@Dave@absGeekNZ, shouldn’t we also consider whether it’s necessary to pollute to find out more about pollution?
If successful and we confirm what we already know, how much will this contribute to effective change?
Is this the best use of $ for its cause?
I guess the point here is holding businesses accountable. If this is how we get proof to stop polluting, then it could well create less pollution than it stops.
You could argue that all pollution monitoring is polluting to find out more about pollution. You’d need to assess what they are expecting to catch vs the CO2 output.
@Dave, my point was that these arbitrators are already known and it can be more effective telling people who to boycott than launching rockets for a ‘showy’
finger point and tell.
Most if not all of these companies give a flying duck for those trying to hold them accountable.
@Dave, ah yes, unfortunately not many governments are a representation of their people anymore and even fewer are interested in acting for their benefits.
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.
@Dave @absGeekNZ, shouldn’t we also consider whether it’s necessary to pollute to find out more about pollution?
If successful and we confirm what we already know, how much will this contribute to effective change?
Is this the best use of $ for its cause?
I think this is a valid concern; but you have to look at the challenge of measuring the emissions over the entire country.
There is no other way to capture this data.
@absGeekNZ, a good start is targeting the biggest polluters though, isn’t it?
I guess the point here is holding businesses accountable. If this is how we get proof to stop polluting, then it could well create less pollution than it stops.
You could argue that all pollution monitoring is polluting to find out more about pollution. You’d need to assess what they are expecting to catch vs the CO2 output.
@Dave, my point was that these arbitrators are already known and it can be more effective telling people who to boycott than launching rockets for a ‘showy’
finger point and tell.
Most if not all of these companies give a flying duck for those trying to hold them accountable.
Aren’t we (as the govt) trying to force them to purchase carbon credits rather than creating a social movement to boycott?
@Dave, ah yes, unfortunately not many governments are a representation of their people anymore and even fewer are interested in acting for their benefits.
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.