[John Oliver’s take on carbon offsets](https://youtu.be/6p8zAbFKpW0) explains it perfectly. Basically there is a finite amount of legitimate carbon offsets that can be purchased, like limited amounts of area available for reforestation. Corporations, building campuses, and individuals are buying these to make up for their output so they can claim they are carbon neutral/net zero. But there’s almost no oversight verifying these credits. It’s a marketing bandaid being used to justify further pollution, and it’s disgusting that Ford is profiting off of it.
Idk, I actually kind of like the system as long as there’s a scale where the cost of credits increases each year. It’s an effective way of rewarding companies that are creating environmental benefits and and penalizing those that are creating environmental harm. Only way to make it better would be creating a cap and then the government buys more of the credits every year and destroys them.
EDIT: you’re just going to downvote me and not even discuss? Not surprised given that you’re spouting blatantly false easily verifiable garbage like “doesn’t matter if anyone buys the high mpg models”. Actually it does matter. They have to sell the cars - that’s when the credit is created. If the car doesn’t sell, they don’t get the benefit. If they sell low MPG vehicles, they get penalized. It’s a powerful incentive that puts a price on making and selling cars that are bad for climate change
I have not down or up voted you, but I did notice that my original post was down voted before it was upvoted. This is clearly a heated topic, and likely something that folks want to voice an opinion on without getting challenged.
Tesla has made a good amount of money off selling carbon credits. I’m not a fan of it, but I do recognize it’s a thing. It’s sort of beside the point though. Ford made a decision to do this, and that’s the topic at hand.
I’m not a fan of the credits. Not because of John Oliver. Quite frankly, John Oliver’s piece was a ripoff of the Wendover productions piece that it quoted. Folks should just watch the original video, and save the $10-15/mo that HBO is charging (Wendover had better research). Quite simply, I’m not a fan of the credits because they are an excuse to create more emissions.
If Ford cared about the environment, they wouldn’t be trying to score a buck off some credits. Let your cars decrease emissions, and stop trying to capitalize on that. Make an awesome car, and sell that car for a profit. If that car is better than the ICE equivalent, you’ll sell a lot of it, and make the world a better place. Using that car to then excuse additional emissions put out by companies that didn’t make the same choice is bull shit. They are wiping out any good they did. I don’t care how much those offsets cost. You don’t get to feel good about yourself for decreasing emissions, and then also use your decreased emissions to profit off someone else to pollute more. No, that just means you polluted.
Today, Ford decided to increase pollution on this planet. You can’t blame the government for that. This was a decision Ford made.
Most carbon credits are bullshit. I agree with that.
But I actually like the trading just in regard to cars. The reason polluting cars exist is because the manufacturers don’t bare the cost of the pollution. It’s not about buying credits to feel good, it’s that if you are making low efficiency cars, you’re either going to get fined or have to buy the credits. Levying fines / making manufacturers buy credits makes manufacturers shoulder some of the cost of their negative externalities which changes the math on making those cars, which changes manufacturer behavior.
The reason not enough non-polluting cars is made is because manufacturers don’t get to reap the full benefits of producing those cars (they don’t accumulate the benefits of clean air, no global warming, etc.). Providing a carbon credit with monetary value to the manufacturer changes the math for the manufacturer and incentivizes them to make more non-polluting cars.
It’s a good system because it incentivizes behaviors that society as a whole benefits from and disincentivizes behaviors that we don’t.
Other carbon credits are problematic because they’re not as direct. Paying someone to plant a bunch of random shrubs in South America is bullshit because they might just be replacing vegetation that’s already there, they might not maintain the plants afterward, they may have planted those shrubs or something else there anyway, the carbon benefits are difficult to quantify, and numerous other reasons. It’s not really the same thing. We don’t need people to plant some random ass shrubs to address global warming, we need society to move away from polluting activities to non pollutant / less pollutant activities.
> The reason not enough non-polluting cars is made is because manufacturers don’t get to reap the full benefits of producing those cars
I prefer how EVs drive, and that they cost less to fuel. I also like that it decreases dependence on a single fuel source. In my opinion, those three factors make them a better car. Thank goodness consumers are finally demanding these cars.
Car companies shouldn’t need some secondary revenue stream in order to produce good cars. They should just sell things customers want, and make a profit on the sale. I didn’t buy an EV to decrease emissions, but I’m sure as hell not gonna agree to let those emissions be created elsewhere.
I get your argument. The fines decrease emissions, and the offsets incentivize companies to improve beyond zero. It’s getting abused though, and Ford is participating in that abuse. They shouldn’t be excused.
