Carbon markets and climate change mitigation, Are we in the right direction?

[stompix]

Carbon is not the commodity, it's carbon credits, so you don't get paid to produce CO2, you get fined for producing!

I'm not the biggest expert in this field, but carbon credits are not a fine. You are just obligated by the system to buy carbon credits, if you are producing lots of carbon emissions.

Which is basically a fine without future consequences, you pay a ticket and you're on the way, free cross the lien again!
Of course considering it a tax is more appropriate but the way big guys producing tons of carbon and coming in the end as "green" just because they pay up it's more like those rich kids not caring about a 100euros fine while driving 250kmh though the city.

Some "green idiots" have decided that CO2 is bad for the environment, even though the plants and trees consume CO2.

That's one bit of the problem, if trees would consume that carbon and it would go away, but the problem is that when trees and trees decompose the whole thing is back in the natural cycle, that's why I hate when some companies claim they have done god know what marvelous deed by planting 100 trees.

The current biggest polluters, places like China and India, argue that they are behind on industrialization and want to catch up, but by the time they've caught up - especially with the scale of their population - we would likely have entered a time of irreversible change.

Well, let's look at the bright side, China is already over peak population and India will follow pretty soon, some state are already below replacement levels, the change will be more drastically in the so called 3rd world countries and far more abruptly, I doubt we could screw the planet beyond making it livable in a decade or two, it won't be as nice as before but hardly SF movie levels.

[franky1]

That's one bit of the problem, if trees would consume that carbon and it would go away, but the problem is that when trees and trees decompose the whole thing is back in the natural cycle, that's why I hate when some companies claim they have done god know what marvelous deed by planting 100 trees.

so your angry that trees convert smog into soil

so you want less soil, less tree's, less recyclable material.. less regenerative material... but dont want to stop your s17 miner being hosted at a fossil burning asic farm not making ROI(your own admissions over many topics else where)

hmm
seems soil must have done something bad to you in childhood to prefer soil erosion and keep carbon in the air

..
i did have to laugh where you think energy, matter "it would go away" even highschool maths knows all energy and matter doesnt disappear, it just changes its form.. most basic change is gas to solid

[Ozero]

So the carbon market was supposed to help fight climate change but now it seems like some richer countries are using it as a way to keep polluting. They invest in harmful projects but just buy carbon credits from others to balance it out. The issue here is that this can harm poorer countries which are already dealing with the worst impacts of climate change. It's like a loophole that might not be helping the planet as much as it should

Yes, the practice of purchasing quotas for the right to further pollute the environment has nothing to do with the fight against climate change and harmful emissions. There should be no standards for such emissions; the world community needs to develop measures for states to reduce air pollution as much as possible. There can be no other options.

[mammusu]

So the carbon market was supposed to help fight climate change but now it seems like some richer countries are using it as a way to keep polluting. They invest in harmful projects but just buy carbon credits from others to balance it out. The issue here is that this can harm poorer countries which are already dealing with the worst impacts of climate change. It's like a loophole that might not be helping the planet as much as it should

Yes, the practice of purchasing quotas for the right to further pollute the environment has nothing to do with the fight against climate change and harmful emissions. There should be no standards for such emissions; the world community needs to develop measures for states to reduce air pollution as much as possible. There can be no other options.

This is a crucial flaw in the current carbon market system. It's evident that the original intent, to combat climate change by incentivizing emissions reductions, is being undermined by the loophole of purchasing carbon credits. This not only allows richer countries to continue polluting but also exacerbates the environmental injustices faced by poorer nations.

Indeed, the focus should shift towards stringent measures aimed at reducing emissions globally rather than relying on purchasing quotas to justify further pollution. Developing equitable frameworks that prioritize emissions reductions across all nations, with support mechanisms for those most affected by climate change, is imperative for genuine progress in combating this global crisis.

[iBaba]

All these will continue to happen when we keep having leaders that are less concerned about the people and their welfares than what they stand to benefits from every of human activities be it harmful or not to the environment once it is under their own regulations because they are earning from it, this is the kind of economic activities our leaders have the courage of going for what is not beneficial to man but  accept their uses and operations because they earn from them.

I agree with you on this matter. We currently have leaders who are not concerned about the issues affecting us as followers or the masses. instead, they prioritize their own interests. They focus solely on activities that benefit their pockets, without considering the potential negative impacts on the environment or our livelihoods.

In contrast to the leaders of the past who prioritized the interests of the people and the nation, today's leaders exhibit a starkly different characteristic. Unfortunately, we tend to overlook this trait when selecting leaders. Instead of evaluating their performance, trajectory, and track record of tolerance and humanity, we often concentrate on the personal gains we stand to receive from them.

While I cannot speak for other nations, this is the reality in our part of the world. People place more emphasis on the financial power of leaders and what they can offer during elections. Consequently, we are unable to hold them fully accountable for their inability to prioritize the needs of the people.

This situation has led to leaders accumulating debts during campaigns and struggling to repay them with interest to their associates. They often misuse public funds, which should be allocated to projects, to settle these debts. In our region, there are political financiers who invest heavily in promising political candidates, expecting substantial returns on their investments through high interest rates.

So the carbon market was supposed to help fight climate change but now it seems like some richer countries are using it as a way to keep polluting. They invest in harmful projects but just buy carbon credits from others to balance it out. The issue here is that this can harm poorer countries which are already dealing with the worst impacts of climate change. It's like a loophole that might not be helping the planet as much as it should

Such situations compel us to questions like, who are these countries, what are their interests, and why are they involved in these carbon emmission initiatives? Some of them advocate for climate change reforms and other things, yet they contribute to the problems. How can we address these issues?

