3 ms·

There's more nuance than your absolute stance. There are a wide variety of quality of carbon credits - some systems are much more reputable than others - same

There's more nuance than your absolute stance. There are a wide variety of quality of carbon credits - some systems are much more reputable than others - same with project types. Industrial and regulatory grade credits are legit. Voluntary third party retail carbon credits not as legit.

skyfaller 3y ago
Cory Doctorow made a pretty good case that carbon offsets are a market for lemons, where good credits will inevitably be driven out of the market by bad credits. After all, it's always cheaper to do nothing than to do something (if you're not considering negative externalities, or the long term). https://pluralistic.net/2020/12/12/fairy-use-tale/#greenwashing https://pluralistic.net/2020/12/12/fairy-use-tale/#greenwash...
- boringg 3y ago
  I just wasted my time reading whoever Cory Doctorow (am I supposed to know them) ranty take down of the nature conservancy. Didn't mention anything about what type of credits which system etc. Please go see offsets markets are regulated such as California and tell me that your linked rant is still relevant. I agree - markets that have no support and regulation without teeth let's poor offsets go through (read voluntary markets). I'm talking about regulated / industrial markets.
  - whimsicalism 3y ago
    > Please go see offsets markets are regulated such as California and tell me that your linked rant is still relevant. > I agree - markets that have no support and regulation without teeth let's poor offsets go through (read voluntary markets). I'm talking about regulated / industrial markets. Deforestation carbon credits from Verra are accepted on California's carbon market and rely on (imo) pretty much fake estimates. In fact, CARB relies heavily [0] on offsets that in my view have done little to prove causality when it would not be difficult to do so. e: Here is an article in a Nature journal published today indicating that additionality is basically non-existent for California's offset program [1] [0]: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/our-work/programs/compliance-offset-program https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/our-work/programs/compliance-offset-p... [1]: https://www.nature.com/articles/s43247-023-00984-2 https://www.nature.com/articles/s43247-023-00984-2
    - boringg 3y ago
      https://verra.org/verra-response-guardian-rainforest-carbon-offsets/ https://verra.org/verra-response-guardian-rainforest-carbon-... Also you are conflating projects outside of NA and inside of NA. >>Deforestation carbon credits from Verra are accepted on California's carbon market and rely on (imo) pretty much fake estimates. imo // "Pretty much fake estimates". ?? Do you have any relevant experience or knowledge in the sector or are you just spouting off?
      - whimsicalism 3y ago
        Here is an article in a Nature journal published today indicating that additionality is basically non-existent for California's forestry offset program [0] > [verra link] I was not aware of the reporting by the Guardian, so can't comment on that specifically but was familiar with the research work of West et al. I found West's arguments convincing and the arguments in this response less so (worth noting that Verra's CEO resigned in disgrace a few months after this was published). Regardless it would be easy for Verra to conduct an RCT to actually measure additionality. And yet they do not.. > imo // "Pretty much fake estimates". ?? Do you have any relevant experience or knowledge in the sector or are you just spouting off? I work on causal inference and have read a number of forestry projects descriptions on how they estimate additionality when I was looking into how to offset my own carbon footprint. What I read was clearly insufficient for the causal claims they were making, which led me to West et al's research using synthetic controls. Regardless, I don't find the appeal to credentialism that convincing when you can't name a single forestry