Comment box Scope: context, summary, quotation, conclusion Tone: neutral Opinion: in the conclusion only Sarcasm/humor: none Carbon pricing is a government policy which places a fee on...
Comment box
Scope: context, summary, quotation, conclusion
Tone: neutral
Opinion: in the conclusion only
Sarcasm/humor: none
Carbon pricing is a government policy which places a fee on corporations' carbon emissions. The goal is to raise the theoretical end-consumer cost of ecologically harmful products, which would decrease corporate sales (basic market forces); and thereby incentivize corporations to invest in less expensive, greener alternatives which consumers are more likely to purchase.
This meta-analysis (study of other scientific studies) indicates that real-world carbon pricing policies around the planet have had significant, measurable impacts on decreasing carbon emissions.
Between 5 and 21 percent emission reductions: this is the empirically measured effect of carbon pricing systems in their first few years of operation.
These included 35 studies on pilot systems in China alone, 13 on EU emissions trading, 7 and 5 on the larger pilot systems in British Columbia in Canada and the “Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative” in the USA, respectively, as well as studies on other systems in Australia, Canada, Finland, Japan, Sweden, Switzerland, South Korea, the UK and the USA.
The fact that these policies have been demonstrated to be effective is notable. Given this information, which has been replicated by previous studies, countries and other municipalities should aggressively (and progressively) tax carbon emissions in order to leverage market forces to reduce the negative effects of manufacturing and production on the Earth's climate systems.
My question (as i don't have the time to do the deep dive), is if/how carbon offets are allowed. Opposed to actively punishing excess energy use. Offsets have too much wiggle room to be reliable...
My question (as i don't have the time to do the deep dive), is if/how carbon offets are allowed. Opposed to actively punishing excess energy use.
Offsets have too much wiggle room to be reliable IMO. I'd be happy to learn otherwise when I deep dive tomorrow.
I think carbon offsets do reliably transfer money to people in third-world countries who claim to be doing environmental things. Possibly this has other benefits, even if the emissions reduction...
I think carbon offsets do reliably transfer money to people in third-world countries who claim to be doing environmental things. Possibly this has other benefits, even if the emissions reduction is sometimes overstated.
For the people buying the credits, it's a real cost, so that does provide some incentive to reduce emissions as a way of lowering their costs. (Just as it would if they were taxed and the money went to the government.)
Which is to say that the optimal amount of carbon credit fraud isn't zero. It does need to be kept in reasonable bounds.
Comment box
Carbon pricing is a government policy which places a fee on corporations' carbon emissions. The goal is to raise the theoretical end-consumer cost of ecologically harmful products, which would decrease corporate sales (basic market forces); and thereby incentivize corporations to invest in less expensive, greener alternatives which consumers are more likely to purchase.
This meta-analysis (study of other scientific studies) indicates that real-world carbon pricing policies around the planet have had significant, measurable impacts on decreasing carbon emissions.
The fact that these policies have been demonstrated to be effective is notable. Given this information, which has been replicated by previous studies, countries and other municipalities should aggressively (and progressively) tax carbon emissions in order to leverage market forces to reduce the negative effects of manufacturing and production on the Earth's climate systems.
My question (as i don't have the time to do the deep dive), is if/how carbon offets are allowed. Opposed to actively punishing excess energy use.
Offsets have too much wiggle room to be reliable IMO. I'd be happy to learn otherwise when I deep dive tomorrow.
I think carbon offsets do reliably transfer money to people in third-world countries who claim to be doing environmental things. Possibly this has other benefits, even if the emissions reduction is sometimes overstated.
For the people buying the credits, it's a real cost, so that does provide some incentive to reduce emissions as a way of lowering their costs. (Just as it would if they were taxed and the money went to the government.)
Which is to say that the optimal amount of carbon credit fraud isn't zero. It does need to be kept in reasonable bounds.