The reason people talk about this is because carbon credit trades are similar to minting shitcoins: - You have to create demand for something totally subjectiv

The reason people talk about this is because carbon credit trades are similar to minting shitcoins: - You have to create demand for something totally subjective like, "Does this reduce carbon emissions?" - There is a large liquid market for carbon credits. - You have to turn something nonfungible like various carbon sequestration technologies and schemes into something fungible like tons of CO2 emissions. - So you go and "mint" a "shitcoin," lets say literal chicken shit being processed "in a way" that makes it "make less carbon." Then some BS little certifying agency says that it does do that, whatever that means, and someone does some lab test once, that shows something, and then "AI Algorithms" are used to extrapolate the impact. Then you go to JP Morgan who needs various shitcoin-like things like this minted by people like you, and JP Morgan bundles it all up in a trade where Microsoft, who decided that they need to offset all datacenter emissions, will become the literal bagholder of chicken shit. Is there much of a difference between science trade journals speculating about so and so carbon reduction scheme and crypto trade journals speculating about so and so utility token? They are similar energies. I would love for there to be utility in the other side of the carbon credit schemes, but it looks like bullshit more often than not.