>Are there parties that benefit disproportionately by establishing a cost for carbon and the definition thereof? Asking about incentives, thinking critically a

>Are there parties that benefit disproportionately by establishing a cost for carbon and the definition thereof? Asking about incentives, thinking critically about conflicts of interest doesn't add to the discussion because that might "allude to a conspiracy"? I don't know if I agree with that. For me it makes sense to first ask "Cui bono". Establish a motive and then search for evidence to prove a hypothesis. Posing the question is simply the beginning of the process. If you're closed minded about opening the door, my (reasonable or unreasonable, open for debate) expectation would be that you would dismiss anything within as "conspiracy theories". Hence the discussion becomes futile. I read your reply as skipping over the possibility of a conflict of interest in research rationalizing a carbon credit trading regime.