What we want to do is lower emissions; one way to achieve this is to place a cost on those emissions. Thus giving an incentive to lower the emissions; carbon credits are a bit of a shit way of doing this. But it is better than nothing.
Well I guess what I meant is that I don’t think the government is spending tens of millions on a satellite to start a social movement.
They are the government, if they want to stop polluters they shouldn’t encourage boycotts, they should use their teeth. Whether that’s forcing the polluters to buy carbon credits (because that’s the current system), shutting them down, or some other method, they should taking action not trying to convince the public to avoid them.
@Dave@absGeekNZ, loss of profits are unfortunately still the best motivator in a world running on old-fashioned, exploitative (on every level) capitalism.
Carbon credits are secondary.
What we want to do is lower emissions; one way to achieve this is to place a cost on those emissions. Thus giving an incentive to lower the emissions; carbon credits are a bit of a shit way of doing this. But it is better than nothing.
Well I guess what I meant is that I don’t think the government is spending tens of millions on a satellite to start a social movement.
They are the government, if they want to stop polluters they shouldn’t encourage boycotts, they should use their teeth. Whether that’s forcing the polluters to buy carbon credits (because that’s the current system), shutting them down, or some other method, they should taking action not trying to convince the public to avoid them.
@Dave @absGeekNZ, loss of profits are unfortunately still the best motivator in a world running on old-fashioned, exploitative (on every level) capitalism.