![]() ![]() People often conflate carbon credits with carbon offsets.īoth were born around the same time, but they’re very different. But Kyoto laid the groundwork for the carbon markets we have today. A 2015 study found that 80% of projects that used Kyoto’s carbon credits weren’t actually helping the environment at all. Furthermore, over 100 developing nations were exempt - including, incredibly, China and India.Īmerica and China’s continued production of limitless carbon emissions basically offset member nations’ positive progress.Ĭarbon credits quickly became a source of corruption among developing countries. The United States and Australia were the only developed nations to reject the agreement, arguing it was too restrictive and would smash their economies. This weird chart of “NYT climate-related articles per year” does illustrate how the Kyoto Protocol was the 2nd major collective mitigation event in the history of climate change.īut unfortunately, this first attempt at a global carbon trading scheme failed. ![]() Developed nations agreed to attempt an emissions reduction of 5.2% by 2012. It was a landmark effort, because it committed countries to binding standards of action and introduced a global carbon market. The objective was to stabilize greenhouse gases to stop the effects of climate change. The Kyoto Protocol was a meeting organized by the United Nations to address global warming. The carbon credits story starts in Kyoto, Japan in 1997. When they do, they can buy additional carbon credits to get back under the limit.Ĭontinuously exceeding a cap without purchasing additional credits is often illegal and can lead to court cases & massive fines. So, if a company has 100,000 credits, it can emit one hundred thousand tons of carbon each year.ĭifferent countries have different limits, and plenty of companies go over their number. Source: Combined data from World Bank and CDIACĪ single carbon credit equals one ton of CO2 emissions. Y-axis denotes annual metric tons per capita. As Noah Smith says, the total is ultimately what matters. While The US has the highest emissions per capita, China is the world’s biggest polluter by far. But the Paris Agreement has sparked low-carbon solutions and introduced even more new markets for carbon credits. That’s the thinking, at least.īoth America and Brazil have backed out, and the agreement sets no binding obligations to collectively meet the goal anyways. We’re facing irreversible climate changes either way, but if we can keep it below 2 degrees, we might just hold off a long-term apocalypse. Its goal is to limit global warming to below 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels. The 2015 Paris Agreement got countries to agree to target carbon neutrality by 2050. It’s another to ask them to change the fundamental nature of their core industries - especially those countries that are just starting to industrialize.īut there has been some progress. It’s one thing to ask countries to use a different type of deodorant. ![]() ![]() We know CO2 is responsible for most warming, so surely we can band together again and agree to reduce CO2, right? (Side Note: “anthropogenic aerosols” would be a great name for a metal album □) The Paris Agreement But CO2, the largest contributor to warming, is much more embedded into our lives. They were quickly phased out after the Montreal Protocol, ratified by every single UN member state. And honestly, thank God, because denial got us absolutely nowhere.ĬFCs are anthropogenic aerosols. One thing’s for sure: In 2022, people are less likely to call climate change a hoax than ever before. Our ability to swiftly phase out CFCs at the Montreal Protocol has to be one of the most under-discussed events of the past 50 years. (Even today, Australia still has the highest rate of skin cancer in the world, and New Zealand is second.) The ozone hole formed over the south pole, so Aus & NZ were (and still are) affected by it more than any other countries. This is well understood by Australia and New Zealand. After all, we have big precedence here: People often forget, but we saved the ozone layer! I believe humans will ultimately be able to exert a small amount of control over the climate. It’s easy to be negative, but a) it’s unproductive, b) it’s demotivating (if the world is gonna burn, why bother trying to fix it?), and c) it ignores the fact that some truly innovative mitigation weapons are being built as we speak. If anything’s gonna end us within the next 80 years it’ll be one of these.īut what fascinates me about climate change is how little optimism there seems to be around it. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |