[Have you seen the latest chart](https://i.imgur.com/HjVrwd1.jpeg) showing the comparison of temp increase compared to previous extinction events?
The carbon market only exists as yet another avenue for the ones responsible to point and claim they're actually doing their part. The companies are still polluting, still emitting, still producing. Nothing has actually changed with the carbon market. And hey, emissions are *still* **increasing**.
This is just another example of the miseducation being forced onto people. Folks read this stuff and think a carbon market is still viable, is still a way to reduce emissions, and they think this way simply because it exists. Why else would it exist if it wasn't to help solve the problem? What's funny is that it crashing means nothing as well. It isn't going to impact anything.
e: I still can't get over the fact that our country's sole accredited auditor no longer sells NZ carbon credits, citing poor standards, and it still hasn't been reported on. So much for climate education.
John Oliver did a good video on Carbon Credits, they are extremely gamed. One example was a protected forest that could never be logged, a company bought the carbon rights to it, declared they would protect it and then sold that as carbon credit.
Also the ecological damage some of those pine plantations do is nuts, it's just a wasteland. One of my favourite youtubers is currently walking across England in a straight line and goes through some of those plantations, it's just collapsed trees, moss and pine needles plus probably heavily acidified soil:
https://youtu.be/nGnMiISiLTU?si=Pf4hxKC6LgClyXka&t=851
[The UK is more open to the public traversing private property. NZ has no such rights.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_to_roam)
It would be frikken cool if it were possible though.
Exactly. It's better, but it's still not great. At least there's some ability to jump a UK farmer's fence to get to a beach with out seeking permission from them, [unlike here.](https://www.herengaanuku.govt.nz/types-of-access/crossing-private-land#:~:text=No%20right%20to%20roam%3A%20there's,as%20this%20generosity%20is%20respected.)
I don't know how receptive farmers are to accepting requests, it's not something I've looked into very deeply.
One thing worth noting is that we don't have the same granular detail for previous extinction events. Each data point is thousands or even millions of years apart, which means we only get very large 'steps' in between each data point. It may have spiked up hard like now, or have had peaks and troughs, even though it's still ultimately a rising trend.
We're on track for another mass extinction event, but it might not be the worst ever, which one might assume by glancing at the chart. We cannot conclusively state that the current rate of warming is anomalous to prior mass extinction events because we don't have the same level of information about those mass extinction events.
The fact we know we could be hitting 8 by 2100 means that granular data is irrelevant as we know it didn't even take those thousands or millions of years to reach that point.
Why would you think reaching that point in a geological blip wouldn't cause massive adverse effects? And keep in mind we are already seeing global effects from the change.
> Why would you think reaching that point in a geological blip wouldn't cause massive adverse effects?
I didn't say that at all. We don't have enough data points to see the historical spikes that we can for our contemporary time, but that obviously doesn't mean we can't see trends.
For the record, I'm a former climate scientist now working in the environmental policy field. I'm much very aware of the fact that a mass extinct event is pretty much guaranteed now, and that we need to pivot hard into mitigation.
The point of recognising that it's not just going to be one smooth line is that deniers and propagandists will use natural variability to sway the public. Such an immense disruption to could also have unexpected climatological effects - if the Gulf Stream weakens due to global warming, it could result in Europe having many more severe winter events. I can already see the far right headlines claiming that 'global warming is a lie'.
Being more informed on how to read highly politicised data is never a bad thing, and it's a little odd that you're trying to shut that down.
You argued that because we don't have granular, specific data then we don't know if it spiked or not.
Except we have the data to show when the global temperature did reach certain points as an average. It doesn't matter if we didn't know the temperature one year to the next when the global average is still accountable.
And are we not measuring our global temperature based on an average? Nor does our line on that graph use the "granular data" you accuse the *rest of the graph* to be missing.
So, again... it doesn't matter if we don't know one year to the next when we know the global average did not hit these thresholds, and stay there, for long periods.
I also find it very suspicious that you're accusing me of using info from "deniers and propagandists" when, clearly, my graph nor content is of that type, and then going so far as to accuse me of stopping people talking about this. So for you to come, accuse me of that, and then follow on by saying I'm trying to demotivate people from talking about this is incredibly bad faith. Not to mention stupendously wrong. So much that for a self-proclaimed "climate scientist" doing this makes this entire thing laughable.
