[SECProto]

> Only in the absurd world of carbon credits is this required - something that is nearly impossible to do any other way - that contributes practically nothing to global CO2 vs the incredible benefit to society it proffers - has to stop. Why?

Every individual action "contributes practically nothing to global CO2", so with this argument, nothing should ever be done.

But this is a strawman argument regardless: globally, steelmaking contributes ~11% of direct CO2 emissions[1]. Other countries[2] are progressing towards decarbonization. Per this very article, Europe will subsidize initially (progressively replacing subsidization with import tariffs over the next decade). And the whole point of all of this is to "internalize the externalities" - recognize that carbon emissions aren't free: Steel is incredibly emissions intensive, and free emissions lead it to be used in areas where other materials would be better from an emissions perspective.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steelmaking#Carbon_dioxide_emi...

[2] https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/sudbury/algoma-steel-420milli...

[easytiger]

> * Europe will subsidize initially*

Not charging levies and taxes is not providing a subsidy.

These things push up costs of living, costs of housing, costs of doing business - at a time when such artificial costs are presenting an existential threat to our way of life.

It's all laughably irrelevant anyway. In 2021 China estimated >1,000 million tonnes of steel (and that doesn't count the steel they finance in other countries). EU: 152 million.

> And the whole point of all of this is to "internalize the externalities"

This childishly reductive paradigm of victimhood in relation to every macro and microscopic element of western life is a noose around our necks.

[imtringued]

>These things push up costs of living, costs of housing, costs of doing business - at a time when such artificial costs are presenting an existential threat to our way of life.

There is a part of the balance sheet that you aren't looking at that is presenting an existential threat. A higher bill for energy isn't an existential risk.

>This childishly reductive paradigm of victimhood in relation to every macro and microscopic element of western life is a noose around our necks.

It's called actions having consequences. If costs and benefits aren't properly accounted for, then you get market failure.

[easytiger]

> It's called actions having consequences

What consequences?

What will cause market failure?

[WeylandYutani]

I live in the Netherlands. Climate change is an existential threat to my way of life.

[easytiger]

Maybe building a country below sea level on reclaimed land using very clever technology wasn't a brilliant long term strategy? What that has to do with CO2 emissions I don't know