Many countries in Africa, particularly those in West Africa, face climate change challenges due to poor management of carbon dioxide emissions. This has adverse effects on the environmental health of their populations. Despite these challenges, leaders often prioritize personal gain over addressing the needs of their people. They focus on profiting from intervention funds and programs rather than implementing solutions.

In some parts of Africa, especially those near the Mediterranean Sea, flooding has caused widespread destruction, leaving many homeless and increasing the prevalence of diseases related to carbon emissions. Despite the availability of programs aimed at addressing these issues, leaders fail to take advantage of them, prioritizing financial gain over real solutions to pressing problems.

[Richbased]

as industrialized countries increase their investments that are harmful to the environment, while poor countries are The first to be affected by climate change.

There is no way that industrialized countries would stop investing on industrial actions regardless of the dangers in poses on the environment of that particular region because of the benefits these industrial activities also brings to mankind the only thing a country can do is not regulate the exposure of emissions of industrial actions to the atmosphere.

In my country, due to industrial actions like gas flaring have made the ozone layers to be melted thereby allowing the sun to fall directly on residents in such region because the ozone layers stands as shield that makes the sun not to fall directly on people thereby individuals in this region experiences high intensity of heat and it causes quick rust of the roofs of a building since the sun is falling directly without any shield again.

There are times when these companies, increases the flame very high such that it would even cause more disturbance to people within that area so if the government can regulate the nature with which these industrial actions should be carried then I don't think it would get to the extent of causing climate changes though climate change is inevitable as it can also come from natural occurrence.

[Ucy]

The synthetic solutions adopted by certain nations which tend to cost more and are less affordable to others will have greater negative effect than nations avoiding issues that actually cause the so called climate change.
Simple obedience to the Words of the CREATOR of this World and the whole Universe will cost little to nothing and will help mankind live naturally and respect nature and fellow man. Once this is done, the Shield that covers Earth will become strong and the world will heal.

Synthetic solutions actually contribute to problems because they are made by people or things with narrow view of things. It's like giving a blind man a contract to get couple of pigs cleaned, he rubs them powder and sprays perfume to mask their strong odor. And Ofcourse, the other blind men were so impressed by the pigs nice smell that they adopted the solution for the rest of the society

[Ozero]

I think its funny because I don't think the poor countries even know this market exists and it's them that will be more affected since they are the ones who couldn't build industries while the rich countries today are buying to enable their industries.

Looking at it as a whole since 1930s, these big countries are already contributing to climate change and global heat while the poor countries do not even have highways where cars are running. Do you mean to say, that these poor countries will remain as is while the rich countries will still continue to contribute global heat to worsen climate change because they participated in this carbon market?

The paradox is that global climate change will disproportionately affect poor countries that already live in hot climates.
According to grim new estimates, in the current century alone, about one billion people will die from various disasters caused by global warming, most of whom are poor and residents of the southern countries of the world.
Scientists argue that we must take decisive action on energy policy to radically curb carbon emissions.

In addition, we still do not have sufficiently efficient technologies to absorb greenhouse gases from the atmosphere. The few plants currently operating are capable of absorbing such a meager amount of pollutant that it is literally unnoticeable in the overall gigantic scale of emissions. The US is going to build several new and much more powerful plants to collect carbon dioxide for $1.2 billion, but this will take a long time and still will not be enough to neutralize all the volumes that even the country itself emits, not to mention everything else world. In addition, there remains methane, which has a much worse impact on the planet than CO2, and we still have no solution for it.

Today we have several agreements between countries aimed at reducing carbon emissions. But this is not to say that they are very successful. Moreover, not all countries take part in them.
It seems that humanity has once again outwitted itself and is confidently marching towards the abyss...

[TEBTC]

Global warming and and climate change has been turned into a lip service as there's no clear cut plain to reduce these harmful gases into the environment
The truth is the rich countries who are the highest contributors to climate change are not disturb by it yet

[|MINER|]

It is really a threat to the environment because it is changing the climate very fast.  Carbon dioxide is polluting the environment at a large rate. Carbon monoxide is also very toxic. The environment is being polluted very badly for the factories that produce carbon. Because of this, the climate is changing and everyone in the world is suffering from it. But less developed countries are more.  the victim  Apart from the carbon producing factories, we should also look at the reasons that the environment is being polluted due to many other reasons.

[Argoo]

Global warming and and climate change has been turned into a lip service as there's no clear cut plain to reduce these harmful gases into the environment
The truth is the rich countries who are the highest contributors to climate change are not disturb by it yet

Scientists are already claiming that global climate change on our planet has passed the point of no return and therefore the situation will only get worse in the near future. Of course, a lot can still be changed and corrected, but this will be done with more effort and money than before.

Even if now many states do not pay too much attention to this common problem, increasing natural disasters, a dramatic impact on people’s living conditions and an increase in migration processes will force them to take urgent measures.

[Maus0728]

It is really a threat to the environment because it is changing the climate very fast.  Carbon dioxide is polluting the environment at a large rate. Carbon monoxide is also very toxic. The environment is being polluted very badly for the factories that produce carbon. Because of this, the climate is changing and everyone in the world is suffering from it. But less developed countries are more.  the victim  Apart from the carbon producing factories, we should also look at the reasons that the environment is being polluted due to many other reasons.

The problem is that if we stop doing all of those things that create pollutants, the economy will take a big hit and not everyone is going to be happy of a clean and green mindset because those pollutants are the ones that are making them the money so even if the effects are obvious and the scientists that says that there's something big that will affect all of us in the future are continued to being ignored, we will never see any changes and the thing that we're feeling right now is only going to get way worse so brace yourselves because it's going to be a wild ride for everyone with the continued industrialization of our world to the point of living in pollutants.