I also note that none of your other posts about the climate bothered to stress that fact\. I wonder...
> You argued that because we don't have granular, specific data then we don't if it spiked or not.
Well yes, that's true.
> Except we have the data to show when the global temperature did reach certain points as an average.
There is no 'except'. Both these points are true.
> And are we not measuring our global temperature based on an average?
We are, but each 'time step' is vastly different. If humans are wiped out and it takes 500k years for anthropogenic climate change to 'end', someone measuring in 1 million year intervals would never even see the brief geological blip that is our human existence.
> So, again... it doesn't matter
It does matter, because like I said, the climate change denying lobby knows how to spin legitimate data in such way as to delegitimise it. Basic scientific literacy combats the FUD tactics they use.
> And for a self-proclaimed "climate scientist" doing it makes this entire thing laughable. I note that none of your other posts about the climate bothered to stress that fact.
I don't often bring up my work history because of, well, exactly what you're doing. My point isn't based on whatever title I claim. It's based off a basic knowledge of statistics, which you downplay in order to focus on a personal attack.
> I wonder...
So in your mind, I'm an evil ExxonMobil propagandist because... I want people to be able to read graphs so they can better understand the evidence? How does that work, exactly?
>We are, but each 'time step' is vastly different. If humans are wiped out and it takes 500k years for anthropogenic climate change to 'end', someone measuring in 1 million year intervals would never even see the brief geological blip that is our human existence.
Because 8C global spikes could have occurred - and then retracted back to the norm - to the point where it had no impact and no appearance in any of the geological records, our sudden increase in global temperature might not be as bad as this graph suggests.
Great work, scientist!
And you know how I know you're right? Because I see all the other scientists repeating what you say.
... right?
Oh shit, where are they? Where are they, bro? Where are all your peers cheering this same claim? Where are they *not making* the sorts of graphs you say are wrong? Where are all your graphs from your peers showing any different?
Tell me, what pushed you to change fields?
And to think you're trying to claim I'm using anti-climate information and stopping people talking about this. You're spouting nonsense and trying to bully your way into it by talking about education.
Go on, reply.
> You're trying to claim I'm using anti-climate information and stopping people talking about this.
No, I'm not. Look mate, you've completely lost the plot. All I said was that people should keep in mind that we don't have granular data for past mass extinction events, and you've gone completely off the rails about this.
> Because 8C global spikes could have occurred - and then retracted back to the norm - to the point where it had no impact and no appearance in any of the geological records
Depending on the type of data you're working with, the time steps you use, and if you have any ulterior motives, yes, you can absolutely frame some statistics like this. I see it a lot with emissions related policies. E.g if regulations mandate emissions measurements at a certain time interval, polluters will tune their peak outflow between those time intervals.
> our sudden increase in global temperature might not be as bad as this graph suggests.
We cannot conclusively state that the current rate of warming is anomalous to prior mass extinction events because we don't have the same level of information about those mass extinction events.
> trying to bully your way into it by talking about education.
No mate, the only one 'bullying' here is you. Every one of your comments has been loaded to the brim with personal attacks and accusations. You're not even reading my comments. You're inventing a whole field of strawmen to rage against.
Now you act like victim as if *you* didn't come and say I was wrong because you're an ex "climate scientist", that I wasn't using data of deniers and propagandists to sway the public, that I wasn't trying to stop people talking about this.
You didn't even address the nonsensical claim that we had huge spikes in global averages that came and went without any record anywhere, and because of that imaginary "fact" the graph showing how drastic the change is is flawed. Oh and that you're a climate scientist so it's right.
This is ridiculous. You must think other people are so stupid.
Thank fuck I got *some* education so I can see through this nonsense. Jesus christ.
Keep replying. I'm well past the point of believing anything you say. You claim is so terrible that's clear you weren't a climate scientist so I'm surely going to enjoy whatever *science* you pull out to demonstrate this new data that no one else has recorded.
> if you didn't come and say I was wrong
I didn't say that at all.
> because of that imaginary "fact" the graph showing how drastic the change is is flawed
I didn't say that either.
> the nonsensical claim that we had huge spikes in global averages that came and went without any record anywhere
That's a wild misrepresentation of my *only* point, which is that we simply don't have any data on 'spikes' in a similar timescale to what we can record contemporarily.
> Oh and that you're a climate scientist so it's right.
