3 ms·
> ‘ Research from Oxford, Stanford and Berkeley has found that 85% of nature-based carbon offsets sold today are not “additional”’ I was imagining that this wo
by whall6 6y ago
> ‘ Research from Oxford, Stanford and Berkeley has found that 85% of nature-based carbon offsets sold today are not “additional”’
I was imagining that this would be the case. I was reading about pine farms being paid to halt harvesting. My very first thought was “I wonder if it makes sense to buy forested land to make a profit.” Clearly other people have already thought the same thing.
- rubyist5eva 6y ago> I was reading about pine farms being paid to halt harvesting. This explains the price of lumber right now, holy cow. I hate this.
- uxp100 6y agoProbably not. The price of logs has not risen like the price of lumber.
- jtsiskin 6y agoThis seems so silly - is this really how credits work? A fully grown forest won’t be removing any more CO2 (I assume the plant mass doesn’t keep growing without bound). Cutting the pine, replanting it, and using it to build homes and furniture would. Why can’t we make credits based on net CO2 change?