silence7@slrpnk.net to United States | News & Politics@lemmy.mlEnglish · 1 year agoPrivate 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-square39fedilinkarrow-up1435arrow-down17
arrow-up1428arrow-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 year agomessage-square39fedilink
minus-squareEggyhead@artemis.camplinkfedilinkarrow-up1·1 year agoMaybe a dumb question, but how does providing money actually offset emissions? Are there emission vacuums somewhere that require payment to operate?
minus-squarethreegnomes@beehaw.orglinkfedilinkarrow-up4·1 year agonot 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
minus-squaresugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.workslinkfedilinkarrow-up4·1 year agoWell, 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.
Maybe a dumb question, but how does providing money actually offset emissions? Are there emission vacuums somewhere that require payment to operate?
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
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.