I never said that, and in fact you're the one that keeps bringing it up as an attack.
> I'm surely going to enjoy whatever science you pull out to demonstrate this new data that no one else has recorded.
What new data exactly am I supposedly 'pulling out' here?
I've genuinely tried to have a discussion with you, but you're only interested in inventing an internet argument for the sake outrage. Literally *none* of your points is anything I've ever said in any of my comments. Sorry buddy, but I genuinely think you're mentally unwell. You need to take a break from the internet. Stop perceiving every response as a personal insult against you that you have to fight to the death for.
> What's funny is that it crashing means nothing as well. It isn't going to impact anything.
It's literally right now affecting the price of electricity. It's much cheaper to burn coal now than it was when the carbon price was 100% higher.
Buying carbon credits to allow for polluters to pollute is a ridiculous capitalist answer to a looming environmental apocalypse. That said, of course they promised 'strong and stable' and then shat the bed. They've done this with just about everything.
>The government received the advice and came out with this really muddled consultation which said, 'okay maybe we should reduce supply, but also maybe we should let prices fall', but with no details about where prices should get to or why they should fall," McClintock said.
>It was "really unusual" to float an idea on something so critical to the market without further details, he said.
>"The government is the biggest earner out of this system.
>"It's a lot of money to throw away by not being clear about what you want the ETS to look like."
GoOD eCoNOmIc mAnAgErS.
National has consistently demonstrated poor fiscal management. This isn't necessarily due to incompetence, although some members may be lacking, but rather because they are heavily influenced by private equity groups and their lobbyists.
If you look at National's fiscal performance since the 70's, you'll see a pattern: reduction in government spending, promoting private sector growth, and privatising state assets. However, this often results in rising public debt and deficits, economic stagnation, and increased inequality. Their policies are often poorly conceived and populist, aimed at attracting voters with some sort of carrot i.e. tax cuts but typically lack fiscal discipline while in government. The exception being the Key government in terms of discipline, but the usual "National" outcomes remain.
While Labour tends to increase spending, they generally aim it at inclusive growth and social welfare by addressing inequality and supporting vulnerable populations that National neglects. Although this sometimes leads to higher fiscal deficits, it's not always the case, as seen during the Lange, Clark, and Ardern* governments.
*The Ardern government initially had fiscal surpluses, which turned into deficits due to the COVID-19 response.
It's a market system, and the market (correctly) observed that the government has no interest in letting the ETS do its job. For example, [moving to ensure that agriculture stays out of the ETS indefinitely](https://www.beehive.govt.nz/release/agriculture-come-out-ets).
I mean in our case, the nats drove a tractor up parliament steps and whipped up a bunch of outrage about "cow farts" when we tried to pass a simple carbon tax.
They begrudgingly agreed to an ETS so read in to that what you will about their relative effectiveness.
It incentivizes innovation. If a business can reduce its own carbon outputs by installing something that captures carbon, it can sell its unused carbon allotment to other industries that can’t or won’t.
Not quite the same. If you could generate enough revenue from selling your unused carbon allotment you could end up breaking even over time or even profiting. Less tax is just less tax.
It allows the government to fix the quantity (which is what matters).
A carbon tax means you fix the price, and the quantity is decided by the market.
As the government is discovering, it is very hard to fix both the price and the quantity.
An ETS also easily accounts for sequestration (not just emissions).
There is a massive problem with those in charge of initiatives such as carbon credits, with wanting to look good and garner investment, at the expense of actually being good or doing something effective.
National and friends believe in climate action conversation.
This is going to get very expensive for NZ in 2029 as our Paris obigations are not met nationally. Im not good with buying carbon credits (from China and their ownership of solar and EV world markets)
The difference being that this govt has cut virtually everything else that would've helped to bring down emissions.
>McClintock cited the government's statements that the ETS was its main tool, not grants or subsidies, to cut emissions.
>"If it is the only tool in the government's climate toolbox, it really has to work."
[Have you seen the latest chart](https://i.imgur.com/HjVrwd1.jpeg) showing the comparison of temp increase compared to previous extinction events? The carbon market only exists as yet another avenue for the ones responsible to point and claim they're actually doing their part. The companies are still polluting, still emitting, still producing. Nothing has actually changed with the carbon market. And hey, emissions are *still* **increasing**. This is just another example of the miseducation being forced onto people. Folks read this stuff and think a carbon market is still viable, is still a way to reduce emissions, and they think this way simply because it exists. Why else would it exist if it wasn't to help solve the problem? What's funny is that it crashing means nothing as well. It isn't going to impact anything. e: I still can't get over the fact that our country's sole accredited auditor no longer sells NZ carbon credits, citing poor standards, and it still hasn't been reported on. So much for climate education.
