Carbon pricing is widely and successfully used around the world. The US federal level is a notable outlier in this regard and leads to people having distorted views on the topic.
Exxon is an international group with obviously aligned profit motives, so I trust their actions far better reflect the real (as in realpolitik) international situation over a self-admittedly biased website (PMI = Partnership for Market Implementation[1]).
I see the UK has four entries on this dashboard, but nevertheless they're still cutting down forests in Canada and the USA for "green" biomass, and for their trouble quadrupling the (fully accounted) carbon emissions. Whatever this dashboard actually measures, it's clearly no guarantee against perverse non-market "green" incentives.
Anyway, just pointing out a few of the pitfalls and tripwires on the path to good climate policy. I think we agree in the broad strokes. Cheers
We might generally agree but not on the biomass scaremongering.
Canada is the worlds biggest exporter of wood products. Of that 20 billion, 17 billion are going to the US. So why the extreme focus on the 250 million going to the UK?
Is it really that implausible that 1/4 Billion might the the residue left after you export 20 billion worth of other wood products?
I see the UK has four entries on this dashboard, but nevertheless they're still cutting down forests in Canada and the USA for "green" biomass, and for their trouble quadrupling the (fully accounted) carbon emissions. Whatever this dashboard actually measures, it's clearly no guarantee against perverse non-market "green" incentives.
Anyway, just pointing out a few of the pitfalls and tripwires on the path to good climate policy. I think we agree in the broad strokes. Cheers
[1] https://pmiclimate.org/