). This is underhanded, weasel-word denialism. "Many sources suggest" my ass... Let's not give any credibility to this kind of bullshit.
- La1n 6y ago
  https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penn_%26_Teller:_Bullshit!#Libertarianism https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penn_%26_Teller:_Bullshit!#L... The show pretends to be just about calling out "bullshit", but sprinkles in a lot of politics and opinions.
- yreg 6y ago
  They also did an episode about recycling being bullshit, which was full of misinformation. Great magicians, but dishonest skeptics.
  - savanaly 6y ago
    But doesn't everyone sort of agree now that it really is bullshit? Were they right but for the wrong reasons?
    - jackdeansmith 6y ago
      Plastic recycling is mostly B.S., it's difficult and so energy intensive that it's usually better for the environment to landfill the old plastic and make new stuff. Metal and paper recycling is very environmentally sound though.

MCOfficer 6y ago

Yes, it is. But it's still a LOT better than silently ignoring it, which is the standard today.

read_if_gay_ 6y ago
Ignoring burning a few sheets of paper. The horror.

smarx007 6y ago

Carbon Offsetting is a practice frequently applied to go Carbon Neutral or Carbon Negative. For some reason, Net Zero is considered "more comprehensive" than Carbon Neutral according to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_neutrality https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_neutrality. What you are expecting is what many call Zero Carbon (and obviously the right path to aim for).

danans 6y ago

> You release a bunch of greenhouse gases - but it's "OK" because you pay money to some organization It's about cleaning up after yourself. Clearly in the case of this machine, whose carbon impact is tiny compared to nearly every other combustion based machinery we use, the intent is symbolic. > ...that might eventually plant some trees (or use your money to buy/rent fossil-fuel-burning machinery to orchestrate the planting of trees)? For a reputable carbon offset, those carbon costs are accounted for in the offset, so even with them, it's a net-negative carbon transaction. > Seems like guilt-avoidance to me. That's besides the point. If it offsets the carbon produced, then it works, and it doesn't matter what the psychological motivation is. But I agree that there is a problem with offsets: In a saner world we'd be imposing carbon taxes instead of this, but this is where we are today, with CO2 mitigation effectively taking the form of "donations".

Alupis 6y ago
Many organizations with good intent and survive on donations end up astray - see Red Cross and Haiti. Donating money to some organization that claims they will plant trees to offset some amount of greenhouse gas emissions is a lot like trusting the American Red Cross to build houses and schools after a disaster. You're hoping they do what they promise (and instead of doing that, the American Red Cross billed majority of the donations as "Administrative Fees"[1]). So, in reality you may or may not be "cleaning up after yourself". Actually, you're not cleaning up after yourself... you're outsourcing that job (and don't actually care if it gets done) so you can feel free to release more greenhouse gases. [1] https://www.npr.org/2015/06/03/411524156/in-search-of-the-red-cross-500-million-in-haiti-relief https://www.npr.org/2015/06/03/411524156/in-search-of-the-re...
- markdown 6y ago
  > see American Red Cross and Haiti. FTFY. The Red Cross is a reputable organisation that does wonderful work across the developing world. The American Red Cross is the corrupt one.
  - Alupis 6y ago

teraflop 6y ago

You could apply the same logic to any economic activity. You mean I can just take a book from a bookstore, depriving others of the chance to read it, and it's somehow "OK" because I paid money to some organization that might eventually use it to print another copy?

abraae 6y ago
Not the same. Stealing books from a bookshop - ILLEGAL. Pumping CO2 into the air and contributing to the global ecosystem's destruction - LEGAL.
- sellyme 6y ago
  Who's talking about stealing?

landryraccoon 6y ago

This is a counterproductive attitude. If you pit climate responsibility against people living their lives, climate responsibility will lose, full stop. In the short term, human beings are the way they are, and you won't be able to change human nature before the climate is destroyed. People offsetting their consumption is way, way better than people saying "If you just want me to suffer, fuck it. I'm going to embrace being an asshole and do what I want." For example, I'm going to throw some logs on the fireplace over Christmas. I can either find a way to offset my emissions elsewhere, or just say fuck it, those environmentalists are assholes so screw them. It's probably better for both of us if I donate, because not having a fire is off the table.