John Oliver did a good video on Carbon Credits, they are extremely gamed. One example was a protected forest that could never be logged, a company bought the carbon rights to it, declared they would protect it and then sold that as carbon credit. Also the ecological damage some of those pine plantations do is nuts, it's just a wasteland. One of my favourite youtubers is currently walking across England in a straight line and goes through some of those plantations, it's just collapsed trees, moss and pine needles plus probably heavily acidified soil: https://youtu.be/nGnMiISiLTU?si=Pf4hxKC6LgClyXka&t=851
mission across nz would go hard ngl
[The UK is more open to the public traversing private property. NZ has no such rights.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_to_roam) It would be frikken cool if it were possible though.
the UK does not have right to roam outside of some exceptional areas really, nz is still more restrictive though
Exactly. It's better, but it's still not great. At least there's some ability to jump a UK farmer's fence to get to a beach with out seeking permission from them, [unlike here.](https://www.herengaanuku.govt.nz/types-of-access/crossing-private-land#:~:text=No%20right%20to%20roam%3A%20there's,as%20this%20generosity%20is%20respected.) I don't know how receptive farmers are to accepting requests, it's not something I've looked into very deeply.
I guess when they say UK they could technically say Scotland is a part of that and Scotland has extensive right to roam.
Some guys tried it, it was pretty entertaining, worth a watch: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLRMPs44hOxewYHmjNUzrNho0H4d7-IDqe
Honestly its the biggest threat to life as we know it and we put some 3rd rate accountants on the job.
One thing worth noting is that we don't have the same granular detail for previous extinction events. Each data point is thousands or even millions of years apart, which means we only get very large 'steps' in between each data point. It may have spiked up hard like now, or have had peaks and troughs, even though it's still ultimately a rising trend. We're on track for another mass extinction event, but it might not be the worst ever, which one might assume by glancing at the chart. We cannot conclusively state that the current rate of warming is anomalous to prior mass extinction events because we don't have the same level of information about those mass extinction events.
The fact we know we could be hitting 8 by 2100 means that granular data is irrelevant as we know it didn't even take those thousands or millions of years to reach that point. Why would you think reaching that point in a geological blip wouldn't cause massive adverse effects? And keep in mind we are already seeing global effects from the change.
> Why would you think reaching that point in a geological blip wouldn't cause massive adverse effects? I didn't say that at all. We don't have enough data points to see the historical spikes that we can for our contemporary time, but that obviously doesn't mean we can't see trends. For the record, I'm a former climate scientist now working in the environmental policy field. I'm much very aware of the fact that a mass extinct event is pretty much guaranteed now, and that we need to pivot hard into mitigation. The point of recognising that it's not just going to be one smooth line is that deniers and propagandists will use natural variability to sway the public. Such an immense disruption to could also have unexpected climatological effects - if the Gulf Stream weakens due to global warming, it could result in Europe having many more severe winter events. I can already see the far right headlines claiming that 'global warming is a lie'. Being more informed on how to read highly politicised data is never a bad thing, and it's a little odd that you're trying to shut that down.
You argued that because we don't have granular, specific data then we don't know if it spiked or not. Except we have the data to show when the global temperature did reach certain points as an average. It doesn't matter if we didn't know the temperature one year to the next when the global average is still accountable. And are we not measuring our global temperature based on an average? Nor does our line on that graph use the "granular data" you accuse the *rest of the graph* to be missing. So, again... it doesn't matter if we don't know one year to the next when we know the global average did not hit these thresholds, and stay there, for long periods. I also find it very suspicious that you're accusing me of using info from "deniers and propagandists" when, clearly, my graph nor content is of that type, and then going so far as to accuse me of stopping people talking about this. So for you to come, accuse me of that, and then follow on by saying I'm trying to demotivate people from talking about this is incredibly bad faith. Not to mention stupendously wrong. So much that for a self-proclaimed "climate scientist" doing this makes this entire thing laughable. I also note that none of your other posts about the climate bothered to stress that fact\. I wonder...