project that has a solid causal estimate for their additionality. And that's before we get into the other CARB-certified projects, like CFC destruction with Verra's baselines that assume 100% violation of the clean air act in the absence of intervention. > Also you are conflating projects outside of NA and inside of NA. This is a fair objection to the West study applying to California's market - but it is the same organization certifying the carbon here as the one that has engaged in verging-on-fraudulent additionality estimates. I also linked additional, recent research specific to California's market. [0]: https://www.nature.com/articles/s43247-023-00984-2 https://www.nature.com/articles/s43247-023-00984-2
        3y ago
  - Pet_Ant 3y ago
    > whoever Cory Doctorow (am I supposed to know them) I mean he isn't Jesus, but yeah if you are here I'd expect you to know who he is. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cory_Doctorow https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cory_Doctorow > In February 2013, Doctorow released Homeland, the sequel to his novel Little Brother.[50] It won the 2014 Prometheus Award (Doctorow's third novel to win this award). > The novel Ready Player One features a mention of Doctorow as being the newly re-elected President of the OASIS User Council (with Wil Wheaton as his vice-president) > The term enshittification was coined by Cory Doctorow in January 2023 in a blog post I hate the term "thought leader" but he is an known intellectual in the sphere of internet culture, intellectual property, and freedom of information. Now, what are his credentials to the matter at hand... not sure, but yeah, he is kindof a big deal.
    - boringg 3y ago
      I like the enshitiffication terminology so kudos to that. Thanks for letting me know who he is. That said I'm not a fan of knowledgable(is he knowledgable or is he a persona?) people in one domain stepping into the another domain and taking/using their previously earned clout as a way to push their agenda. I haven't seen great transition to the energy space from tech. It's especially worse as they get into the weeds. I do appreciate outsiders coming in to point out structural / regulatory or bring in new energy. With that in mind my opinion isn't changed because his original piece didn't have much merit with me.
whimsicalism 3y ago
Give me an example of a deforestation credit that is legit and “industrial and regulatory” grade. AFAICT any credit that relies on abatement could easily do a randomized controlled trial to measure how effective they actually are. The fact that they don’t absolutely reeks to high heaven.
- mistrial9 3y ago
  maybe but listen, forestry is stuck without any "upside" to this fantastic(ly inflated) stock valuation or the rampant salaries and perks that go with it.. some yuppie here wrote "I have a million in the bank now and I realize that a million dollars is just not very much money" (actual YNews quote).. yet those forestry guys will look at three years and $42k costs very seriously .. that is the monetization they are stuck in.. so you get fast talkers, clueless do-gooders, shackled and dysfunctional gov'ies, all colliding into what.. and then smart people here can take pot-shots at how bad it is.. OK then, what is your better solution?
  - vkou 3y ago
    > OK then, what is your better solution? Tax carbon[1], mail every man, woman, child, and dog in the country a carbon tax check every three months. If someone proves that they've actually captured carbon from the atmosphere, and stored it, cut them a slice of that pie, too. [1] Tax imports based on the same formula.
  - whimsicalism 3y ago
    I could not follow your comment, sorry.
kazinator 3y ago
If you don't actually follow your money to validate that it was used to remove as much carbon from the atmosphere as claimed, you have no way of knowing whether it's a scam or not. It's not like purchasing supplies actually needed for your business, where you usually know when something is not delivered or not up to spec. Still, bogus jet engine parts can find their way into airliners.

