[djbebs]

Except carbon credits are not providing information, they are imposing costs. The 2 are not one and the same.

You might argue that electricity providers having to inform their customers of how much carbon was generated in the production of electricity is simply informing the customer and therefore compatible with a free market.

You cannot make that argument when the state is imposing the legal requirement to purchase licenses to output said carbon.

Again, you may agree with such a measure (I don't), but agreeing with the measures doesn't change their nefarious effects.

[ZeroGravitas]

The carbon credit is not imposing the cost, it's ensuring that the person who causes the cost pays for it, i.e. that it is priced correctly and people can make decisions based on that. As a result it increases efficiency.

[djbebs]

The carbon is imposing a cost, and an arbitrary and politically defined one at that.

This isn't really up for debate, since its the core idea of having such a licensing system in the first place.

You could argue that a system where carbon isnt allowed to be released into the commons at all is legitimate, you can even support a carbon licensing scheme like the one that exists.

What you can't argue is that those schemes do not impose costs, because that is plain and simply lying.

Personally i think the whole carbon credit system is inherently flawed and should be abolished. There is no difference between emissions, and any other externality going into the commons, and having its supply/demand determined by the state is like always a bad idea that enables more state interference in things that simply arent their business.

Pollution and similar externalities are a problem, but this is not the solution.