> So you achieve the maximum reduction with the minimum cost
Offsets do allow for a certain amount of optimization, which is a good thing. However, cap-and-trade, or a carbon tax, are better ways of reducing emissions while allowing for optimization. And unlike offsets, these other approaches can actually take us to net zero.
It's also worth noting that in practice, regardless of the policy frameworks we apply, we will not get to net zero unless we start climbing the learning curve for every GHG-emitting sector of the economy (except for those where the best long-term solution is hard offsets via sequestration). A flaw in all of the models that allow optimization via trading of credits (offsets, cap-and-trade) is that they allow us to defer those critical early steps. If all the cement plants buy offsets for the next 10 years, then we don't start learning how to decarbonize cement.
> a prohibitive "net zero" goal, which is neither achievable nor a worthwhile target.
Citation needed.
The mainstream consensus – as embodied in, for example, the IPCC reports – is that it is extremely important that we get to net zero greenhouse emissions. In fact, many scenarios envision that we can+should go to net negative emissions for a while, to draw down some of the excess carbon in the atmosphere.
And with the ferocious progress in solar, wind, batteries, and an exploding plethora of other fields, net zero is starting to look very feasible. It's too bad we didn't start sooner, but we will get there.
Offsets do allow for a certain amount of optimization, which is a good thing. However, cap-and-trade, or a carbon tax, are better ways of reducing emissions while allowing for optimization. And unlike offsets, these other approaches can actually take us to net zero.
It's also worth noting that in practice, regardless of the policy frameworks we apply, we will not get to net zero unless we start climbing the learning curve for every GHG-emitting sector of the economy (except for those where the best long-term solution is hard offsets via sequestration). A flaw in all of the models that allow optimization via trading of credits (offsets, cap-and-trade) is that they allow us to defer those critical early steps. If all the cement plants buy offsets for the next 10 years, then we don't start learning how to decarbonize cement.
> a prohibitive "net zero" goal, which is neither achievable nor a worthwhile target.
Citation needed.
The mainstream consensus – as embodied in, for example, the IPCC reports – is that it is extremely important that we get to net zero greenhouse emissions. In fact, many scenarios envision that we can+should go to net negative emissions for a while, to draw down some of the excess carbon in the atmosphere.
And with the ferocious progress in solar, wind, batteries, and an exploding plethora of other fields, net zero is starting to look very feasible. It's too bad we didn't start sooner, but we will get there.