5 ms·

Emission offset is just a way for rich people to absolve their sins. If you release CO2 in the atmosphere that was previously sequestered in the ground it's out

Emission offset is just a way for rich people to absolve their sins. If you release CO2 in the atmosphere that was previously sequestered in the ground it's out. Sure you can plant some trees, and they'll bind the carbon as they grow, but what happens when they get old and die? Bacteria and fungi release the carbon back into the air.

baq 7y ago
burn and bury, i.e. put it back where it came from.
mc32 7y ago
That can be said about all forests though. As long as they produce new trees that replace them, it’d be okay.
AJ007 7y ago
It’s morally absurd, no one has suggested Jeffrey Epstein or Bill Cosby could donate money to sex abuse victims and then what they did would suddenly be acceptable. It’s one thing to be wealthy and claim global warming is the most serious threat to life on earth, and fly normal commercial planes with other people. It’s another to zoom around in a private jet to your personal vacation spot and board someone’s private yacht for a week. If you really wanted to be terrible, you could be like Sir Richard Branson and launch a cruise line.
adriand 7y ago
That doesn’t sound like a well-informed opinion to me. Have you looked at rigorously certified carbon offset and capture programs? It is not just treeplanting.
- sorenjan 7y ago
  I would be very interested in any programs that actually capture and sequester CO2 long term. Do you have any good links?
  - adriand 7y ago
    Here's a list of featured projects associated with the nonprofit I buy offsets from: https://www.less.ca/en-ca/projects.cfm https://www.less.ca/en-ca/projects.cfm
    - sorenjan 7y ago
      I don't see anything about removing CO2 from the atmosphere, only spending money to prevent CO2 and methane being emitted elsewhere. While those projects are obviously good, they don't negate any fossil CO2 anyone else emits.
esotericn 7y ago
When I state that people must capture their emissions - I mean precisely that, as a simple matter of mathematics, the matter released must be captured and sequestered. Offsetting is a different matter entirely and is more of a transitionary exercise, because we ultimately need to hit net zero, for which offsetting is not a solution. The mechanics of either of those are done are left as an exercise for the reader. On geological timescales all of this stuff is quite hard. For example, you could populate massive forests, fell the trees and just stack up massive piles of wood. Assuming all of that is net carbon negative - what if there's a massive fire in the next thousand years? Oops.
bryanlarsen 7y ago
> but what happens when they get old and die? Bacteria and fungi release the carbon back into the air. And at that point the forest is in steady state: growth of new trees offsets the decay of old ones. Planting trees is only a temporary solution; you only get to count the credits once. Eventually much of the world will be covered in forests and different solutions will be needed. But it's an extremely valuable temporary solution. More forests are a good thing, and hopefully by then electric airplanes will be a cheaper option than offsets.
adriand 7y ago
People keep referring to tree planting as the thing that these offsets are funding. Of the featured projects funded by the company I purchase offsets from (https://www.less.ca/en-ca/projects.cfm https://www.less.ca/en-ca/projects.cfm), none consist of tree planting. Here is the overview of one of the projects (you can read the verification report at https://www.netinform.de/blueregistry/showpdf2.aspx?ID=39 https://www.netinform.de/blueregistry/showpdf2.aspx?ID=39): ------------ The objective of the Fredericton Region Solid Waste Commission (FRSWC) Landfill Gas Capture and Flare project is to capture and flare the landfill gas produced at the landfill located in Fredericton, New Brunswick, Canada, to further avoid emissions of methane to the atmosphere. The Fredericton Region Solid Waste Commission (FRSWC) Landfill began operations in 1986, covers 120 hectares of area and has over 1 million tons of waste in place. The landfill is currently accepting 75,000 tonnes per year of municipal solid waste and has the capacity to accept waste for the next 45 years. The New Brunswick province where the project is located has no regulatory requirements mandating the capture or flaring of landfill gas. Hence, the business as usual practice prior to the implementation of the project activity was complete release of Landfill Gas (LFG) into the atmosphere. The project activity is defined as the construction of 26 vertical wells, installation of 2,100 meters of pipeline and a flare for the purpose of LFG capture and methane destruction. A blower was installed to create a slight vacuum to draw the LFG through the pipeline and capped wells to the flare. The flare is an enclosed drum flare with high destruction efficiency to combust LFG and prevents direct methane emissions into the atmosphere. The forecasted amount of GHG emission reductions from the project is estimated to be 241,585 tonnes of CO2 equivalents (tCO2e) during the period of 8th December 2006 to 31st December 2010. ------------ You may disagree that this is an effective project, but I am more likely to trust an independent auditor (that's who produces these reports) that outlines the scientific basis in terms I can understand, that make sense, and that clearly identify the environmental impact. To me the biggest question is, would this project have existed regardless of whether or not I purchased offsets? I choose not to take this attitude of helplessness. I choose to fund, with my own money, scientifically verified and audited projects like this as opposed to doing nothing. By doing so, I believe that I mitigate and possibly eliminate the negative environmental impact of the choices I make to travel. Then I can focus on the positive impacts: The trip I took benefited me personally and broadened my world view. It improved my relationship with my wife. We contributed a little bit to the economy of Greece. Etc.

baq 7y ago

burn and bury, i.e. put it back where it came from.

mc32 7y ago

That can be said about all forests though. As long as they produce new trees that replace them, it’d be okay.