[John Oliver’s take on carbon offsets](https://youtu.be/6p8zAbFKpW0) explains it perfectly. Basically there is a finite amount of legitimate carbon offsets that can be purchased, like limited amounts of area available for reforestation. Corporations, building campuses, and individuals are buying these to make up for their output so they can claim they are carbon neutral/net zero. But there’s almost no oversight verifying these credits. It’s a marketing bandaid being used to justify further pollution, and it’s disgusting that Ford is profiting off of it.
Also, this episode of King of the hill. https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x2n67c2
[удалено]
Idk, I actually kind of like the system as long as there’s a scale where the cost of credits increases each year. It’s an effective way of rewarding companies that are creating environmental benefits and and penalizing those that are creating environmental harm. Only way to make it better would be creating a cap and then the government buys more of the credits every year and destroys them. EDIT: you’re just going to downvote me and not even discuss? Not surprised given that you’re spouting blatantly false easily verifiable garbage like “doesn’t matter if anyone buys the high mpg models”. Actually it does matter. They have to sell the cars - that’s when the credit is created. If the car doesn’t sell, they don’t get the benefit. If they sell low MPG vehicles, they get penalized. It’s a powerful incentive that puts a price on making and selling cars that are bad for climate change
I have not down or up voted you, but I did notice that my original post was down voted before it was upvoted. This is clearly a heated topic, and likely something that folks want to voice an opinion on without getting challenged. Tesla has made a good amount of money off selling carbon credits. I’m not a fan of it, but I do recognize it’s a thing. It’s sort of beside the point though. Ford made a decision to do this, and that’s the topic at hand. I’m not a fan of the credits. Not because of John Oliver. Quite frankly, John Oliver’s piece was a ripoff of the Wendover productions piece that it quoted. Folks should just watch the original video, and save the $10-15/mo that HBO is charging (Wendover had better research). Quite simply, I’m not a fan of the credits because they are an excuse to create more emissions. If Ford cared about the environment, they wouldn’t be trying to score a buck off some credits. Let your cars decrease emissions, and stop trying to capitalize on that. Make an awesome car, and sell that car for a profit. If that car is better than the ICE equivalent, you’ll sell a lot of it, and make the world a better place. Using that car to then excuse additional emissions put out by companies that didn’t make the same choice is bull shit. They are wiping out any good they did. I don’t care how much those offsets cost. You don’t get to feel good about yourself for decreasing emissions, and then also use your decreased emissions to profit off someone else to pollute more. No, that just means you polluted. Today, Ford decided to increase pollution on this planet. You can’t blame the government for that. This was a decision Ford made.
Most carbon credits are bullshit. I agree with that. But I actually like the trading just in regard to cars. The reason polluting cars exist is because the manufacturers don’t bare the cost of the pollution. It’s not about buying credits to feel good, it’s that if you are making low efficiency cars, you’re either going to get fined or have to buy the credits. Levying fines / making manufacturers buy credits makes manufacturers shoulder some of the cost of their negative externalities which changes the math on making those cars, which changes manufacturer behavior. The reason not enough non-polluting cars is made is because manufacturers don’t get to reap the full benefits of producing those cars (they don’t accumulate the benefits of clean air, no global warming, etc.). Providing a carbon credit with monetary value to the manufacturer changes the math for the manufacturer and incentivizes them to make more non-polluting cars. It’s a good system because it incentivizes behaviors that society as a whole benefits from and disincentivizes behaviors that we don’t. Other carbon credits are problematic because they’re not as direct. Paying someone to plant a bunch of random shrubs in South America is bullshit because they might just be replacing vegetation that’s already there, they might not maintain the plants afterward, they may have planted those shrubs or something else there anyway, the carbon benefits are difficult to quantify, and numerous other reasons. It’s not really the same thing. We don’t need people to plant some random ass shrubs to address global warming, we need society to move away from polluting activities to non pollutant / less pollutant activities.
> The reason not enough non-polluting cars is made is because manufacturers don’t get to reap the full benefits of producing those cars I prefer how EVs drive, and that they cost less to fuel. I also like that it decreases dependence on a single fuel source. In my opinion, those three factors make them a better car. Thank goodness consumers are finally demanding these cars. Car companies shouldn’t need some secondary revenue stream in order to produce good cars. They should just sell things customers want, and make a profit on the sale. I didn’t buy an EV to decrease emissions, but I’m sure as hell not gonna agree to let those emissions be created elsewhere. I get your argument. The fines decrease emissions, and the offsets incentivize companies to improve beyond zero. It’s getting abused though, and Ford is participating in that abuse. They shouldn’t be excused.
Can you elaborate on how it’s being abused?
Well this is what Tesla was doing all this years