Does Microsoft have a history of buying fake carbon credits? And by that I mean, do they buy carbon credits from disreputable sources more often than reputable ones on average in recent years? Or do you simply believe that all carbon credit systems are fake?
I'm pretty firmly in the latter camp. Carbon credits essentially measure how much co2 emissions were prevented by the carbon credits existing. Not only is that pretty much impossible to measure, every company offering carbon credits at market rates is using a form of measurement which is BS.
Carbon credit schemes may do SOMETHING to offset climate change but less than they advertise.
Gates is an investor in some carbon dioxide removal companies and seems to be involved in decarbonization, so at least he has an incentive to have Microsoft do the right thing.
That being said, maybe Microsoft won't, and will buy the low quality "we totally were going to cut this forest but now we won't pinky promise" kind of credits, but I'd at least give them the benefit of the doubt over the average greenwashing corporation.
Those systems should get built out because they make sense to build out. Having a company feeling justified in releasing tons of extra co2 in the process seems like it nullifies some of the good the plant would bring.
Suppose many of those projects would not be built out without channeling significant capital to it, and carbon credits being an effective means of securing that capital. Would that change the calculus for you?
Note that I recognize many (possibly most?) carbon credits programs are bogus or worse, but trying to draw attention to circumstances where it's not always so cut and dry.
I think for renewable energy to win it has to be financially viable on its own. If it requires carbon credits to get started, is it going to be viable without them?
I think the most cut and dry situations is which they capture concentrated emissions from something like an O&G refinery or a cement plant, since it's an effort which ONLY exists for the sake of reducing emissions.
Even some of these, hilariously enough, despite how insanely quantifiable their benefits are, you see phenomenon like phantom credits like where Alberta, Canada gave Shell double credit for each tonne of Co2 they actually reduced.
I'm sure subsidies for green energy projects do reduce emissions, I just think the accounting is BS.