AJ007 7y ago

It’s morally absurd, no one has suggested Jeffrey Epstein or Bill Cosby could donate money to sex abuse victims and then what they did would suddenly be acceptable. It’s one thing to be wealthy and claim global warming is the most serious threat to life on earth, and fly normal commercial planes with other people. It’s another to zoom around in a private jet to your personal vacation spot and board someone’s private yacht for a week. If you really wanted to be terrible, you could be like Sir Richard Branson and launch a cruise line.

adriand 7y ago

That doesn’t sound like a well-informed opinion to me. Have you looked at rigorously certified carbon offset and capture programs? It is not just treeplanting.

sorenjan 7y ago
I would be very interested in any programs that actually capture and sequester CO2 long term. Do you have any good links?
- adriand 7y ago
  Here's a list of featured projects associated with the nonprofit I buy offsets from: https://www.less.ca/en-ca/projects.cfm https://www.less.ca/en-ca/projects.cfm
  - sorenjan 7y ago
    I don't see anything about removing CO2 from the atmosphere, only spending money to prevent CO2 and methane being emitted elsewhere. While those projects are obviously good, they don't negate any fossil CO2 anyone else emits.

esotericn 7y ago

When I state that people must capture their emissions - I mean precisely that, as a simple matter of mathematics, the matter released must be captured and sequestered. Offsetting is a different matter entirely and is more of a transitionary exercise, because we ultimately need to hit net zero, for which offsetting is not a solution. The mechanics of either of those are done are left as an exercise for the reader. On geological timescales all of this stuff is quite hard. For example, you could populate massive forests, fell the trees and just stack up massive piles of wood. Assuming all of that is net carbon negative - what if there's a massive fire in the next thousand years? Oops.

bryanlarsen 7y ago

> but what happens when they get old and die? Bacteria and fungi release the carbon back into the air. And at that point the forest is in steady state: growth of new trees offsets the decay of old ones. Planting trees is only a temporary solution; you only get to count the credits once. Eventually much of the world will be covered in forests and different solutions will be needed. But it's an extremely valuable temporary solution. More forests are a good thing, and hopefully by then electric airplanes will be a cheaper option than offsets.

adriand 7y ago

People keep referring to tree planting as the thing that these offsets are funding. Of the featured projects funded by the company I purchase offsets from (https://www.less.ca/en-ca/projects.cfm https://www.less.ca/en-ca/projects.cfm), none consist of tree planting. Here is the overview of one of the projects (you can read the verification report at https://www.netinform.de/blueregistry/showpdf2.aspx?ID=39 https://www.netinform.de/blueregistry/showpdf2.aspx?ID=39): ------------ The objective of the Fredericton Region Solid Waste Commission (FRSWC) Landfill Gas Capture and Flare project is to capture and flare the landfill gas produced at the landfill located in Fredericton, New Brunswick, Canada, to further avoid emissions of methane to the atmosphere. The Fredericton Region Solid Waste Commission (FRSWC) Landfill began operations in 1986, covers 120 hectares of area and has over 1 million tons of waste in place. The landfill is currently accepting 75,000 tonnes per year of municipal solid waste and has the capacity to accept waste for the next 45 years. The New Brunswick province where the project is located has no regulatory requirements mandating the capture or flaring of landfill gas. Hence, the business as usual practice prior to the implementation of the project activity was complete release of Landfill Gas (LFG) into the atmosphere. The project activity is defined as the construction of 26 vertical wells, installation of 2,100 meters of pipeline and a flare for the purpose of LFG capture and methane destruction. A blower was installed to create a slight vacuum to draw the LFG through the pipeline and capped wells to the flare. The flare is an enclosed drum flare with high destruction efficiency to combust LFG and prevents direct methane emissions into the atmosphere. The forecasted amount of GHG emission reductions from the project is estimated to be 241,585 tonnes of CO2 equivalents (tCO2e) during the period of 8th December 2006 to 31st December 2010. ------------ You may disagree that this is an effective project, but I am more likely to trust an independent auditor (that's who produces these reports) that outlines the scientific basis in terms I can understand, that make sense, and that clearly identify the environmental impact. To me the biggest question is, would this project have existed regardless of whether or not I purchased offsets? I choose not to take this attitude of helplessness. I choose to fund, with my own money, scientifically verified and audited projects like this as opposed to doing nothing. By doing so, I believe that I mitigate and possibly eliminate the negative environmental impact of the choices I make to travel. Then I can focus on the positive impacts: The trip I took benefited me personally and broadened my world view. It improved my relationship with my wife. We contributed a little bit to the economy of Greece. Etc.