@Dave, my point was that these arbitrators are already known and it can be more effective telling people who to boycott than launching rockets for a 'showy'
finger point and tell.
Most if not all of these companies give a flying duck for those trying to hold them accountable.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Aren't we (as the govt) trying to force them to purchase carbon credits rather than creating a social movement to boycott?

[–] [email protected] 2 points 19 hours ago

@Dave, ah yes, unfortunately not many governments are a representation of their people anymore and even fewer are interested in acting for their benefits.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Carbon credits are secondary.

What we want to do is lower emissions; one way to achieve this is to place a cost on those emissions. Thus giving an incentive to lower the emissions; carbon credits are a bit of a shit way of doing this. But it is better than nothing.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Well I guess what I meant is that I don't think the government is spending tens of millions on a satellite to start a social movement.

They are the government, if they want to stop polluters they shouldn't encourage boycotts, they should use their teeth. Whether that's forcing the polluters to buy carbon credits (because that's the current system), shutting them down, or some other method, they should taking action not trying to convince the public to avoid them.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 19 hours ago

@Dave @absGeekNZ, loss of profits are unfortunately still the best motivator in a world running on old-fashioned, exploitative (on every level) capitalism.