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

81–90 of 233 posts

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

#81

Post by InSteady »

quixoticelixer- wrote: post #39
postmodest wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "researchers" rake in grant money based on promoting apocalyptic levels of fear This is a bad take. We are currently living in apocalyptic levels of REALITY. The people saying what you just said, but twenty, thirty, fifty years ago, were speaking out against the warnings that--if we'd acted in them instead of attacking the messenger as you did-- could've kept us from global wildfire and heat domes.

The world isn't actually going to end.

Careful, your tired old strawman is liable to burn up in the next round of wildfires.

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

#82

Post by tito »

burkaman wrote: post #19
rohan_ wrote: post #12

doesn't this just mean they're priced incorrectly? like can't you have different ratings for different carbon credit products - the more accurate ones are priced higher?

Not really, because most carbon credits are based on counterfactuals - would this forest have been logged if you didn't protect it, would this farmer have used less efficient practices if you hadn't paid them, would this land have remained empty if you hadn't paid to plant trees, etc. No matter how reputable the rating agency is, they still won't be able to answer these questions very accurately. Additionally, when y…

I think you two are saying different things. Agree that the existing products for decarbonization have a lot of room for improvement.

Some solutions include:

1. Stopping the dumping

2. Pay the full cost of the impact of any dumping that does happen. In your analogy, this would mean the longer you leave the river polluted, the more you have to pay to clean it up.

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

#83

Post by tito »

yawboakye wrote: post #75

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.

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

#85

Post by tito »

RcouF1uZ4gsC wrote: post #38

I would argue carbon offsets are exactly doing their job: allowing people and corporations to throw a bit of money at the problem and continue with business as usual. They are the equivalent of medieval indulgences.

The job we have to do is rapidly decarbonize our economy and also remove billions of tons of carbon already in the air. This pursuit is likely in the trillions of dollars in our lifetime.

Existing carbon offsets are best thought of as an attempt. The opportunity is, what's next? What's going to actually solve this multi-trillion dollar problem?

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

#86

Post by tito »

wizzwizz4 wrote: post #79
tito wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We absolutely need a working market to meet decarbonization goals for a stable climate. The state of the current market means there's a lot of opportunity for improvement.

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 someone who says that markets "fundamentally can't", I would ask them what solution they prefer instead, I'm open!

To maintain a stable climate we need to decarbonize rapidly. A carbon market is a potential solution for rapid decarbonization that so far is not working great.

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

#87

Post by tito »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #37
ethbr1 wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Curious about someone in the industry's opinion, but the problem sounds like carbon offsets should actually be treated as carbon offset futures . I.e. the value is determined at the time of delivered carbon offsets, and the instrument's price floats on the market before that time, including relative to how likely / valuable the delivery is If company A buys a carbon offset from entity X, and it becomes increasingly a…

The problem with carbon offsets is worse than that. First, there is no real way to tell if someone was going to do something anyway. You have an existing operation which is already cost effective to modernize because the fuel savings exceed the cost, so you were going to do it anyway, but now you get to sell credits even though the modernization would have happened regardless. So you have a significant amount of pree…

I work in the industry [0].

The decarbonization game is extremely tricky. This whole notion of "were they going to do it anyway", how the heck do you build that in. And how the heck does demand happen, who wants to pay for invisible, mostly useless gas?

The key question at the root of this is this: do we need to win the decarbonization game? Or can we just set down the game and walk away?

To me it looks like we need to win the decarbonization game to maintain a stable climate. So then all these attempts, failures, and mind bending problems all become challenges to overcome. Not "if", but "how".

The prize is a stable climate, a thriving civilization, and the specific players that beat the game probably get trillions of dollars of prize money.

[0] https://airminers.org

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

#88

Post by Nifty3929 »

ip26 wrote: post #67
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.

One of the big problems seems to be simply getting supporters to agree on what to do with the money. There are plenty of supporters who staunchly insist the money must be used exclusively for miscellaneous social justice causes.

Give it directly back to the people. Do not allow them to spend it on anything, not even to fund the (hopefully small) beaurocracy necessary to implement the tax.

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

#89

Post by Nifty3929 »

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…

How about “Carbon UBI?”

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

#90

Post by tito »

Explore3003 wrote: post #6

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?
Post reply on HN