Razengan 6y ago
At some point someone with more money than you is saying fuck it, their comfort is more important than yours, and you’re just going to have to suck it up.
TedDoesntTalk 6y ago
> I can either find a way to offset my emissions elsewhere, or just say fuck it, You could also, you know, not burn firewood? There’s a reason no home built in the last 20 years in many states do not have wood-burning fireplaces.
- scrollaway 6y ago
  You're making the GPs point quite nicely, in that it absolutely doesn't sound like it's worth dealing with you, and it's making me want to throw my hands in the air and say "fuck it, if I try to offset my emissions I'll just get whiners like TedDoesntTalk all up in my face, so i might as well not offset anything". You're making things worse. So, from one fellow environmentalist to another, keep it to yourself, for the good of the planet.
- webmaven 6y ago
  > > I can either find a way to offset my emissions elsewhere, or just say fuck it, > You could also, you know, not burn firewood? You apparently missed where he literally said: > > because not having a fire is off the table.

jacobwilliamroy 6y ago

Carbon offsetting is different from indulgences, because the offset is actually calculated and verifiable. You pay some money to cover some materials and labor, that labor will result in x amount of carbon-dioxide being sequestered over a certain amount of time. You can actually go and research this stuff if you're so skeptical. There are actual explanations for how everything works, so it is in absolutely no way like a catholic indulgence, where you never actually know if the money you're spending is doing anything. You can actually go on the web and find answers to all your questions. Yes, I mean you, specifically.

young_unixer 6y ago

> Seems like guilt-avoidance to me. Isn't that what 99% of people, companies and governments are doing anyway? Doing things that look or sound green, while (voluntarily or not) ignoring the actual damage we're doing. For example, my country banned plastic bags on the supermarket and everyone rejoiced, but no one has any intention to talk seriously about environmental problems. It's all a bunch of empty slogans and feel-good discourse.

savanaly 6y ago

I see this comment all the time and I'm never sure which of the two stances (or a third? don't want to pigeonhole you) people hold: a) Offsets don't do what they claim to do, as in the earth in the universe where you give the offset has the same carbon problem as the one in the universe where you don't make the offset, or b) Offsets are bad even if they do work. There's something morally repugnant about them even if logically they are moral. From your wording and most of the responses I assume you hold a, but the tone and comparisons to indulgences, etc. make me think you actually (also?) hold b? I personally hold the contrary opinion to b, but I'm not sure about a) so I'm always a little skeptical of the companies claiming to use carbon offsets. But the problem is definitely one of technology (measuring and holding people accountable to the offsetting) rather than an inherent philosophical contradiction in the concept of offsets.

btilly 6y ago
I hold a third opinion. Offsets are a promise to get rid of carbon for a price. There is a strong incentive to cheat and make the promise, collect the money, then do less than you promised to do. No matter what accountability mechanisms you create, eventually someone will fail to be completely honest, and will deliver cheap offsets as a result. The result is good prices. Eventually the failures of the market to actually deliver on their promise will become a scandal, but those scandals take a long time to materialize so we won't hear about it for a long time. Which means it might or might not work, and we probably won't hear much about it if it doesn't. Making this less hypothetical, go read https://features.propublica.org/brazil-carbon-offsets/inconvenient-truth-carbon-credits-dont-work-deforestation-redd-acre-cambodia/ https://features.propublica.org/brazil-carbon-offsets/inconv... for some investigative reporting on how often carbon offsets aren't actually doing what is promised. The result? In the two large scale programs that have evaluations, the results were that 85% of efforts undertaken under the Clean Development Mechanism were likely ineffective, and 75% of those under Joint Implementation likewise were. And yet, despite documentation of how ineffective those programs are, do you hear a lot of public scandals about ineffective carbon offsets? Between perverse incentives and the history of failure, I do not expect future programs to do better. Nor do I expect to hear much about the failures that I think are going on.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

contravariant 6y ago

Well you can't really expect those kind of solutions to scale. Burning a few bits of paper is small enough that you don't really need to worry all that much though.

tsjq 6y ago

I agree. Also, isn't the Kyoto protocol / carbon credits thing a very similar concept? Cmiw