4 ms·

I dislike the idea of trading carbon credits because it implicitly assumes that all the damage caused by greenhouse gas emissions is reversible. Sure, on a long

I dislike the idea of trading carbon credits because it implicitly assumes that all the damage caused by greenhouse gas emissions is reversible. Sure, on a long enough time scale, it is a chemical process where the carbon dioxide emitted today is captured back into the ground. However, the loss of animal and plant life and the negative impacts on human beings are not reversible within the timespans of relevant entities. A family that loses their home because of rising sea levels submerging their home will likely never live in that home ever again in their lifetime. I find it weird that one company can trade away a taxpayer-funded subsidy allocated to them another company and claim it as a profit. On what basis was the subsidy granted to the first company in the first place?

lmm 6y ago
> I dislike the idea of trading carbon credits because it implicitly assumes that all the damage caused by greenhouse gas emissions is reversible. Sure, on a long enough time scale, it is a chemical process where the carbon dioxide emitted today is captured back into the ground. However, the loss of animal and plant life and the negative impacts on human beings are not reversible within the timespans of relevant entities. A family that loses their home because of rising sea levels submerging their home will likely never live in that home ever again in their lifetime. Paying that family for the economic value of their home is not a complete replacement for the lost home. But it's a hell of a lot better than giving them nothing, which seems to be the usual alternative. Tradeable carbon credits seem to be the least-bad option that's actually workable.