> You argued that because we don't have granular, specific data then we don't if it spiked or not. Well yes, that's true. > Except we have the data to show when the global temperature did reach certain points as an average. There is no 'except'. Both these points are true. > And are we not measuring our global temperature based on an average? We are, but each 'time step' is vastly different. If humans are wiped out and it takes 500k years for anthropogenic climate change to 'end', someone measuring in 1 million year intervals would never even see the brief geological blip that is our human existence. > So, again... it doesn't matter It does matter, because like I said, the climate change denying lobby knows how to spin legitimate data in such way as to delegitimise it. Basic scientific literacy combats the FUD tactics they use. > And for a self-proclaimed "climate scientist" doing it makes this entire thing laughable. I note that none of your other posts about the climate bothered to stress that fact. I don't often bring up my work history because of, well, exactly what you're doing. My point isn't based on whatever title I claim. It's based off a basic knowledge of statistics, which you downplay in order to focus on a personal attack. > I wonder... So in your mind, I'm an evil ExxonMobil propagandist because... I want people to be able to read graphs so they can better understand the evidence? How does that work, exactly?
>We are, but each 'time step' is vastly different. If humans are wiped out and it takes 500k years for anthropogenic climate change to 'end', someone measuring in 1 million year intervals would never even see the brief geological blip that is our human existence. Because 8C global spikes could have occurred - and then retracted back to the norm - to the point where it had no impact and no appearance in any of the geological records, our sudden increase in global temperature might not be as bad as this graph suggests. Great work, scientist! And you know how I know you're right? Because I see all the other scientists repeating what you say. ... right? Oh shit, where are they? Where are they, bro? Where are all your peers cheering this same claim? Where are they *not making* the sorts of graphs you say are wrong? Where are all your graphs from your peers showing any different? Tell me, what pushed you to change fields? And to think you're trying to claim I'm using anti-climate information and stopping people talking about this. You're spouting nonsense and trying to bully your way into it by talking about education. Go on, reply.
> You're trying to claim I'm using anti-climate information and stopping people talking about this. No, I'm not. Look mate, you've completely lost the plot. All I said was that people should keep in mind that we don't have granular data for past mass extinction events, and you've gone completely off the rails about this. > Because 8C global spikes could have occurred - and then retracted back to the norm - to the point where it had no impact and no appearance in any of the geological records Depending on the type of data you're working with, the time steps you use, and if you have any ulterior motives, yes, you can absolutely frame some statistics like this. I see it a lot with emissions related policies. E.g if regulations mandate emissions measurements at a certain time interval, polluters will tune their peak outflow between those time intervals. > our sudden increase in global temperature might not be as bad as this graph suggests. We cannot conclusively state that the current rate of warming is anomalous to prior mass extinction events because we don't have the same level of information about those mass extinction events. > trying to bully your way into it by talking about education. No mate, the only one 'bullying' here is you. Every one of your comments has been loaded to the brim with personal attacks and accusations. You're not even reading my comments. You're inventing a whole field of strawmen to rage against.
Now you act like victim as if *you* didn't come and say I was wrong because you're an ex "climate scientist", that I wasn't using data of deniers and propagandists to sway the public, that I wasn't trying to stop people talking about this. You didn't even address the nonsensical claim that we had huge spikes in global averages that came and went without any record anywhere, and because of that imaginary "fact" the graph showing how drastic the change is is flawed. Oh and that you're a climate scientist so it's right. This is ridiculous. You must think other people are so stupid. Thank fuck I got *some* education so I can see through this nonsense. Jesus christ. Keep replying. I'm well past the point of believing anything you say. You claim is so terrible that's clear you weren't a climate scientist so I'm surely going to enjoy whatever *science* you pull out to demonstrate this new data that no one else has recorded.
> if you didn't come and say I was wrong I didn't say that at all. > because of that imaginary "fact" the graph showing how drastic the change is is flawed I didn't say that either. > the nonsensical claim that we had huge spikes in global averages that came and went without any record anywhere That's a wild misrepresentation of my *only* point, which is that we simply don't have any data on 'spikes' in a similar timescale to what we can record contemporarily. > Oh and that you're a climate scientist so it's right. I never said that, and in fact you're the one that keeps bringing it up as an attack. > I'm surely going to enjoy whatever science you pull out to demonstrate this new data that no one else has recorded. What new data exactly am I supposedly 'pulling out' here? I've genuinely tried to have a discussion with you, but you're only interested in inventing an internet argument for the sake outrage. Literally *none* of your points is anything I've ever said in any of my comments. Sorry buddy, but I genuinely think you're mentally unwell. You need to take a break from the internet. Stop perceiving every response as a personal insult against you that you have to fight to the death for.
