ramdom-ink t1_j4w2ouh wrote
“The implications of this analysis are huge. Companies are using credits to make claims of reducing emissions when most of these credits don’t represent emissions reductions at all.”
Once again, corporations are gaming ‘the system’. Applying “false and misleading results” to a PR campaign that paints them as heroes of the zero-emission environment, when they are no such thing. Then there are the truly environmentally concerned being victimized and played by their good intentions with marginal or negative effect, when they are led to believe the opposite. So even a step in the right sustainable/conservation direction has bad actors and suspect findings to profit, whether it’s ethically, financially or both. Depressing. One step forward, 13 back…
johndeuff t1_j4z7nm5 wrote
What does it have to do with the corporations? They paid for a service and got scammed by Verra. It’s not like they want to lose money and get bad PR.
seekknowledge4ever t1_j4zfzu7 wrote
When these businesses pay big. Dollars for services, they know what they are getting. In this case, they know they are buying a scam, to use as PR content.
johndeuff t1_j4zk4u8 wrote
Corporations didn’t buy this media coverage. Some Verra project are legit, many are scam. If Verra want to continue business they’ll have to adapt.
pawnografik t1_j52yyu2 wrote
Your first post made good sense; this one, not so much.
johndeuff t1_j549yff wrote
I changed it to what I really mean and be less specific to the previous post. I don’t believe protecting the forest and planting trees has to be a scam… but it can be and corporations have to spend more money on audit long term.
Throwmedownthewell0 t1_j4z52wb wrote
Okay okay but if we try better capitalism again it will work this time!
We just need a different better version of better capitalism, with more regulation, and democracy!
Let's keep trying to make better capitalism because it will work! It has to!
​
/s
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments