I also don’t like the idea of “carbon offset”. It gives companies an excuse to keep polluting the planet while they can claim that “well, I’ll just plant some more trees 🤷” Very awful. How about just not creating that much pollution?
Another problem with carbon credits is that they are issued by government, which means government either gives them away or acquires additional dollars for the treasury when it auctions them off. Is there an auction? An additional point of taxation unexamined.
How does anyone know how much carbon could or should be removed in the first place? Lick the index finger and hold it up in the air? Truth be known, NO ONE has a clue.
Important to distinguish between carbon credits - the subject of the article - and carbon allowances. The latter form part of emissions trading schemes such as the EU ETS. It raised around €70 billion in 2023 which was then invested in decarbonisation or recycling funds back to poorer communities. The EU ETS has been a powerful driver of Europe cutting emissions.
So, the money goes to whoever it is that produces decarbonisation services, whatever they may be, in the EU. And what is the impact on CO2 in the global atmosphere? Insignificant, to be sure. Your co-author has it right; shady.
There’s certainly something fishy going on with the system as a whole — and it’s clear that the environment often isn’t the main priority.
Personally, I don’t think they should be an option until you’ve demonstrated that you’ve done everything realistically possible to reduce your own impact first (or you’re actively working on it).
Companies should be applauded for investing in protecting or restoring nature. The problem occurs when firms use it as an excuse not to cut their own impact, or make claims on the investment that can't be backed up with evidence.
Individual companies, regardless of size, cannot materially affect the quantity of CO2 in the global atmosphere. Why pretend they can? Absolutely no one knows how much CO2 should be in the atmosphere; isn't that a correct statement? The who project of carbon permits is obviously a scam. Follow the money, if you can. But of course, you can't. That's the whole idea.
Entirely insignificant. Moreover, I do not believe your data are accurate. What leads you to accept these data? I'm not trying to be provocative; I'm asking questions that must be asked. I am quite experienced in data collection and data reporting by government.
Thanks for sharing.
I also don’t like the idea of “carbon offset”. It gives companies an excuse to keep polluting the planet while they can claim that “well, I’ll just plant some more trees 🤷” Very awful. How about just not creating that much pollution?
Another problem with carbon credits is that they are issued by government, which means government either gives them away or acquires additional dollars for the treasury when it auctions them off. Is there an auction? An additional point of taxation unexamined.
How does anyone know how much carbon could or should be removed in the first place? Lick the index finger and hold it up in the air? Truth be known, NO ONE has a clue.
Important to distinguish between carbon credits - the subject of the article - and carbon allowances. The latter form part of emissions trading schemes such as the EU ETS. It raised around €70 billion in 2023 which was then invested in decarbonisation or recycling funds back to poorer communities. The EU ETS has been a powerful driver of Europe cutting emissions.
So, the money goes to whoever it is that produces decarbonisation services, whatever they may be, in the EU. And what is the impact on CO2 in the global atmosphere? Insignificant, to be sure. Your co-author has it right; shady.
There’s certainly something fishy going on with the system as a whole — and it’s clear that the environment often isn’t the main priority.
Personally, I don’t think they should be an option until you’ve demonstrated that you’ve done everything realistically possible to reduce your own impact first (or you’re actively working on it).
Companies should be applauded for investing in protecting or restoring nature. The problem occurs when firms use it as an excuse not to cut their own impact, or make claims on the investment that can't be backed up with evidence.
Individual companies, regardless of size, cannot materially affect the quantity of CO2 in the global atmosphere. Why pretend they can? Absolutely no one knows how much CO2 should be in the atmosphere; isn't that a correct statement? The who project of carbon permits is obviously a scam. Follow the money, if you can. But of course, you can't. That's the whole idea.
Only 100 companies have been responsible for more than 70% of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions since 1988. Hardly insignificant.
Entirely insignificant. Moreover, I do not believe your data are accurate. What leads you to accept these data? I'm not trying to be provocative; I'm asking questions that must be asked. I am quite experienced in data collection and data reporting by government.
Your involved in collating and analysing emissions for government?
No. I am an economist who consulted with EPA, USDA, FDA, and CDC for nearly a decade.
I’m no expert in this field — Peter is your guy to answer that question.
Perhaps he will.