There is no "climate crisis". There is no need to cut emissions - or to charge people to emit. The whole shebang is a gigantic fraud perpetrated on a flock of sheep, by really, really evil people.

The only thing that needs to be reduced is the number of humans. Introduce birth control & be done with it !
No immigration for families of more than two children. The rest will get sorted by natural attrition.
The people of countries where starvation is perpetual, must accept birth control via sterilisation.
Can't feed your children, don't have any more ! We have to be cruel to some so we can be kind to human kind !

Spender is quite right - you can't offset your way out of rising emissions. Anyone with a Year 12 education should be able to figure that out.

Spender is also a big hypocrite, backing net migration in excess of 300,000. Also being pretty quiet about habitat loss, logging, land clearing, and over-irrigation. Environmentally, you can't offset your way out of that either.

Agree with the Teal!

But mostly, not with the (closed, locked and bolted mindset) of the ill-informed, cherry-picking, scientifically illiterate Author.

You see with nuclear power (MSR nuclear waste burners.) We have emission free industrial energy so cheap (1 cent PKWH or less) that the prospect of converting abundant seawater into all manner of hydrocarbons becomes economic, using old, known and proven science.

But fell flat on its economic face, because the energy used was coal and needed so much to generate the heat needed, was mothballed.

Whereas with either thorium or donated, free nuclear waste, i.e., mostly unspent nuclear fuel, The sweet spot for either is around 700 C.

And all that's required for around 30 years of operation is mere kilograms of either fuel source. And reactors that don't cost much more than a large diesel to build!

One can separate hydrogen (electrolysis) from seawater and combine it with CO2 extracted from seawater via the simple, tower vacuum method!

Repeated compressions of the CO2, turns it into a liquid which can then be combined with liquid hydrogen to create almost any hydrocarbon.

The thing that makes it affordable is the extremely low cost of the energy component using a largely unspent (90-95%) nuclear fuel we are paid to accept!

Moreover, even using abundant thorium as the fuel we can still keep the price down below 3 cents PKWH all while maintaining a 200% profit margin.

And the above all carbon free (the power.) Or carbon neutral (the hydrocarbons, fuels, plastics, fertilizers and explosives)

A HYDROCARBON IS A HYDROCARBON IS A HYDROCARBON!
Alan B.

The term 'safeguard mechanism' sounds weaselly perhaps we should refer to 'emissions incontinence' instead. Carbon credits may be exaggerated, multiple counted or wrong in principle. One study found 75% have no climate benefit. Ideally they should have 100 year monitoring and repayment if say trees burn down as has happened in both Australia and the US.

Apart from tree planting and the like emitters themselves can create saleable credits. That's if they beat a subjective baseline determined by bureaucrats. However emitters like Gorgon and Appin colliery have had their baselines relaxed so we know the system can be gamed. It means if emitter A sells a credit to emitter B any climate benefit is double counted. Under this system A and B can perversely increase emissions but it satisfies the rules. No wonder we're making little progress. As La Nina subsides there will also be a smaller land use deduction from industrial emissions. Couple that with massive gas balancing as coal baseload is phased out. Bowen hasn't thought this through.

I thought that a recent Japanese satellite monitoring of CO2 found the largest plumes of CO2 were all not over industrial cities, but tropical rain forest, was very interesting. The Amazon led by far with north Australia equal to PNG & other large areas of rain forest.

I thought it typical that the data gained sank like a stone, being most unwelcome on scientific circles. Wouldn't want to degrade the story that trees reduce airborne CO2 now would we.

Off-setting emission is akin to negative gearing ! The ones benefitting aren't paying their share !

The way to combat the climate cult and its madness, is to wind down operations.

Substitutes and offsets only help that cult, so if they order you to cut 5% of your carbon emissions, then simply decrease your operations by 5%, gradually shutting down as they demand more until the services you provide will no longer be available and your employees no longer employed.

And yes, some here had issues with immigration, but with these corporations gone and the country becoming poor, very few would still want to come to Australia (that is if they even have a way to arrive because airlines will be off the air), they rather even move to Africa instead. Potential parents too will think 1000 times before bringing a new child to this world whom they could not feed. A win-win situation, Hurray!

Yuyutsu,
Well said !

just watched a Youtube video of several B52 Strato Bombers take off. The black trails need no interpretation !

The "Safeguard Mechanism" is there to ensure that no one tries to save jobs by avoiding Al Bozo's virtue-signalling carbon targets.

This 2050 target will surprise many when 2050 comes around !