Carbon offsets working is when they make it so that producing carbon is expensive enough to change how companies behave. Of course, that could be done better with a number of other schemes like a carbon tax (with or without rebate)
That could be done better with a campaign of targeted assassinations
Ah, yes, ecoterrorism. A technique with a long history of failure.
I mean, it works by your logic. Carbon caps are very easy to game and continue to fail to change behavior, as shell companies simply “sell” their credits to others. Meanwhile, sabotage materially - as in not on paper, but physically in rhe flesh and blood world - makes polluting more expensive, because equipment gets damaged, needs repaired, and might not get repaired. Even supressing it isn’t free, because cops and
bribeslobbying costs money and as we saw in the 2020 uprisings the cops cannot be everywhere at once.Were there a protacted, popular campaign of sabotage that called the state’s bluff, there simply wouldn’t be enough police or resources to actually make any of this profitable. Actual concessions would have to be made by governments and corporations. This is why the state has been so spectacularly violent against climate acticists despite even green scare “ecoterrorists” simply tying themselves to trees - it actually works. The state belongs to corporations and corporations aren’t going to just let us do shit that meaningfully undermines them, if they are actively suggesting the solutions themselves then it’s because they know it won’t require them to do something they don’t want.
And carbon offsets are really stemming the flow of climate change huh
Fossil fuel profiteers should be killed if for no other reason than the fact that they deserve it
That could be done better without the private companies at all.
Like what zero carbon economic system? Or is this yet another case where communism just is assumed to magically work?
When we no longer have an irrational need to increase profits, it becomes much easier to change production lines to emit less and less carbon.
China, by the way, is the leader in clean energy, despite being the country with the most emissions, which is simply explained by the fact that it was until recently also the country with the largest population in the world.
Carbon offsets fund subsidies to make companies that do choose to use cost-innefective tech able to do so.
The idea is that once people are actually using the tech, it will allow those industries to get more efficient, letting them close the gap in deployment costs. Eventually making it so it isn’t cost prohibitive anymore with or without the subsidies.
It’s a carrot and stick system, instead of simply a stick system as you describe.
The advantage with a carbon tax with rebate is that the tax comes from the entities that pollute, but the rebate goes back to everyone equally since everyone is harmed equally. Politically, it also means that there is a large group that is invested in that rebate remaining in place. Efforts to lower the tax or introduce loopholes must contend with widespread opposition. Unfortunately, uptake has been slow.
I disagree that providing the rebate to everyone equally is ideal if the intention is to incentivize development and uptake of otherwise cost-innefective systems.
I speak from experience. I live in Canada, and I get carbon rebate cheques. They just show up. They don’t incentivize me to do anything at all.
However we also have carbon credits. I’m in the process of installing rooftop solar on my home. The carbon credits I can sell to subsidize the cost of the solar system.
So, in an environment with both, the tax didn’t change my behavior at all. The credits however were a meaningful part of my calculus to “put my money where my mouth is” and invest my own money and choices into green tech.
So, I acknowledge that it’s anecdotal, but the carrot helped drive my behaviour into a more eco-friendly direction
If hell is real and you get out by praying then this is not a scam. So if climate change is real and it is stopped by emitting less carbon then carbon offsets are not a scam?
So you are either saying climate change is just something to believe in and therefore carbon offsets are a scam, because they fight a problem that is not real.
Or you are a religious person and are saying that climate change is real, and that carbon offsets are useful, despite them being clearly a scam.
Or you are saying that the medieval system was actually a scam, because the monks did not pray as they said they would. But then this is actually a medieval meme, criticising monks for knowingly lying to people, and completely irrelevant in modern times.Or they’re saying that regardless of whether or not heaven and hell are real, both carbon offsets and indulgences are a self-serving practice run by corrupt institutions allowing wealthy people to be publicly absolved from the harm they continue to do.
If Good actions → Paradise
Then Indulgences -(Enables the Church to do)→Good actions → ParadiseDon’t believe that people in the past accepted things without questioning them.
Carbon offsets are to preserve existing forests that would otherwise be cut down for lumber or reward a company for spending more to use nonpolluting tech. So, swing and a miss.
Carbon offsets are
to preserve existing forests that would otherwise be cut down for lumber or reward a company for spending more to use nonpolluting tech. So, swing and a miss.a scam made up by BP to shift the blame for climate change from big oil to the individual. So, to use your own words, a swing and a miss on your part.https://www.cell.com/one-earth/fulltext/S2590-3322(21)00233-5
https://www.vox.com/22429551/climate-change-crisis-exxonmobil-harvard-study
https://mashable.com/feature/carbon-footprint-pr-campaign-sham
The carbon footprint is bullshit, yes.
But carbon offsets are basically what the European emission certificates are. I pay you money so I can emit more Carbon. You get money for not emitting Carbon.
With the caveat that the emission certificates are actually enforced and lead to a reduction in carbon emissions, while private carbon offsets are sold by companies that may or may not ensure that the specified amount of carbon is actually offset.
Oh sweet summer child.
I know you said you don’t want to watch videos where people explain the problems with carbon offsets while citing sources, but for those that do want to know, here’s another video: The Carbon Offset Problem - Wendover Productions
There are little regulations surrounding who can sell offsets meaning many companies vastly overstate their offsets (typically the ones selling the cheapest offsets, which are typically the ones major corporations buy).
Even legitimate companies can overestimate how much help they’re doing by accident. Say a company pays to plant an entire section of forest. It’s calculated that section of forest will absorb 10 tonnes of carbon over 20 years. Nice! A year later that section of forest is destroyed in a forest fire. Does the company that bought the offset need to pay to replant it? Nope! They still get to say they bought 10 tonnes of carbon offsetting even when that’s objectively wrong.
The video I linked also talked about a company that tried to improve energy use in developing countries. Most places burn wood for cooking but often do it in open air. That’s really inefficient! So this company provided efficient wood ovens to these communities (by charging others for carbon offsets). They then calculated how much carbon they’ve reduced, only to find out that these ovens increased the amount of wood burned since the communities loved using them so much! However, once again everyone who bought the offset still gets to claim they reduced carbon!
I wish I had your naivety in life.
No, I’m not watching a youtube video and pretending it is information. Talk about naive.
Unlike other websites the climate town cites sources. You can go fact check. And he’s an actual degree holder in climate science
“I am not listening to counter arguments made by a knowledgeable person in the domain who provides evidence and source, even though they are quite literally INFORMATION”
Talk about naive indeed.
Said the dude that thinks youtube videos are a relevant source.
His citations are links to scientific publications. What do you think a proof/evidence is? I am not sharing “trust me bro” videos here.
Did you go through the video and found a morsel of untruth? Care to share so that me might also learn what you obviously know that we don’t?
Stay ignorant and uninformed then. Imagine choosing stupidity.
imagine calling not getting your info from influencers on youtube stupidity.
Lectures from MIT and Harvard are on YouTube.
“oh no! MIT/Harvard are a bunch of influencers. We better stop listening to them”.
Imagine calling the holder of a masters degree in climate science an “influencer”
If you actually believe that, I have a bridge to sell you.
