4 ms·

> You release a bunch of greenhouse gases - but it's "OK" because you pay money to some organization It's about cleaning up after yourself. Clearly in the cas

by danans 6y ago

> You release a bunch of greenhouse gases - but it's "OK" because you pay money to some organization It's about cleaning up after yourself. Clearly in the case of this machine, whose carbon impact is tiny compared to nearly every other combustion based machinery we use, the intent is symbolic. > ...that might eventually plant some trees (or use your money to buy/rent fossil-fuel-burning machinery to orchestrate the planting of trees)? For a reputable carbon offset, those carbon costs are accounted for in the offset, so even with them, it's a net-negative carbon transaction. > Seems like guilt-avoidance to me. That's besides the point. If it offsets the carbon produced, then it works, and it doesn't matter what the psychological motivation is. But I agree that there is a problem with offsets: In a saner world we'd be imposing carbon taxes instead of this, but this is where we are today, with CO2 mitigation effectively taking the form of "donations".

Alupis 6y ago
Many organizations with good intent and survive on donations end up astray - see Red Cross and Haiti. Donating money to some organization that claims they will plant trees to offset some amount of greenhouse gas emissions is a lot like trusting the American Red Cross to build houses and schools after a disaster. You're hoping they do what they promise (and instead of doing that, the American Red Cross billed majority of the donations as "Administrative Fees"[1]). So, in reality you may or may not be "cleaning up after yourself". Actually, you're not cleaning up after yourself... you're outsourcing that job (and don't actually care if it gets done) so you can feel free to release more greenhouse gases. [1] https://www.npr.org/2015/06/03/411524156/in-search-of-the-red-cross-500-million-in-haiti-relief https://www.npr.org/2015/06/03/411524156/in-search-of-the-re...
- markdown 6y ago
  > see American Red Cross and Haiti. FTFY. The Red Cross is a reputable organisation that does wonderful work across the developing world. The American Red Cross is the corrupt one.
  - Alupis 6y ago
    My mistake in conflating the two. Updated - Thanks for pointing out the distinction.
  - azernik 6y ago
    Though donating to it isn't a substitute for donations to the American Red Cross for disaster relief purposes. The ICRC specifically deals with armed conflict. For disaster relief you'll have to find another reputable charity.
    - markdown 6y ago
      This is not true. The Red Cross in my country, which is an ICRC affiliate, does provide disaster relief. As far as I can tell, this is true across the board. Eg: https://www.redcross.org.au/news-and-media/news/australian-bushfires-how-we-are-using-funds https://www.redcross.org.au/news-and-media/news/australian-b... https://reliefweb.int/report/viet-nam/thai-red-cross-society-s-money-donation-devastating-flooding-and-landslides-central https://reliefweb.int/report/viet-nam/thai-red-cross-society...
      - azernik 6y ago
        My assumption was that the comment I replied to was directed to Americans, and recommending the ICRC itself as opposed to the ARC.
- cle 6y ago
  If your claim is that Cool Effect is BS, then do you have some evidence other than some whatabouts? If you could show that Cool Effect is BS and there was an alternative that really does offset the emissions, I'd bet these folks would be all for switching.
  - TedDoesntTalk 6y ago
    The alternative is to not create them in the first place for some stupid PR stunt. How is that not obvious?
- burkaman 6y ago
  Are you arguing that all donations are pointless because you can't know for a fact exactly what your particular dollars are spent on? If you just meant "not all nonprofits are perfect, make sure you do your research", I think that's common sense that doesn't really need to be said here.
TedDoesntTalk 6y ago
> In a saner world we'd be imposing carbon taxes In my saner world, we wouldn’t have people knowingly create greenhouse gases for a PR stunt (whose only beneficiary is a corporation called Hey).
- GuB-42 6y ago
  In don't know how much the advertising industry creates greenhouse gases but like any other human activity, that's a lot. From employees driving to work to the electricity needed to run the servers. In this case, I don't think the dumpster fire produces more than a few kW of heat. If it was done inside an office space, it probably wouldn't be powerful enough to heat to room to a comfortable temperature. The server infrastructure required to stream the video most likely produces more CO2 than the fire itself, and I don't usually see an ad on web net saying "we bought carbon offsets to compensate for the greenhouse gases that video produced". Here there is a visible fire, so people think "OMG, the planet", not realizing that their computer may be connected to a much larger fire in a coal plant.

