In the grand scheme of things $40m isn't that much, and you could use carbon credit money to fund another. If the intent is to catch carbon generators not paying their share, surely you could recoup the cost.

[–] absGeekNZ@lemmy.nz 3 points 5 months ago

Agreed, and if you go with similar tech; as was in the first one, it should be cheaper...since it is no longer the absolute cutting edge anymore.

[–] Antigrav@mastodon.nz 2 points 5 months ago (2 children)

@Dave @absGeekNZ, shouldn't we also consider whether it's necessary to pollute to find out more about pollution?
If successful and we confirm what we already know, how much will this contribute to effective change?
Is this the best use of $ for its cause?

[–] absGeekNZ@lemmy.nz 2 points 5 months ago (1 children)

I think this is a valid concern; but you have to look at the challenge of measuring the emissions over the entire country.

There is no other way to capture this data.

[–] Antigrav@mastodon.nz 1 points 5 months ago

@absGeekNZ, a good start is targeting the biggest polluters though, isn't it?

[–] Dave@lemmy.nz 1 points 5 months ago (1 children)

I guess the point here is holding businesses accountable. If this is how we get proof to stop polluting, then it could well create less pollution than it stops.

You could argue that all pollution monitoring is polluting to find out more about pollution. You'd need to assess what they are expecting to catch vs the CO2 output.

[–] Antigrav@mastodon.nz 2 points 5 months ago (1 children)

@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.

[–] Dave@lemmy.nz 1 points 5 months 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?

[–] absGeekNZ@lemmy.nz 2 points 5 months 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.

[–] Dave@lemmy.nz 1 points 5 months 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.

[–] Antigrav@mastodon.nz 2 points 5 months ago

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

[–] Antigrav@mastodon.nz 2 points 5 months 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.