3 ms·
California already has cap and trade. There doesn't seem to be a need for further regulation. If there's a problem with emissions, adjust the pricing. That's th
by anon291 2y ago
California already has cap and trade. There doesn't seem to be a need for further regulation. If there's a problem with emissions, adjust the pricing. That's the purpose of cap and trade.
- richrichie 2y agoThat’s just bad faith reshuffling of “ownership” and does not address the massive carbon emissions produced by the large scale NN industry. It is going to get worse. Not a good look for a group of people otherwise obsessed with climate change.
- cultureswitch 2y agoThe cap and trade principle is sound however legislators have allowed naked scams to legally claim that they are offsetting carbon output. Such as owning a piece of forest land and pinky-swear you're not going to exploit it. This offsets nothing. There is no additional carbon being absorbed out of the atmosphere. Yet this counts as emission reduction.