6 ms·

> But this fallacy has been repeatedly exposed. For one, the organisations that are supposed to certify that indeed enough tree-planting has taken place do not

> But this fallacy has been repeatedly exposed. For one, the organisations that are supposed to certify that indeed enough tree-planting has taken place do not have the tools to verify that the declared emissions will definitely be absorbed. Another problem is that many offsetting activities do not actually offset anything. > A recent investigation into the world’s largest carbon standard found that 94 percent of its rainforest offset credits did not actually contribute to carbon reduction. When I looked at the offset market in the past, I realized that it was one of the few markets where both the buyer and seller are perfectly happy with fraud. - The buyer is motivated to seek the lowest cost offsets they can find. They're not paying for the cleanup - all they need is the offset document itself, often for legal purposes. - The seller is more than happy to take the buyer's money and spend it on looking like they're doing something. The rest is free margin. Neither side remotely cares about the underlying activity behind the offset, and neither side is really penalized if the underlying activity is fraudulent. In fact, both sides are actually better off if the whole thing is fraudulent! I can't think of many other markets where this dynamic exists.

version_five 4y ago
This is true for a lot of corporate training as well, in particular for compliance stuff. It's all bullshit to check a box. Whoever's paying for it wants to spend as little as possible, nobody cares what the content is or whether its actually learned, it's just about transferring liability. It's these silly regulatory constructs that are too detached from reality (like offsets) that give rise to this brand of bullshit
- theragra 4y ago
  Indeed. I found i can pass 99% of these trainings without reading any materials beforehand. I just check reasonably sounding boxes. That's it. I failed such training only one time among hundreds! My colleagues pass these in foreign languages for the lulz
  - jwestbury 4y ago
    My favourite was a training I took once which, if clicked through fast enough, would just skip right past the tests. There was no final check for how well you did, so my "you passed" certificate at the end proudly displayed that I had passed with a 10% score (because I answered the first few questions before realising the bug).
    - theragra 4y ago
      Nice ;) I certainly hope these things do not store answers forever. Because if they do, in ten years some scary social credit system will punish a lot of people
ClumsyPilot 4y ago
> When I looked at the offset market in the past, I realized that it was one of the few markets where both the buyer and seller are perfectly happy with fraud. > I can't think of many other markets where this dynamic exists. Recycling market is the same - UK government pays you to recycle plastic, £60 per tonne. You find someone in a 3rd world country that will take it off your hands for £30 per tonne, and pocket the difference. They give you a document saying the plastic was 'recycled' and dump it in the ocean. The sums may be wrong, but you get the gist
- 4dregress 4y ago
  Or they illegally burn it!
  - walthamstow 4y ago
    Or legally burn it https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/SELCHP https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/SELCHP
    - youngtaff 4y ago
      I actually wonder if incineration is the best way to dispose of plastic as it avoids the recycling fraud problem Generally we try to minimise our plastic use but it’s hard
      - ClumsyPilot 4y ago
        Well you can't minimise plastic use if the rest of society doesn't. I think landfilling is fine, we just need to make sure it does not end up in the environment floating about and causing contamination. And that we are not getting defrauded.
- sacrosancty 4y ago
  They must be recycling enough of it to recover their £30. They may dump the unrecyclable parts into the ocean, but nobody doubts there are unrecyclable things mixed in with it. It can't be 100% recycled.
hourago 4y ago
> both the buyer and seller are perfectly happy with fraud. Many people fully believe that they are making the world a better place, they are not "happy with being deceived" but they are just ignorant. This is like saying that the tobacco industry lies make both happy. That is only true as far as the buyer, the smoker, does not find the true, sometimes in a very hard way. And your argument also applies to economic scams. If I invest all my money in a fund and think that I am getting a 20% return, I may be happy because I do not know that the bank has lost all my money. So, I am happy until I know the true. Here, all the fault is in corporations that lie and scam people. The consumers are just trying to be good people. Your assumption that people does not want to know the true seems very profitable for scammers.
worldsayshi 4y ago
> I realized that it was one of the few markets where both the buyer and seller are perfectly happy with fraud. The tragedy of the commons is near universal on all transactions and our propensity for neglecting fraud regarding the commons is universal. It just so happens that for these transactions the focus is on the commons.
starkd 4y ago
I think the environmental movement went seriously awry by aligning itself with socialist political goals. Socialism is nothing more than a way to monopolize corporate power for tremendous profits. Climate ideals of limiting carbon also diverted attention from real-world pollution concerns - like harm from large-scale mining operations.
- verall 4y ago
  Can you expand on how a carbon credit market is aligned with socialism? I'm either not understanding the connection or what you're meaning.
  - starkd 4y ago
    Comment was not specifically about carbon credit scheme.
- unethical_ban 4y ago
  Oh man, attacking "socialism" by invoking profits. Saying carbon limiting efforts do not align with concerns about mining. Implying limiting carbon isn't an important goal. Woof.
  - starkd 4y ago
    So, you take peoples' stated intention at face value? Can people not be greedy just by becoming avowed socialists? Hahahahahahahahahaha! The Castro Brothers, Hugo Chavez, and many others were some of the richest people in the world. These are not exceptions; they are generally the rule!
    - unethical_ban 4y ago
      Telling that you invoke those leaders rather than the countries of northern Europe. In any case, I can't tell how your original comment aligned with the discussion about carbon offset credits, or more off-topic, how you think limiting carbon output is somehow not a worthy goal of reducing climate change.

