The price always drops significantly... Guess how they all find themselves with a whole bunch of "stock" they got on the cheap, and are happy to sell to all the companies needing to remain compliant or whatever the reason this time may be the price will eventually surge again. Who made the market crash? South Pole. Who profited the most from the recent highs? South Pole. Pump, and dump. I met with the CFTC multiple times, and some other agencies were pulled in as well, because I wanted them to look at the South Pole internal records, but so far nothing came of it. If you look at those two public meetings they held, the entire room full of the usual suspects. IETA, ICVCM, VCMI, and a whole bunch of other connected individuals, who have histories (Big Oil, Big Banks, Capital Hill, and of course, the crown jewel herself, Ms. Chair of the SEC during the ENRON/Worldcom induced market crash, critisized for her relaxing of oversight and regulation...) that should make it obvious what is going on. But no, the CFTC congratulates everyone "for their leadership". It's a farce. (Although the people I met with were in fact pretty serious, there's is just a very narrow window in which they are allowed to operate, and it is not easy to really do a lot.)
ps. I got the poll right :p It has become that easy to recognize "that" language apparently...
Who cares if corporations "greenwash" their activities. That per se neither increases nor decreases net CO2 emissions.
Now if they expend real resources to reduce net emissions by very little, that that's problem of the same kind as being prevented from generating real sources (say by blocking LNG exports) that avoids emission of very little net CO2.
Lets keep our eye on the ball, reducing net CO2 emissions at as low a cost as possible.
The basis of the empirical calm about how much net emission of CO2 any particular offset scheme is weak. It is a pretty tricky question because the answer depends on the counterfactual. But my point was just that, focus attention on the estimates. The initial post seem to just deride the concept of an offset but in principle offsets can work.
I agree with you that unfortunately offsets work all too well. Offsets were not designed to reduce emissions. The point of offsets is to allow the fossil fuel industry to continue making huge profits for as long as possible. Even if offsets could guarantee the reduction (or avoidance) of CO₂ emissions (which is a huge "if") in one place, any benefit is cancelled out when the offset is sold and used by a Big Polluter to continue burning fossil fuels somewhere else.
Whatever offsets were "designed for" my POV is purely pragmatic. Do the actual working of some specific scheme lead to a reduction , ceteris paribus, in net emission of CO2 into the atmosphere and at what cost. The world is ever so slightly a better place if Taylor Swift offsets (the scheme really works) some of the CO2 she causes by frying around than if she did not fly.
Of course this is just a sideshow. The only way to really reduce net emissions efficiently is to tax them.
No, the world becomes a slightly worse place when Taylor Swift continues flying and buys offsets. The world would be slightly better if she flew a lot less. In order to address the climate crisis we have to stop burning fossil fuels. We cannot offset our way out of the climate crisis.
Perhaps in principle, offsets could work, but in actuality they demonstrably have zero effect other than assuaging guilt and sapping corporate profits. Just look at the Keeling Curve and show me the result of any offset (or COP meeting, for that matter). Every geological process, every plant, every forest, was already fully engaged in sequestering carbon for millennia before humans began burning every available fossil fuel. That was millions of years of stored solar energy burnt off in 200 years. An extra patch of supposedly untouched forest here and there has absolutely ZERO effect on the continuing abuse of our atmosphere by ongoing burning.
That is enough for us to be in perfect agreement. :)
Almost.
There is also the cost benefit analysis of the value of opposing this that or the other imperfect offset. I think you are concerned that the offset consume resources that coud go into more effective ways to reducing net emissions and I think that is entirely valid.
The price always drops significantly... Guess how they all find themselves with a whole bunch of "stock" they got on the cheap, and are happy to sell to all the companies needing to remain compliant or whatever the reason this time may be the price will eventually surge again. Who made the market crash? South Pole. Who profited the most from the recent highs? South Pole. Pump, and dump. I met with the CFTC multiple times, and some other agencies were pulled in as well, because I wanted them to look at the South Pole internal records, but so far nothing came of it. If you look at those two public meetings they held, the entire room full of the usual suspects. IETA, ICVCM, VCMI, and a whole bunch of other connected individuals, who have histories (Big Oil, Big Banks, Capital Hill, and of course, the crown jewel herself, Ms. Chair of the SEC during the ENRON/Worldcom induced market crash, critisized for her relaxing of oversight and regulation...) that should make it obvious what is going on. But no, the CFTC congratulates everyone "for their leadership". It's a farce. (Although the people I met with were in fact pretty serious, there's is just a very narrow window in which they are allowed to operate, and it is not easy to really do a lot.)
ps. I got the poll right :p It has become that easy to recognize "that" language apparently...
Who cares if corporations "greenwash" their activities. That per se neither increases nor decreases net CO2 emissions.
Now if they expend real resources to reduce net emissions by very little, that that's problem of the same kind as being prevented from generating real sources (say by blocking LNG exports) that avoids emission of very little net CO2.
Lets keep our eye on the ball, reducing net CO2 emissions at as low a cost as possible.
https://thomaslhutcheson.substack.com/p/why-not-lng-exports
Thank you! This is the definitive post on the offsets scam, revealing exactly why it is unregulatable by the the CFTC.
Yes, denounce ineffective, high-cost reduction in net CO2 emissions.
Yes, but even at the high cost, there is no observable reduction in CO2 emissions, only, perhaps a reduction in guilt by the misinformed.
The basis of the empirical calm about how much net emission of CO2 any particular offset scheme is weak. It is a pretty tricky question because the answer depends on the counterfactual. But my point was just that, focus attention on the estimates. The initial post seem to just deride the concept of an offset but in principle offsets can work.
I agree with you that unfortunately offsets work all too well. Offsets were not designed to reduce emissions. The point of offsets is to allow the fossil fuel industry to continue making huge profits for as long as possible. Even if offsets could guarantee the reduction (or avoidance) of CO₂ emissions (which is a huge "if") in one place, any benefit is cancelled out when the offset is sold and used by a Big Polluter to continue burning fossil fuels somewhere else.
Whatever offsets were "designed for" my POV is purely pragmatic. Do the actual working of some specific scheme lead to a reduction , ceteris paribus, in net emission of CO2 into the atmosphere and at what cost. The world is ever so slightly a better place if Taylor Swift offsets (the scheme really works) some of the CO2 she causes by frying around than if she did not fly.
Of course this is just a sideshow. The only way to really reduce net emissions efficiently is to tax them.
No, the world becomes a slightly worse place when Taylor Swift continues flying and buys offsets. The world would be slightly better if she flew a lot less. In order to address the climate crisis we have to stop burning fossil fuels. We cannot offset our way out of the climate crisis.
As Professor Kevin Anderson points out, offsets are worse than doing nothing: https://reddmonitor.substack.com/i/145297667/offsetting-is-actually-worse-than-doing-nothing
Perhaps in principle, offsets could work, but in actuality they demonstrably have zero effect other than assuaging guilt and sapping corporate profits. Just look at the Keeling Curve and show me the result of any offset (or COP meeting, for that matter). Every geological process, every plant, every forest, was already fully engaged in sequestering carbon for millennia before humans began burning every available fossil fuel. That was millions of years of stored solar energy burnt off in 200 years. An extra patch of supposedly untouched forest here and there has absolutely ZERO effect on the continuing abuse of our atmosphere by ongoing burning.
"Perhaps in principle, offsets could work,"
That is enough for us to be in perfect agreement. :)
Almost.
There is also the cost benefit analysis of the value of opposing this that or the other imperfect offset. I think you are concerned that the offset consume resources that coud go into more effective ways to reducing net emissions and I think that is entirely valid.