5 ms·

Not yet. Currently the demand for carbon offsets is tiny, so the supply is correspondingly low. You would have to bootstrap the system by inserting a large num

by phire 5y ago

Not yet. Currently the demand for carbon offsets is tiny, so the supply is correspondingly low. You would have to bootstrap the system by inserting a large number of 'phantom offsets' into the market at the start. These fake offsets will be retired on a schedule or formula so that companies deciding to enter the carbon offset industry have a good idea about demand during their planning stages.

wmf 5y ago
This still makes no sense to me. Instead of emitting and offsetting carbon, let's emit less.
- phire 5y ago
  A carbon market encourages both. Whenever possible, the carbon market will encourage industries to produce less, it should always be the cheaper option. But reducing carbon emissions is harder in some industries, and the carbon market gives those industries an alternative option. Also, it's impossible to reach net-zero emissions by just emitting less. Plus, the latest papers make it clear that we are far past the point were we can limit damage by simply going net-zero. We need to go massively net-negative. If we want to go net-negative, we need a robust carbon offset industry, and a carbon market is one way of encouraging growth in that industry. Besides, as far as the global environment is concerned, there is zero difference between not emitting CO2 and emitting CO2 in one place and sequestering it in another.
  - PaulHoule 5y ago
    Except all the "cheap" forms of carbon sequestration are scams. Put carbon in the soil or trees and it is just a fire away from being released again. Crush olvine on the the beach and you will never know how much carbon was captured, if any. If you compress it to 1500 psi and inject it underground you can measure it going in the same way you measured oil and gas coming out. That's real, but it is a lot more expensive. Nobody should be paying for any of the other things.

by phire 5y ago

wmf 5y ago

This still makes no sense to me. Instead of emitting and offsetting carbon, let's emit less.

phire 5y ago
A carbon market encourages both. Whenever possible, the carbon market will encourage industries to produce less, it should always be the cheaper option. But reducing carbon emissions is harder in some industries, and the carbon market gives those industries an alternative option. Also, it's impossible to reach net-zero emissions by just emitting less. Plus, the latest papers make it clear that we are far past the point were we can limit damage by simply going net-zero. We need to go massively net-negative. If we want to go net-negative, we need a robust carbon offset industry, and a carbon market is one way of encouraging growth in that industry. Besides, as far as the global environment is concerned, there is zero difference between not emitting CO2 and emitting CO2 in one place and sequestering it in another.
- PaulHoule 5y ago
  Except all the "cheap" forms of carbon sequestration are scams. Put carbon in the soil or trees and it is just a fire away from being released again. Crush olvine on the the beach and you will never know how much carbon was captured, if any. If you compress it to 1500 psi and inject it underground you can measure it going in the same way you measured oil and gas coming out. That's real, but it is a lot more expensive. Nobody should be paying for any of the other things.