What we need is a fantasy football league, but for carbon offsets.
Then maybe, people would probably understand the vast majority of them are made up or stuff that we were "doing anyway" and aren't actually incremental.
Then maybe, people would probably understand the vast majority of them are made up or stuff that we were "doing anyway" and aren't actually incremental.
Obviously it would be even better if the $ went to actual carbon sequestration, but the program would presumably work to some degree if you just gave the $ to some totally unrelated cause (which seems to be the solution UC has settled on).
Now, Mr. Silicon Valley comes along and wants to sell Ford Motor company carbon credits. So you guys ink a deal where every time you sell sawdust to Charmin, Ford gets a green carbon credit.
Where is the net carbon negative? There is none because it was a process that was already being done... but this is how the vast majority of Carbon Credits work and why this entire made up market does absolutely nothing to solve real world problems.
The most upvoted HN'er has the correct answer: Carbon Credits should ONLY go to new construction of green energy projects like Nuclear Reactors.
But their incentives are going to be aligned with the client's, and if the client makes a case for some unusual treatment of its carbon footprint they will be very receptive. This differs from accounting, where there are external regulators who specify accounting practices, and the audit firm checks that the client is close enough to complying with them, at the risk of major reputational damage for both parties.
1) they refuse, and KPMG says "Green-n-Co refuses to be audited", and demand for CC (by your presumption, bullshit) goes down.
2) they get audited, KPMG reports "Green-n-Co is bullshit", and demand for BS goes down. or...
3) audited, report says "Green-n-Co met 93% of their stated goals, we found X areas for improvement", and (presumably) GnC only gets better, and demand for working CC services increase.
So you're either against (reduced demand for bullshit), or against reducing CO2? Help me understand.
I dont necessarily disagree with you that CC is bs, but why would anyone be against going MythBusters on it? And what better mythbuster than a big-name accounting firm?
If your position is correct, then the green movement has some explaining to do. Claiming to fight something, as a non-profit, and not having any auditing or accounting measures is deceitful to their cause and makes us question whether they in fact care about the environment whatsoever. Having one of the big-five blow their cover would help rip the bandaid off and redirect that money to an effective cause.