Cambridge study says carbon offsets are not nearly as effective as they claim to be.

  • bioemerl@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    At a certain point I guess I’d have to give up my car, which would make travel for recreation difficult

    Yes. Ideally it would result in forms of recreation and travel that emit less.

    • NathanielThomas@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      it’s just kind of makes me wonder what the point of living in, say, British Columbia would be. The only thing we have is outdoor recreation. We work to try and enjoy the landscape and beauty. but if we don’t have transportation to get to these places I may as well live in London, UK, where at least I’ll enjoy culture and good transit.

      • hank_and_deans@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        What the hell are you even talking about? I literally lived in rural BC where lots of people would go to enjoy outdoor recreation. I did just fine with a non-Tesla EV, and I was not the only one. The chargers in town got lots of use.

      • bioemerl@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        but if we don’t have transportation to get to these places I may as well live in London

        Yes. These decisions are exactly what a carbon tax is designed to create. The people who really want to live a recreational non-urban lifestyle that is quite expensive in terms of carbon emissions are going to have to pay more to do it because that reflects the true cost of that lifestyle.

        Ideally That extra expense encourages innovation in that space so that the area can become less carbon intense. Perhaps local authorities are encouraged to build trains or electric cars or some other system that lets you live your life without emitting carbon in those areas.