3 ms·
I think the author is not wrong, that if land if offered up for extractive use, it must be offered on the same terms for non-extractive use or non-use. But in g
by NoGravitas 5y ago
I think the author is not wrong, that if land if offered up for extractive use, it must be offered on the same terms for non-extractive use or non-use. But in general, this is land that should not be offered up for use at all.
In The Ministry For the Future, Kim Stanley Robinson presented another option: an investment vehicle backed by proof of carbon sequestration. One way of earning this carboncoin was to own or buy oil/gas/coal resources and legally commit to keeping them in the ground. As demand for fossil fuels declined, generating carboncoin quickly became a more profitable investment than trying to extract and sell fossil fuels.
- mherdeg 5y agoHow do you measure whether these investment vehicles are having the desired effect? I think folks were generally not thrilled about driving a train full of biofuel back and forth between the US and Canadian border even though it apparently generated a very profitable amount of renewable identification number credits ( https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/biofuel-credits-behind-mystery-cross-border-train-shipments-1.1252080 https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/biofuel-credits-behind-myster... ).
- NoGravitas 5y agoThat's always the problem, isn't it? Existing carbon offsets are basically fraudulent.
- splistud 5y agoThe best part is that those who believe that extraction leases are rife with 'corporation giveaways' don't see that carbon offsets will be just as fraudulent.