I read the entire article and didn't really get it until I read this paragraph:
> The problem is with "avoided emissions" offsets. Suppose X and Y are both emitting greenhouse gases, and X pays Y to stop. That's a half solution, but it is often treated as a complete solution: X looks good because they bought an offset, and Y looks good because they're no longer emitting anything. That's the shell game.
Incredibly well put.
So, effectively, one actor's emissions can be made to count for twice its effect through the accounting trick that involves one actor paying the other for having reduced their emissions.
However -- is this really a bad thing? Sure, it's not the full solution, but it's effectively a privately sponsored economic bonus for those actors that do choose to reduce their emissions.
Sure, it should probably be rebranded so it's clear this is actually what happens. "Carbon-reduction contingent donation" or something.
> The problem is with "avoided emissions" offsets. Suppose X and Y are both emitting greenhouse gases, and X pays Y to stop. That's a half solution, but it is often treated as a complete solution: X looks good because they bought an offset, and Y looks good because they're no longer emitting anything. That's the shell game.
Incredibly well put.
So, effectively, one actor's emissions can be made to count for twice its effect through the accounting trick that involves one actor paying the other for having reduced their emissions.
However -- is this really a bad thing? Sure, it's not the full solution, but it's effectively a privately sponsored economic bonus for those actors that do choose to reduce their emissions.
Sure, it should probably be rebranded so it's clear this is actually what happens. "Carbon-reduction contingent donation" or something.