More likely it would just get negotiated that costs needed to be less per emissions and then they had x years to make efforts to prove they are mitigating as much as possible. And the same old shit would carry on as it is right now.

(Not saying this is what I want, just that this is how it seems)

[–] queermunist@lemmy.ml -1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

What on Earth does "costs needed to be less per emissions" mean?

[–] LifeInMultipleChoice@lemmy.ml 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Same bullshit as always. No one will end up paying an amount that will "re-pay" sufficiently. Instead it just goes back to hoping tech advancments move us to cleaner energy quickly.

(Aka. If they were going to pay x per footprint, they instead would pay x/y)

[–] queermunist@lemmy.ml -2 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

(Aka. If they were going to pay x per footprint, they instead would pay x/y)

... okay so x/y is the same as x per y

meters per second = meters / seconds