Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Study: Carbon offsets aren’t doing their job, overstate impact

arstechnica.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 233 posts

Re: Study: Carbon offsets aren’t doing their job, overstate impact

#181

Post by lmm »

asu_thomas wrote: post #136
tito wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes there's a potential conflict there. I'm curious to hear from your perspective: 1. Do we need to maintain a stable climate? 2. Do we need to win the decarbonization game to do so? And if not, how else do we maintain a stable climate?

1. Of course. 2. A stable climate is a ridiculously hopeless pipe dream in a world dominated by the capitalist mode of production. The anti climate change industry is a fraud by definition.

> 2. A stable climate is a ridiculously hopeless pipe dream in a world dominated by the capitalist mode of production. The anti climate change industry is a fraud by definition.

Ok so what are you claiming here? That preventing climate change is impossible so we should give up and pollute as much as we like without worrying about it? Because if your position is that we can't prevent climate change without overthrowing capitalism, then given the history of the last few centuries of trying to do that, that sounds like what it boils down to.

Re: Study: Carbon offsets aren’t doing their job, overstate impact

#182

Post by reilly3000 »

beatthatflight wrote: post #178
reilly3000 wrote: post #163

> “These carbon credits are essentially predicting whether someone will chop down a tree, and selling that prediction." I struggle to think of an expletive that works here. The people of the UK are providing welfare to companies for what? Not cutting down trees that don’t exist? The article later goes in to say researchers found evidence that 6% of the credits are having the intended effects. The malignancy of the au…

Am I going blind? I can't find your quotes in the article linked?

https://www.cam.ac.uk/stories/carbon-credits-hot-air I found that quote on that article, and I could have sworn I commented on a link to that post, not this Ars article on the same subject. Perhaps they were merged in the last hour?

Re: Study: Carbon offsets aren’t doing their job, overstate impact

#183

Post by beatthatflight »

reilly3000 wrote: post #182
beatthatflight wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Am I going blind? I can't find your quotes in the article linked?

https://www.cam.ac.uk/stories/carbon-credits-hot-air I found that quote on that article, and I could have sworn I commented on a link to that post, not this Ars article on the same subject. Perhaps they were merged in the last hour?

Odd. Thanks though, appreciate hunting down the link for me!

Re: Study: Carbon offsets aren’t doing their job, overstate impact

#184

Post by fsn4dN69ey »

It's interesting, because there is indeed a system in the EU known as carbon allowances. While everyone and their dog can buy offsets, allowances exist in the EU and California (I think?) which are a legal mandate that firms must purchase which are necessary to pollute. There's even tradeable products based on this, and the market seems healthy enough. Offsets are definitely a scam, but I'd love to hear anyone else's opinion on allowances.

https://climate.ec.europa.eu/eu-action/eu-emissions-trading-...

Allowances

https://sparkchange.io/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/SparkChang...

Guide on allowances from a firm that sells a physically backed allowances product

Re: Study: Carbon offsets aren’t doing their job, overstate impact

#185

Post by pkphilip »

SamBam wrote: post #168

If you had $5000 that you wanted to use to fight climate change, and you wanted to have it have a bigger multiplying effect than your own personal consumption (install heat pumps, get electric car, etc.), where would you put that, given that most carbon credits seem to be scams? That is, what's the least-scammy carbon credit, and/or place of concrete change? Places I donate to, but wonder how much the effect of each…

Buy some land in a cheap rural place and fill it with fruit trees and contribute that towards the community each year. That will sequester far more carbon and help the environment more than contributing funds towards these sorts of programmes - and you will likely build up some immovable assets over time.

Re: Study: Carbon offsets aren’t doing their job, overstate impact

#186

Post by ikekkdcjkfke »

transcriptase wrote: post #101
twoodfin wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, and thus it’s highly motivating for every link of the supply chain to figure out how to exploit low- or no-carbon energy sources.

Which might work in other countries with a different climate, geography, and population density but until electric tractor trailers or teleportation become a reality it’s just increasing the cost of living for everyone who already can’t afford to “invest in green solutions”. Unfortunately our current government doesn’t realize that they’re not comparable to California.

That's the point, to get the market to react. At first the carbon tax is low, but increases steadily so market will have time to react. Just announcing it will get things going

Re: Study: Carbon offsets aren’t doing their job, overstate impact

#188

Post by truculent »

twoodfin wrote: post #76
Nifty3929 wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would be happy to support a carbon tax, as long as the proceeds are held off-books and distributed annually to all citizens equally, with no income or other qualification criteria. Basically a carbon funded pure UBI.

What this kind of proposal needs is a name the progressive and moderate left can rally around. Something akin to “living wage”. Mandating a “living wage” makes some things noticeably more expensive: Burgers, rideshares, lawn care, … A serious, effective carbon tax will make gas more expensive. Maybe 50 cents/gallon. If the voting public felt the same way about gas prices as they do about the minimum wage—if you can’t…

Carbon Tax and Dividend is the one I’ve heard most about

Re: Study: Carbon offsets aren’t doing their job, overstate impact

#189

Post by akomtu »

VintageCool wrote: post #174
SamBam wrote: post #168

If you had $5000 that you wanted to use to fight climate change, and you wanted to have it have a bigger multiplying effect than your own personal consumption (install heat pumps, get electric car, etc.), where would you put that, given that most carbon credits seem to be scams? That is, what's the least-scammy carbon credit, and/or place of concrete change? Places I donate to, but wonder how much the effect of each…

Donate to aspiring Democrats running for state legislatures in blues states with red State Legislatures or split governments. > Back in 2019, [David Roberts] wrote for Vox that there is one weird trick states can use to ensure good climate and energy policy. That trick is: giving Democrats full control of the government. It has worked in California, Washington, Oregon, Colorado, Illinois, New Mexico, Massachusetts, N…

This should be added as the 4th option, right after carbon credits.

Re: Study: Carbon offsets aren’t doing their job, overstate impact

#190

Post by Moldoteck »

I still don't get why govts are bot offering carbon offsets by sponsoring public transport like trams, trains and electric busses. This will contribute to its development in terms of quality and funding and hopefully reduce car dependency if dedicated lanes are provided to this new transport
Post reply on HN