Are proponents of climate apocalypse at all curious of the incentives concerning their proposed "solutions"?
If energy companies have incentives to mislead us, it stands to reason that other actors who would dictate energy consumption to the masses would also have incentives.
"Think of the children" was a good enough rationalization to continue the war on drugs and cannabis prohibition. Why we shouldn't we once again defer to the experts and "trust the science"?
Could it be that there are ulterior motives in both cases? Why must we assume that this power grab is purely altruistic or different from other historical examples?
What is a carbon credit, if not a permission slip to consume energy? It is a form of debt which is owed to the issuer by consumers of energy. Monetization of debt instruments has a long history from the tally stick to the US Federal Reserve.
The bit about "sinister motives" is besides the point.
Given our historical knowledge and our understanding of human nature, how can we ignore the moral hazards inherent in such a scheme? To assume that these carbon credits will be issued solely for "The good of our children and grandchildren" as an above poster mentioned is a further leap. Even if we accept the desperate pleas for apocalyptic hysteria at face value, how can we ignore these basic premises?
More directly, empirical knowledge obtained via experts, science or scientism is unreliable as compared to our a priori knowledge about the nature of man. Instead of focusing on the sales pitch, perhaps we should be more closely scrutinizing what is being sold.
https://glintpay.com/blog/how-equating-wood-with-gold-left-e...
https://www.stlouisfed.org/publications/central-banker/sprin...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debt_monetization
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petrodollar_recycling#Petrodol...
How so exactly? What is your a priori knowledge of "the nature of man?" It obviously derives from introspection, since any knowledge of humans other than yourself is by definition empirical. So what you're really saying is that you personally find there to be moral hazards inherent in this scheme (i.e. you would be inclined to abuse it if you were in a position to do so), and you impute that to the rest of humanity, even though, according to your argument, your knowledge of their nature is inherently unreliable.
Setting aside this fallacious line of reasoning, I still have no idea what your actual point is.
As for the rest, if you don't see the historical and current abuse centered around the issuance of debt backed currency, there's really nothing to say here.