skyfaller 3y ago

Cory Doctorow made a pretty good case that carbon offsets are a market for lemons, where good credits will inevitably be driven out of the market by bad credits. After all, it's always cheaper to do nothing than to do something (if you're not considering negative externalities, or the long term). https://pluralistic.net/2020/12/12/fairy-use-tale/#greenwashing https://pluralistic.net/2020/12/12/fairy-use-tale/#greenwash...

boringg 3y ago
I just wasted my time reading whoever Cory Doctorow (am I supposed to know them) ranty take down of the nature conservancy. Didn't mention anything about what type of credits which system etc. Please go see offsets markets are regulated such as California and tell me that your linked rant is still relevant. I agree - markets that have no support and regulation without teeth let's poor offsets go through (read voluntary markets). I'm talking about regulated / industrial markets.
- whimsicalism 3y ago
  > Please go see offsets markets are regulated such as California and tell me that your linked rant is still relevant. > I agree - markets that have no support and regulation without teeth let's poor offsets go through (read voluntary markets). I'm talking about regulated / industrial markets. Deforestation carbon credits from Verra are accepted on California's carbon market and rely on (imo) pretty much fake estimates. In fact, CARB relies heavily [0] on offsets that in my view have done little to prove causality when it would not be difficult to do so. e: Here is an article in a Nature journal published today indicating that additionality is basically non-existent for California's offset program [1] [0]: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/our-work/programs/compliance-offset-program https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/our-work/programs/compliance-offset-p... [1]: https://www.nature.com/articles/s43247-023-00984-2 https://www.nature.com/articles/s43247-023-00984-2
  - boringg 3y ago
    https://verra.org/verra-response-guardian-rainforest-carbon-offsets/ https://verra.org/verra-response-guardian-rainforest-carbon-... Also you are conflating projects outside of NA and inside of NA. >>Deforestation carbon credits from Verra are accepted on California's carbon market and rely on (imo) pretty much fake estimates. imo // "Pretty much fake estimates". ?? Do you have any relevant experience or knowledge in the sector or are you just spouting off?
    - whimsicalism 3y ago
      Here is an article in a Nature journal published today indicating that additionality is basically non-existent for California's forestry offset program [0] > [verra link] I was not aware of the reporting by the Guardian, so can't comment on that specifically but was familiar with the research work of West et al. I found West's arguments convincing and the arguments in this response less so (worth noting that Verra's CEO resigned in disgrace a few months after this was published). Regardless it would be easy for Verra to conduct an RCT to actually measure additionality. And yet they do not.. > imo // "Pretty much fake estimates". ?? Do you have any relevant experience or knowledge in the sector or are you just spouting off? I work on causal inference and have read a number of forestry projects descriptions on how they estimate additionality when I was looking into how to offset my own carbon footprint. What I read was clearly insufficient for the causal claims they were making, which led me to West et al's research using synthetic controls. Regardless, I don't find the appeal to credentialism that convincing when you can't name a single forestry project that has a solid causal estimate for their additionality. And that's before we get into the other CARB-certified projects, like CFC destruction with Verra's baselines that assume 100% violation of the clean air act in the absence of intervention. > Also you are conflating projects outside of NA and inside of NA. This is a fair objection to the West study applying to California's market - but it is the same organization certifying the carbon here as the one that has engaged in verging-on-fraudulent additionality estimates. I also linked additional, recent research specific to California's market. [0]: https://www.nature.com/articles/s43247-023-00984-2 https://www.nature.com/articles/s43247-023-00984-2
      - 3y ago
- Pet_Ant 3y ago
  > whoever Cory Doctorow (am I supposed to know them) I mean he isn't Jesus, but yeah if you are here I'd expect you to know who he is. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cory_Doctorow https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cory_Doctorow > In February 2013, Doctorow released Homeland, the sequel to his novel Little Brother.[50] It won the 2014 Prometheus Award (Doctorow's third novel to win this award). > The novel Ready Player One features a mention of Doctorow as being the newly re-elected President of the OASIS User Council (with Wil Wheaton as his vice-president) > The term enshittification was coined by Cory Doctorow in January 2023 in a blog post I hate the term "thought leader" but he is an known intellectual in the sphere of internet culture, intellectual property, and freedom of information. Now, what are his credentials to the matter at hand... not sure, but yeah, he is kindof a big deal.
  - boringg 3y ago
    I like the enshitiffication terminology so kudos to that. Thanks for letting me know who he is. That said I'm not a fan of knowledgable(is he knowledgable or is he a persona?) people in one domain stepping into the another domain and taking/using their previously earned clout as a way to push their agenda. I haven't seen great transition to the energy space from tech. It's especially worse as they get into the weeds. I do appreciate outsiders coming in to point out structural / regulatory or bring in new energy. With that in mind my opinion isn't changed because his original piece didn't have much merit with me.

whimsicalism 3y ago

Give me an example of a deforestation credit that is legit and “industrial and regulatory” grade. AFAICT any credit that relies on abatement could easily do a randomized controlled trial to measure how effective they actually are. The fact that they don’t absolutely reeks to high heaven.

mistrial9 3y ago
maybe but listen, forestry is stuck without any "upside" to this fantastic(ly inflated) stock valuation or the rampant salaries and perks that go with it.. some yuppie here wrote "I have a million in the bank now and I realize that a million dollars is just not very much money" (actual YNews quote).. yet those forestry guys will look at three years and $42k costs very seriously .. that is the monetization they are stuck in.. so you get fast talkers, clueless do-gooders, shackled and dysfunctional gov'ies, all colliding into what.. and then smart people here can take pot-shots at how bad it is.. OK then, what is your better solution?
- vkou 3y ago
  > OK then, what is your better solution? Tax carbon[1], mail every man, woman, child, and dog in the country a carbon tax check every three months. If someone proves that they've actually captured carbon from the atmosphere, and stored it, cut them a slice of that pie, too. [1] Tax imports based on the same formula.
- whimsicalism 3y ago
  I could not follow your comment, sorry.

kazinator 3y ago

If you don't actually follow your money to validate that it was used to remove as much carbon from the atmosphere as claimed, you have no way of knowing whether it's a scam or not. It's not like purchasing supplies actually needed for your business, where you usually know when something is not delivered or not up to spec. Still, bogus jet engine parts can find their way into airliners.