[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by b1crunch

Right, but opendoor was discussing what is LIKELY happening by using 'simple economics', and you are arguing what SHOULD happen. Those are two different things, and there can be 'common sense' approaches in both situations.

Your line of thinking suggests that a government should step in and regulate the industry to some respect. That's fine.

I guess my question is: What percentage of global carbon emissions are from burning not-so-ethically sourced wood pellets from Canada? It's likely so small that we shouldn't do anything about this problem, because it doesn't have a big enough impact on the total output. Wouldn't you agree?

Burning wood pellets releases as much or even more carbon dioxide per unit than burning coal.

https://e360.yale.edu/features/wood_..._co2_emissions

But more than a decade of research has shown that wood pellets cause more carbon pollution than coal per unit of energy produced. And while it’s true that over the long term, regrowing trees may be able to sequester the same amount of carbon that is released producing and burning wood pellets, in the short-term, forest biomass is masquerading as a zero-emission energy source — allowing power plant smokestacks to pump out greenhouse gas emissions today and into the future, quickening the pace of global warming.
Unfortunately, the planet doesn’t have decades to recoup the carbon deficit created when forests are cut down and burned. United Nations chief Antonio Guterres recently classified the current climate crisis as “code red for humanity.”

https://news.mongabay.com/2021/11/su...e-say-experts/



https://www.sec.gov/rules/petitions/...n4-741-exb.pdf

So if it is worse than coal, why are we using it? Just burn coal.