version_five 4y ago

This is true for a lot of corporate training as well, in particular for compliance stuff. It's all bullshit to check a box. Whoever's paying for it wants to spend as little as possible, nobody cares what the content is or whether its actually learned, it's just about transferring liability. It's these silly regulatory constructs that are too detached from reality (like offsets) that give rise to this brand of bullshit

theragra 4y ago
Indeed. I found i can pass 99% of these trainings without reading any materials beforehand. I just check reasonably sounding boxes. That's it. I failed such training only one time among hundreds! My colleagues pass these in foreign languages for the lulz
- jwestbury 4y ago
  My favourite was a training I took once which, if clicked through fast enough, would just skip right past the tests. There was no final check for how well you did, so my "you passed" certificate at the end proudly displayed that I had passed with a 10% score (because I answered the first few questions before realising the bug).
  - theragra 4y ago
    Nice ;) I certainly hope these things do not store answers forever. Because if they do, in ten years some scary social credit system will punish a lot of people

ClumsyPilot 4y ago

> When I looked at the offset market in the past, I realized that it was one of the few markets where both the buyer and seller are perfectly happy with fraud. > I can't think of many other markets where this dynamic exists. Recycling market is the same - UK government pays you to recycle plastic, £60 per tonne. You find someone in a 3rd world country that will take it off your hands for £30 per tonne, and pocket the difference. They give you a document saying the plastic was 'recycled' and dump it in the ocean. The sums may be wrong, but you get the gist

4dregress 4y ago
Or they illegally burn it!
- walthamstow 4y ago
  Or legally burn it https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/SELCHP https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/SELCHP
  - youngtaff 4y ago
    I actually wonder if incineration is the best way to dispose of plastic as it avoids the recycling fraud problem Generally we try to minimise our plastic use but it’s hard
    - ClumsyPilot 4y ago
      Well you can't minimise plastic use if the rest of society doesn't. I think landfilling is fine, we just need to make sure it does not end up in the environment floating about and causing contamination. And that we are not getting defrauded.
sacrosancty 4y ago
They must be recycling enough of it to recover their £30. They may dump the unrecyclable parts into the ocean, but nobody doubts there are unrecyclable things mixed in with it. It can't be 100% recycled.

hourago 4y ago

> both the buyer and seller are perfectly happy with fraud. Many people fully believe that they are making the world a better place, they are not "happy with being deceived" but they are just ignorant. This is like saying that the tobacco industry lies make both happy. That is only true as far as the buyer, the smoker, does not find the true, sometimes in a very hard way. And your argument also applies to economic scams. If I invest all my money in a fund and think that I am getting a 20% return, I may be happy because I do not know that the bank has lost all my money. So, I am happy until I know the true. Here, all the fault is in corporations that lie and scam people. The consumers are just trying to be good people. Your assumption that people does not want to know the true seems very profitable for scammers.

worldsayshi 4y ago

> I realized that it was one of the few markets where both the buyer and seller are perfectly happy with fraud. The tragedy of the commons is near universal on all transactions and our propensity for neglecting fraud regarding the commons is universal. It just so happens that for these transactions the focus is on the commons.

starkd 4y ago

I think the environmental movement went seriously awry by aligning itself with socialist political goals. Socialism is nothing more than a way to monopolize corporate power for tremendous profits. Climate ideals of limiting carbon also diverted attention from real-world pollution concerns - like harm from large-scale mining operations.

verall 4y ago
Can you expand on how a carbon credit market is aligned with socialism? I'm either not understanding the connection or what you're meaning.
- starkd 4y ago
  Comment was not specifically about carbon credit scheme.
unethical_ban 4y ago
Oh man, attacking "socialism" by invoking profits. Saying carbon limiting efforts do not align with concerns about mining. Implying limiting carbon isn't an important goal. Woof.
- starkd 4y ago
  So, you take peoples' stated intention at face value? Can people not be greedy just by becoming avowed socialists? Hahahahahahahahahaha! The Castro Brothers, Hugo Chavez, and many others were some of the richest people in the world. These are not exceptions; they are generally the rule!
  - unethical_ban 4y ago
    Telling that you invoke those leaders rather than the countries of northern Europe. In any case, I can't tell how your original comment aligned with the discussion about carbon offset credits, or more off-topic, how you think limiting carbon output is somehow not a worthy goal of reducing climate change.