Why Carbon Credits for Forest Preservation May Be Worse Than Nothing
What an awful, dangerous headline. At the end of the day <i>some</i> economic incentive is needed to get people to put land back into forest, healthy pasture, wetlands. This is an in-depth look at the current challenges — the lack of accountability, the potential moral hazard of cheap offsets — that comes off as reckless due to the article’s overall framing.<p>If you believe in climate change and believe that it’s a civilization threatening crisis, then capturing carbon is critical. Healthy land is vital in that fight. What we don’t have yet — but are moving towards despite what it looks like here in the US — is more vigorous taxation of carbon to more accurately reflect the negative externalities. With high enough taxes on carbon, there would be a squeeze on the carbon credit market and prices would go up significantly. With more money on the line, people would get more serious about accurate measurement and accountability.<p>It’s currently the Wild West — the carbon market needs to mature and become more sophisticated along side more strict pricing on carbon emissions. A less reckless article would frame the challenges we need to solve rather than blasting that credits for reforestation is bad.