by danans 6y ago

Alupis 6y ago

Many organizations with good intent and survive on donations end up astray - see Red Cross and Haiti. Donating money to some organization that claims they will plant trees to offset some amount of greenhouse gas emissions is a lot like trusting the American Red Cross to build houses and schools after a disaster. You're hoping they do what they promise (and instead of doing that, the American Red Cross billed majority of the donations as "Administrative Fees"[1]). So, in reality you may or may not be "cleaning up after yourself". Actually, you're not cleaning up after yourself... you're outsourcing that job (and don't actually care if it gets done) so you can feel free to release more greenhouse gases. [1] https://www.npr.org/2015/06/03/411524156/in-search-of-the-red-cross-500-million-in-haiti-relief https://www.npr.org/2015/06/03/411524156/in-search-of-the-re...

markdown 6y ago
> see American Red Cross and Haiti. FTFY. The Red Cross is a reputable organisation that does wonderful work across the developing world. The American Red Cross is the corrupt one.
- Alupis 6y ago
  My mistake in conflating the two. Updated - Thanks for pointing out the distinction.
- azernik 6y ago
  Though donating to it isn't a substitute for donations to the American Red Cross for disaster relief purposes. The ICRC specifically deals with armed conflict. For disaster relief you'll have to find another reputable charity.
  - markdown 6y ago
    This is not true. The Red Cross in my country, which is an ICRC affiliate, does provide disaster relief. As far as I can tell, this is true across the board. Eg: https://www.redcross.org.au/news-and-media/news/australian-bushfires-how-we-are-using-funds https://www.redcross.org.au/news-and-media/news/australian-b... https://reliefweb.int/report/viet-nam/thai-red-cross-society-s-money-donation-devastating-flooding-and-landslides-central https://reliefweb.int/report/viet-nam/thai-red-cross-society...
    - azernik 6y ago
      My assumption was that the comment I replied to was directed to Americans, and recommending the ICRC itself as opposed to the ARC.
cle 6y ago
If your claim is that Cool Effect is BS, then do you have some evidence other than some whatabouts? If you could show that Cool Effect is BS and there was an alternative that really does offset the emissions, I'd bet these folks would be all for switching.
- TedDoesntTalk 6y ago
  The alternative is to not create them in the first place for some stupid PR stunt. How is that not obvious?
burkaman 6y ago
Are you arguing that all donations are pointless because you can't know for a fact exactly what your particular dollars are spent on? If you just meant "not all nonprofits are perfect, make sure you do your research", I think that's common sense that doesn't really need to be said here.

TedDoesntTalk 6y ago

> In a saner world we'd be imposing carbon taxes In my saner world, we wouldn’t have people knowingly create greenhouse gases for a PR stunt (whose only beneficiary is a corporation called Hey).

GuB-42 6y ago
In don't know how much the advertising industry creates greenhouse gases but like any other human activity, that's a lot. From employees driving to work to the electricity needed to run the servers. In this case, I don't think the dumpster fire produces more than a few kW of heat. If it was done inside an office space, it probably wouldn't be powerful enough to heat to room to a comfortable temperature. The server infrastructure required to stream the video most likely produces more CO2 than the fire itself, and I don't usually see an ad on web net saying "we bought carbon offsets to compensate for the greenhouse gases that video produced". Here there is a visible fire, so people think "OMG, the planet", not realizing that their computer may be connected to a much larger fire in a coal plant.