silence7@slrpnk.net to United States | News & Politics@lemmy.mlEnglish · 1 年前Private jets are awful for the climate. It’s time to tax the rich who fly in them | US Senator Edward J Markeywww.theguardian.comexternal-linkmessage-square37fedilinkarrow-up1436arrow-down17cross-posted to: climate@slrpnk.net
arrow-up1429arrow-down1external-linkPrivate jets are awful for the climate. It’s time to tax the rich who fly in them | US Senator Edward J Markeywww.theguardian.comsilence7@slrpnk.net to United States | News & Politics@lemmy.mlEnglish · 1 年前message-square37fedilinkcross-posted to: climate@slrpnk.net
minus-squareEggyhead@artemis.camplinkfedilinkarrow-up1·1 年前Maybe a dumb question, but how does providing money actually offset emissions? Are there emission vacuums somewhere that require payment to operate?
minus-squaresugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.workslinkfedilinkarrow-up5·1 年前Well, trees are one of them. More money means more trees planted. Or that money could be invested in renewable energy, which will reduce emissions in other areas. And when you increase the cost of something, you get less of it, so taxing emissions should mean fewer emissions. And so on.
minus-squarethreegnomes@beehaw.orglinkfedilinkarrow-up4·1 年前not real ones, most of them are scams where countries accept money in order to not deforest areas they werent going to anyway, double dip, or just deforest regardless
Maybe a dumb question, but how does providing money actually offset emissions? Are there emission vacuums somewhere that require payment to operate?
Well, trees are one of them. More money means more trees planted.
Or that money could be invested in renewable energy, which will reduce emissions in other areas.
And when you increase the cost of something, you get less of it, so taxing emissions should mean fewer emissions.
And so on.
not real ones, most of them are scams where countries accept money in order to not deforest areas they werent going to anyway, double dip, or just deforest regardless