4 ms·

Preaching to the choir, I studied atmospheric science in university, carbon credits for anything outside of geoengineering just seems like greenwashing to me.

Preaching to the choir, I studied atmospheric science in university, carbon credits for anything outside of geoengineering just seems like greenwashing to me. Cap and more cap seems to be the right approach to me, the "trade" part has never been anything but an excuse to move money around. I was actually interested in how OP thinks that a carbon credit could be authentic though. Especially one where the landowner is paid for ecosystem services previously provided by nature for free, now being compensated for the land they already want to keep as a forest.

naasking 3y ago
"Moving money around" is how anything gets done. Cap and trade is exactly intended to move money around, specifically to move money from carbon polluters to fund sustainable and renewable development that didn't have market advantage.
- labster 3y ago
  I agree with everything you say, however cap and trade is not working as designed. Instead, we have gotten a system of questionable carbon offsets where neither the buyer nor the seller is interested in investigating the quality of the product closely, nor are the regulators. The money is moving without achieving the goal of reducing global warming. Some of these policies have been in place for 20 years, and has hardly gotten any movement of the needle. ESG investing has done more, for crying out loud. We need to be acting like this is an emergency, because it is, and not rely on the market to produce a quality offset where no one cares about the quality. Tax emissions over the cap to pay for the externalities. Put a hard cap, like we do on vehicles, and the market will adjust. Stop tax benefits to oil production -- I know we still need petrochemicals for plastics, but not this much.
  - imtringued 3y ago
    Cap and trade is not the same as carbon offsetting at all. You are mixing up things. The idea behind cap and trade is that there is a limit to the total amount of emissions and you need a certificate from the government to pollute. The trading part just moves certificates around with a monetary incentive. Carbon offsetting is the exact opposite of cap and trade, since it raises the cap by issuing more certificates.
    - labster 3y ago
      Ah, thanks for clearing that up.
imtringued 3y ago
The purpose of cap and trade is that you don't want to micromanage the process. Do you really think that the government can perfectly plan how much pollution is necessary in every single business down to the lawnmowers? If you hand too many certificates to a single company, that company needs to move the certificates to the other companies that exceeded their limit, but if you just give it to them for free, they have zero incentive to cut pollution.

naasking 3y ago

"Moving money around" is how anything gets done. Cap and trade is exactly intended to move money around, specifically to move money from carbon polluters to fund sustainable and renewable development that didn't have market advantage.

labster 3y ago
I agree with everything you say, however cap and trade is not working as designed. Instead, we have gotten a system of questionable carbon offsets where neither the buyer nor the seller is interested in investigating the quality of the product closely, nor are the regulators. The money is moving without achieving the goal of reducing global warming. Some of these policies have been in place for 20 years, and has hardly gotten any movement of the needle. ESG investing has done more, for crying out loud. We need to be acting like this is an emergency, because it is, and not rely on the market to produce a quality offset where no one cares about the quality. Tax emissions over the cap to pay for the externalities. Put a hard cap, like we do on vehicles, and the market will adjust. Stop tax benefits to oil production -- I know we still need petrochemicals for plastics, but not this much.
- imtringued 3y ago
  Cap and trade is not the same as carbon offsetting at all. You are mixing up things. The idea behind cap and trade is that there is a limit to the total amount of emissions and you need a certificate from the government to pollute. The trading part just moves certificates around with a monetary incentive. Carbon offsetting is the exact opposite of cap and trade, since it raises the cap by issuing more certificates.
  - labster 3y ago
    Ah, thanks for clearing that up.

imtringued 3y ago

The purpose of cap and trade is that you don't want to micromanage the process. Do you really think that the government can perfectly plan how much pollution is necessary in every single business down to the lawnmowers? If you hand too many certificates to a single company, that company needs to move the certificates to the other companies that exceeded their limit, but if you just give it to them for free, they have zero incentive to cut pollution.