Hacker News Reader

Comment by geewee | Hacker News Reader

Unfortunately while carbon offsetting might in theory be effective, in practice they've been proven to be.. terrible.

E.g. see here, where 90% of carbon offsets turned out to just be offsets on paper. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/jan/18/revealed...

View on HN

That's one type of offset, by one provider. And others dispute the 90% figure since in the study it 10% that are rated good and only a third "useless" (for carbon, they may have biodiversity co-benefits).

So yeah, not magic, just a boring bit of economics that lets people work together efficiently via a market based process, with the chance of waste and graft that entails if not regulated well.

"Not regulated well" is almost guaranteed when it's an invented market. There are bound to be infinite loopholes, as people aren't good at creating markets with no missing or unintended consequences.

All markets are "invented". That's why countries have regulations about how how much of various poisons you can put into baby food. Otherwise people will sell you poisoned baby food because that is sometimes cheaper than non poisoned baby food.

No, most markets are regulated, but they aren't all invented.

Private property is a regulation. You can't even barter if the other guy has no concept of ownership, he'll just take it from you. Markets are invented by regulations.

I think at this point we're talking about laws, not regulations. You can come down off a mountain with a couple of stone tablets and that's enough to get going with barter, as barter is individuals deciding how much things are worth to them.

Conversely, the carbon market is invented: there is no natural value of the negative externality of pollution, so we invent one. And, as it's invented, it's riddled with holes.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com