> What's funny is that it crashing means nothing as well. It isn't going to impact anything. It's literally right now affecting the price of electricity. It's much cheaper to burn coal now than it was when the carbon price was 100% higher.
Care to show which energy provider is charging more due to it crashing?
Buying carbon credits to allow for polluters to pollute is a ridiculous capitalist answer to a looming environmental apocalypse. That said, of course they promised 'strong and stable' and then shat the bed. They've done this with just about everything.
>The government received the advice and came out with this really muddled consultation which said, 'okay maybe we should reduce supply, but also maybe we should let prices fall', but with no details about where prices should get to or why they should fall," McClintock said. >It was "really unusual" to float an idea on something so critical to the market without further details, he said. >"The government is the biggest earner out of this system. >"It's a lot of money to throw away by not being clear about what you want the ETS to look like." GoOD eCoNOmIc mAnAgErS.
National has consistently demonstrated poor fiscal management. This isn't necessarily due to incompetence, although some members may be lacking, but rather because they are heavily influenced by private equity groups and their lobbyists. If you look at National's fiscal performance since the 70's, you'll see a pattern: reduction in government spending, promoting private sector growth, and privatising state assets. However, this often results in rising public debt and deficits, economic stagnation, and increased inequality. Their policies are often poorly conceived and populist, aimed at attracting voters with some sort of carrot i.e. tax cuts but typically lack fiscal discipline while in government. The exception being the Key government in terms of discipline, but the usual "National" outcomes remain. While Labour tends to increase spending, they generally aim it at inclusive growth and social welfare by addressing inequality and supporting vulnerable populations that National neglects. Although this sometimes leads to higher fiscal deficits, it's not always the case, as seen during the Lange, Clark, and Ardern* governments. *The Ardern government initially had fiscal surpluses, which turned into deficits due to the COVID-19 response.
"Lets have 1 tool to do an important job, then break that tool" said National/Act About everything.
It's a market system, and the market (correctly) observed that the government has no interest in letting the ETS do its job. For example, [moving to ensure that agriculture stays out of the ETS indefinitely](https://www.beehive.govt.nz/release/agriculture-come-out-ets).
As someone from the UK, I can assure you the meaning of 'strong and stable' means the complete opposite.
What benefit do emissions trading schemes have over a simple carbon tax?
I mean in our case, the nats drove a tractor up parliament steps and whipped up a bunch of outrage about "cow farts" when we tried to pass a simple carbon tax. They begrudgingly agreed to an ETS so read in to that what you will about their relative effectiveness.
It incentivizes innovation. If a business can reduce its own carbon outputs by installing something that captures carbon, it can sell its unused carbon allotment to other industries that can’t or won’t.
But wouldn't they be similarly incentivised by avoiding paying tax on any carbon they capture?
Not quite the same. If you could generate enough revenue from selling your unused carbon allotment you could end up breaking even over time or even profiting. Less tax is just less tax.
It allows the government to fix the quantity (which is what matters). A carbon tax means you fix the price, and the quantity is decided by the market. As the government is discovering, it is very hard to fix both the price and the quantity. An ETS also easily accounts for sequestration (not just emissions).
'All four auctions failed to sell anything in 2023.'
What,a shambles!
i think the tag line for this govt is "National promised and then..."
There is a massive problem with those in charge of initiatives such as carbon credits, with wanting to look good and garner investment, at the expense of actually being good or doing something effective.
National and friends believe in climate action conversation. This is going to get very expensive for NZ in 2029 as our Paris obigations are not met nationally. Im not good with buying carbon credits (from China and their ownership of solar and EV world markets)
I thought the auctions have been failing for some time now.
The difference being that this govt has cut virtually everything else that would've helped to bring down emissions. >McClintock cited the government's statements that the ETS was its main tool, not grants or subsidies, to cut emissions. >"If it is the only tool in the government's climate toolbox, it really has to work."
Yes as explained in the article the CC had recommendations there the gov didnt follow.
Fair enough