141–150 of 233 posts
The money going towards carbon offsets would be better spent on lobbying in favor of carbon taxes, and establishing Enhanced Weathering: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enhanced_weathering
I'm pretty sure all a carbon tax does is solve for the "demand" side of the equation. Fundamentally you would still need an accounting system for carbon, thus carbon credits of different sorts. Or am I missing something?
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.
So the guy working in a kitchen that makes $20k a year and bikes to work should be taxed the same as the ceo with a private jet when it comes to carbon production?
Under such a tax the distribution to that $20k a year bike commuting kitchen worker would probably be significantly more than the amount the carbon tax has raised their costs.
That CEO on the other hand would see the costs to operate their jet go up way more than their share of the carbon tax distribution.
both carbon offset and the business surrounding it (especially carbon sequestration) are mostly for the purpose of virtue signaling. it’s no different from the sunday confessions held mostly in catholic cathedrals, where one can sin all they want during the week and have it all forgiven in a couple minutes talk with a priest. if you can keep current operations as is, reap massive profits, and pay pennies towards carb…
At the root of this is "do we need to decarbonize?". I'm curious where you land on this.
if too much carbon in the atmosphere is bad, stop putting too much into it. or maybe it’s not necessarily bad but we’re stuck with a global warming narrative that’s wrong, on net, but hard to recant? i don’t know. what i do know is that virtue signaling is a moth-gathering flame. see america.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Many people say that markets fundamentally can't do that. If you think a market can, could you explain? (If they can, that would by far be the easiest coördination approach: we understand markets quite well.)
I don't see why a market can't do it. Carbon dioxide is invisible, mostly useless gas, and it's currently emitted by most cars, planes, trains, and factories. The accounting needs to happen somewhere, markets seem good at that. Above I said "we absolutely need a carbon market", and I'm open to dropping that. It's possible markets are not the most effective option but I'm kind of short on how else to solve it. To some…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You need at least two completely independent teams who don't see each other's code so you'll have a rough idea how much developer bias is responsible for the signal. Right now they are all copying code from each other, a single error in these and all the climate models are effected. Replication here should mean different scientists writing different code arriving at the same estimates. It needs to be open source, and…
I want this to happen, how can I help?
I think you need an expert team of software engineers, physicists and climate experts that will either build good climate models or decipher the mess that is the current models variability.
Honestly, looking at the code of some models I don't think there's much hope in understanding them to the point where you know where the deviations are coming from, it's probably easier putting together new models that are subject to much more strict testing, unit testing, evaluations against real world data than salvaging the current mess. And just throw out the models which fail the testing.