Live data from Hacker News

Indonesia reports reduced deforestation, triggering carbon payment from Norway

norway.no

91–100 of 234 posts

Re: Indonesia reports reduced deforestation, triggering carbon payment from Norway

#91

Considering all the money norway got to pay indonesia came from selling oil, this is really nothing more than a billion dollar PR exercise. Not to mention that in a globalized world, the deforestation will ultimately get shifted somewhere else. Just like europe loves to pretend it is lowering emissions when it's just shifting manufacturing to china, norway loves to pretend to be environmenally friendly with its oil m…

You've missed the whole point of the carbon payment system. The whole point is that it isn't realistic to assume that it's possible to quit oil overnight, buy it's very possible to mitigate its effect by converting some externalities to a concrete price tag and thus creating incentives to abandon the use of at least some fossil fuels and to compensate those who contribute to invert the tendency.

But the "externalities" got shifted from indonesia to somewhere else.

How about this, if indonesia told norway to go to hell, cut down their forests, got rich and then in 20 years paid Laos $1 billion to spare their forests. Would we celebrate indonesia as great environmentalists? Of course not. We'd call them hypocrites, especially when the deforestation just moved to cambodia instead.

At the end of the day, this exercise is just wealthy european neocolonialists trying to feel better about themselves as they keep a underdeveloped country poor. While norway gets to destroy their and other countries resources to enrich itself, they use that ill gotten wealth to dupe poor countries to stay poor.

How about this, lets shift wealth instead. Tax all of europe X amount of money and shift that wealth to indonesia and ASEAN to achieve an equal living standard? This way, indonesia and ASEAN won't touch their forests or resources and their living standard will be equal to that of europe? Now that would make a real difference.

Of course it would mean europeans living standard would have to decline, but europeans (especially norwegians) are such environment loving saints right? They are willing to sacrifice right? Or are they greedy like the rest of us and want others to sacrifice while they themselves enjoy the good life?

Or how about this, we give norway $1 billion to shut down their oil industry? Do you think the norwegians would agree to that? Of course not.

Re: Indonesia reports reduced deforestation, triggering carbon payment from Norway

#92
post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And buy products from where instead? Is everything made in China uniformally disastrous for the environment? I was under the impression the easiest way for people, who live in developed nations, to reduce emissions is to eat less meat?

> And buy products from where instead? Buy less products overall. > I was under the impression the easiest way for people, who live in developed nations, to reduce emissions is to eat less meat? The most effective thing is probably less carbon intensive transport (that means first and foremost flying). But less meat (or better no meat) is still among the more impactful things.

Also don't buy 20 pairs of jeans etc per year.

The cheap "fast-fashion" these days has a hidden cost you don't pay directly. And its HUGE.

Re: Indonesia reports reduced deforestation, triggering carbon payment from Norway

#93
post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They also don't drive several thousand or tens of thousand kilometers in one go once or more a year either in addition to the normal driving, so I'd say that argument is not helpful here.

That’s a good point. I wonder how many people are willing to eat less beef vs how many are willing to give in their once a year or less long-haul-flight holiday.

That's not how it'll work though. Do vegans get more flight allowances? Do people with kids have to forgo meat as well as vacations?

Obviously no consumer choice driven solution is going to work. The costs have to be included in the goods and services if we want any actual reduction.

Re: Indonesia reports reduced deforestation, triggering carbon payment from Norway

#94
post #90
post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How would you price those externalities, given that there’s currently no way to offset/capture that CO2?

There are plenty of existing methods that become economically viable if CO2 is priced properly.

I'm not interested in economic viability, but energy viability. Given that we get most of our energy by creating CO2, it doesn't make sense to use some of that energy to remove some of that CO2. The only option is rapid expansion of nuclear and/or solar, but at latter will take a while and the former isn't very popular.

Re: Indonesia reports reduced deforestation, triggering carbon payment from Norway

#96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Institute a carbon tax and it'll vanish into someone's pocket while the manufactured goods still have the same emissions.

Spend the tax money on building offset mechanisms to recapture Carbon. Though not as cost-efficient as reducing carbon creation, they have the advantage that we can visit these facilities and verify they exist and are working.

Why don't you just mine BTC and then sell it and spend the money to offset CO2? /s

Re: Indonesia reports reduced deforestation, triggering carbon payment from Norway

#97
post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And buy products from where instead? Is everything made in China uniformally disastrous for the environment? I was under the impression the easiest way for people, who live in developed nations, to reduce emissions is to eat less meat?

The worst culprit for many people I know is flying. You can eat a lot of meat for the emissions of just one long-haul flight. (Which is sad because flying is great.)

>> The worst culprit for many people I know is flying. You can eat a lot of meat for the emissions of just one long-haul flight. (Which is sad because flying is great.)

And yet the total CO2 contribution of the world-wide aviation industry is 'only' 2%.

Based on that chart I would say having (more) children is by far the worst culprit. By now I'm really 100% convinced that the only way to save the earth is if everyone everywhere around the globe stops getting more than 2 children per couple, preferably not more than 1, so the world's population can shrink down back to somewhere around 1/10th of what it is now.

I'm 100% serious about this, and it makes me sad and angry nobody is actually really talking about this. Nothing we can do like eating less meat or skipping a holiday will help if the world's population doesn't shrink by a significant factor. It's a very unpopular opinion to have, because everyone likes children, they are the future, they are god's gift, it's a human right to make babies, bla bla, etc. But reduced to cold hard facts, there are simply way.too.many.people.

Yes I know this would absolutely kill our debt-based economies and probably significantly reduce the standard of living in many places, at least in the short-to-medium term, but that's a different topic. Completely destroying the earth will have much worse effect on the economy and standard of living anyway.

Re: Indonesia reports reduced deforestation, triggering carbon payment from Norway

#98
post #2

> In 2010, Norway pledged to support Indonesia with up to 1 billion USD depending on results. It's easy to sit in a developed western country, buying products from other countries, and then complain about their emissions. I'm glad that we're trying to be responsible. It may not be enough or not the right way to do it (some thoughts on this?), but it's something.

This is very bad there is nothing to be gained by reducing emissions.

If Carbon level continue to rise, we'll evolve to live on CO2.

If you stop carbon emissions you are effectively preventing God's or Nature's job.

Re: Indonesia reports reduced deforestation, triggering carbon payment from Norway

#99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Institute a carbon tax and it'll vanish into someone's pocket while the manufactured goods still have the same emissions.

Spend the tax money on building offset mechanisms to recapture Carbon. Though not as cost-efficient as reducing carbon creation, they have the advantage that we can visit these facilities and verify they exist and are working.

Your response to “the money won’t be spent properly”, is to just spend more money?

While we’re doing that, maybe there should be a high speed rail from LA to San Fran!

Re: Indonesia reports reduced deforestation, triggering carbon payment from Norway

#100

When I first moved to Europe I was struck by just how domesticated the land is. I can sleep in the open without being afraid of snakes, scorpions, spiders, wolves or bears. Even when land is "wild", the larger mammals will be rabbits, deer, wild goats and such. Excepting natural parks, hunters are the only predators. At least in Spain, a tremendous percentage of land is put at the service of mankind. The dehesas give…

> We need to keep this land intact, but the only way to do it is to make conservation more valuable than exploitation.

Here's how we're monetizing conservation locally:

https://pinecoin.me

Post reply on HN