So results are in & not encouraging on the understanding of carbon credits. In both polls the correct answer was nobody should get any credit as the reductions in emissions would have occurred w/o the credits anyway. That is paying us/farmers/company A would fail ADDITIONALITY 1/

First critical thing to ask is - will paying the credits or not change behavior? My daughter did not become vegetarian to get so clearly no. Company A is already profitable producing the near meat & has farmers supply the peas so the credits would just add to their profits 2/

The only reason to pay for existing activities is to avoid strategic behavior: my kid starts eating meat so she can then go vegetarian, company A shuts down & opens again so they can claim at least a portion of the credits. In most cases you can see it will not happen! 3/

We do not have a real cap & trade in the US - I already explained how a REAL cap & trade (C&T) system would work in this thread, the main point is in REAL C&T there is a REAL cap and you have to REALLY reduce emissions. If US ag wants to play it's cool! 4/ https://twitter.com/ProfSecchi/status/1356995956693213184?s=20

Then it would go like this: US ag reduces their CO2e emissions by say 30%. Then if they want to sell credits they can reduce their emissions further, say 40%, & sell the 10% difference. And we really monitor that! Otherwise there's absolutely zero guarantee of additionality. 5/

It's counterproductive to REAL climate change mitigation to keep pandering to rich well subsidized largely white & climate denying Midwest farmers w/ these "carbon credits". And companies are getting away w/ doing nothing. Additionality tests SHOULD BE ROBUST. Otherwise: 6/6