>In 1996, scientists at the United Nations devised a method to measure global carbon emissions. To simplify the process and avoid double counting, they suggested emissions from burning biomass should be calculated where the trees are cut down, not where the wood pellets are burned.
>The EU adopted this methodology in its Renewable Energy Directive, allowing energy companies to burn biomass produced in the US without having to report the emissions.
>The accounting method– which was never intended to assign national responsibility for carbon emissions, according to climate experts has created a lot of discussion and disagreement among advocates, scientists and policymakers. But ultimately it is not the accounting of carbon that is the problem, it's the emissions.
>"It doesn't change the physical reality." said Tim Searchinger, senior research scholar at Princeton University. "A law designed to reduce emissions that in reality encourages an increase in emissions... has to be flawed," he said, referring to Europe's directive.
https://www.cnn.com/interactive/2021/07/us/american-south-bi...
As long as the wood is coming from tree plantations, not from deforestation of course, which I expect to be mostly the case in North America and Europe.
Burning and replanting forests is not carbon neutral. Not even close. It's an accounting gimmick that the EU uses to make themselves look good.
In another hand, it's a market, as stated in their website, "It is the world's first major carbon market and remains the biggest one."[0], so for sure it will be a huge source of income and therefore the countries will have much more incentive to do it. I saw already the same in another countries and the results weren't so spectacular, but instead the whole supply chain just got more expensive, which meant the prices raised to the customers.
[0]: https://climate.ec.europa.eu/eu-action/eu-emissions-trading-...
That's a good thing and helps "green" products compete.
Externalities, clean up costs etc are currently not being charged which makes some products economically viable when they probably shouldn't be.
For example in China Coal plants keep getting opened, because despite a cheaper lifetime cost for solar, coal has a much lower upfront cost and without meaningful costs for environmental damage well you can always sell the fully profitable plant before the late life costs come and bite you. (There is more to it, but thats the simplified version of it).
Same with single use plastics. They are really cheap to make, but what about cleaning them up, recycling them etc. Without counting that cost, yeah manufacturing plastic is extremely cheap compared to like a well made pottery plate. But in 50 years the clay plate is still around and the plastic one is just microplastics in the ocean forever.
>you can always sell the fully profitable plant before the late life costs come and bite you
Why wouldn't this be accounted for in the selling price (unless you scam the buyer)?
But due to the hypothetical nature of those new environmental regulations they are probably not considered during the buyout process.
But the current trend would point towards their cost only going up, and no regulation making fossil fuel plants any cheaper to run or decomission.
> “Yes, the planet got destroyed. But for a beautiful moment in time we created a lot of value for shareholders.”
"When is it justified to put the environment over human life?"
Here's another. Maybe no one should go hiking/camping/mountain climbing because the few that need to be rescued generally require cars/helicopters the burn fossil fuels to come to their aid, not to mention all the fossil fuels used to get them to their camp/hike/climb site and all the materials for their gear, all for "entertainment".
Also, you yourself are likely a net negative on the environment. Do you have an obligation to kill yourself?
Over 20,000 died in western Europe’s summer heatwaves [0]
Bangladesh, India floods kill over 100; millions in need of aid [1]
Climate Change Causes 5 Million Extra Deaths Per Year [2]
[0] https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/nov/24/over-200...
[1] https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/6/21/bangladesh-india-fl...
[2] https://www.webmd.com/a-to-z-guides/news/20210708/climate-ch...
Who is computing our environmental footprint? Are our interests aligned? Do our competitors also have to pay it? Is it computed the same for them? What is the penalty if we refuse to pay? Do loopholes exist and will they be exploited by our competition? Do tax programs already exist at a national level that go towards paying this footprint? Does such a cost necessitate operating above certain economies of scale to be in business at all? If we do business internationally, will we pay different costs in different jurisdictions? Is our footprint a net-bad thing or is our product a net-good whose footprint should be subsidized but isn't?
The question is likely one that many business will have to answer (whether they ask it or not) given the regulatory and financial controls being implemented by supranational governance.
Since so few ask it in a meaningful way, I dare to say it is still, unfortunately, a pretty extreme questions for those it should be asked to.