I think that's an acceptable conclusion. So then, what's next? We need to rapidly decarbonize the economy. Current solutions aren't working great, so how do we do it?
In the ideal sense:
- Standardize carbon offset measurements: Proper comparisons can only be made if there's a starting point to work from. Standardizing how much X amount of carbon is offset per action (using only the lower bound to deliberately underestimate the impact of an action) would make it harder to lie about the impacts of said offsets.
- Institute high carbon taxes on coal & coal only. Expect extreme friction from coal lobbies against this, & from environmentalists for not being extreme enough. Use incrementalism as an advantage to separate coal lobbyists from the other fossil fuel giants & reassure the others that they're excluded from this measure, & let them see the can be kicked, but not how far it has been kicked.
- Further subsidize battery & renewable deployments. This MUST be made separate from the next point to reduce political friction.
- Reduce subsidies for fossil fuel explorations & extraction. Lumping this & the above point together makes it much likelier that the lobbies will try stop both measures at once. Don't give them ammunition to do so.
- Subsidize EVs & battery-based home energy storage tech even further. The rollout of cheap solar consequently leads to a worsening of the duck curve, just due to how solar energy is reliant on the sun. Smoothing out the bump from solar into a consistent line via battery tech would reduce stress on the grid for massive ramp-ups & alleviate the need for infra upgrades, which is subject to NIMBYism.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duck_curve
This is just off the top of my head, but the main theme is to chip away at the problem rather than finding the Killer. As tempting as it is to try & find the One Solution, such a breakthrough is heavily reliant on luck, whereas the other more relies on consistent effort than luck itself.
1) This makes the axiomatic leap that *everyone* knows that carbon offsets are fraudulent. There're definitely *some* that think so, but not all. Extraordinary claims of "All X is Y" require a proof that X leads to Y in *all* cases, not just *some*.
2) Another axiomatic leap made is that carbon offsets are inherently fraudulent, which again *some* may be, but not all. Similar comprehensive evidence is required to establish that *all* carbon offsets are fraudulent.
3) What is "painfully obvious" to someone may not be to anyone not steeped deep into the subject at hand. Even after being through the subject itself, there is no guarantee that an incrementalistic viewpoint would not be adopted as a result of seeing the faults within the system.
> So what's next? Another fraudulent scheme, because the only other option is socialism.
Socialism is reductively state capitalism with the added façade that democratic consensus & redistribution alone allows for the best outcome. It doesn't take into account desires that may go against the beliefs of the majority, whose desires can run counter to minorities within such a system (e.g LGBTQ+ rights & drug criminalization). Modern tolerances towards them happen to be lucky circumstances that shouldn't be taken for granted, as it could be just as likely for the opposite to have happened.
Even in a dysfunctional state, niches are allowed to manifest within markets that can cater to them without the oversight of the State, for better or for worse. Denying the ability to create said pocket niches by enforcing the majority's views via the State invites levels of authoritarianism & Mother-Knows-Best attitudes that should be opposed from anyone seeking to preserve individual autonomy, which should include the minorities themselves.
In cases of a non-State-based socialism, markets will inevitably be created as a consequence of having to trade with unknown/untrusted parties. The egalitarianistic "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" can only work in scenarios where parties know who each other are, & can consequently apply adjustments to prevent excessive misuse from exploiting parties. Markets arise due to the alternative requiring much more effort to establish & maintain relationships with all parties on all possible tradable goods & services, whereas only a neutral area is required for the former.