• Flocklesscrow@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      9 days ago

      Not severe enough. Taxing may have been a reasonable lever 20 years ago.

      At this point, C executives have made it quite plain that they will carry on regardless of outcome, so long as it enriches themselves.

      So, remove them. They lose all access to their wages, OPTIONS, and golden parachutes.

      Nationalize the company, and replace the C suite with highly qualified members of an oversight committee who are expressly mandated to fulfill climate objectives, with running the business’ capabilities as the 2nd objective. There are 10s of thousands of qualified experts to fill newly vacant roles- most C suite types are selected for their nepotism ties and their willingness to advocate for sociopathic business practices. Whose services, we no longer require.

      • MrMakabar@slrpnk.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        9 days ago

        The goal is to bankrupt fossil fuel companies. If some C suite exec takes a bunch of money from the company into his pockets, then that is great, as it kills the company faster.

        • Flocklesscrow@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          9 days ago

          There is a depth of misconceptions in your statement that would take more time than I have available to backfill.

          So, let’s just say that the strategy you posit would never succeed.

  • FundMECFSResearch@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    edit-2
    9 days ago

    Unregulated carbon offset tokens are nothing but greenwashing.

    You can buy a clump of forest and sell carbon offset points because “you have a forest that offset carbon”, but if you didn’t buy the forest, due to zoning laws, it would still be a forest.

    Or alternatively if zoning permits you cut it down a year later. But you still made heaps from selling “carbon tokens”.

    • jol@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      9 days ago

      It goes beyond that. You threaten to cut down the forest unless someone pays carbon credits to save it. Then 5 years later you do it again.

  • Rhaedas@fedia.io
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    9 days ago

    Haven’t seen “real zero” before. There’s only one way for that to happen.

    • jol@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      9 days ago

      The problem is that “net zero” really is OK in certain conditions. If your company consumes electricity but your municipality produces a mix of renewables and non renewables, you can offset with solar panels in another municipality. The problem is that the terms carbon neutral and net zero have been corrupted by the powers that want to preserve the status quo.