3 ms·

This really misses the point of the claim. Carbon Credits are greenwashing because as it currently exists doesn't work. And almost every approach is based an un

by TSiege 4y ago

This really misses the point of the claim. Carbon Credits are greenwashing because as it currently exists doesn't work. And almost every approach is based an unfounded schemes. Furthermore, carbon offsets are used to justify ecological damage; they exist for no other purpose. The problem with carbon offsetting is that almost none of the solutions work for long term. For example, if you're digging up oil and burning it, planting a tree wont help. The carbon you dug up from miles underneath our feet is removed from the global carbon cycle for millions of years, the carbon in a tree lasts as long as that tree is alive. Every living organism should be assumed to be decayed and returned to the carbon cycle unless specifically proven otherwise. For example, most of the carbon offset operations in California are being destroyed by wild fires [(1)](https://www.reuters.com/world/us/wildfires-are-destroying-californias-forest-carbon-credit-reserves-study-2022-08-05/ https://www.reuters.com/world/us/wildfires-are-destroying-ca...) If we want to be honest and about what is effective, it's not taking that flight and keeping that oil in the ground. We will delude ourselves if we think any growing any lifeform to capture carbon will work unless humans directly put it into the ground in old oil fields. The only other possibly viable alternative is through mineral reactions with carbon, turning it into stone

madeofpalk 4y ago
> If we want to be honest and about what is effective, it's not taking that flight and keeping that oil in the ground. I live in the UK. I think it’s reasonable to visit my family in Australia every few years. Is it bad if I purchase carbon offsets?
- hgsgm 4y ago
- SpicyLemonZest 4y ago
  Carbon offsets are just donations to environmental groups. There's nothing bad about either taking flights or making donations, but it's wrong in the "factually incorrect" sense to think that if you pick the right amounts to donate to the right groups you can make your flight environmentally friendly. It's like buying a "local business" offset every time you shop at Walmart - you can just do it if you want to or don't do it if you don't.
  - nl 4y ago
    > Carbon offsets are just donations to environmental groups. Well that isn't true. Most carbon offset schemes are run by businesses.
- tsimionescu 4y ago
  Is it bad? No. Is it worse than never going, in terms of global warming impact? Yes. Is it still reasonable to do it every few years? Yes.
- btilly 4y ago
  It is surprisingly likely to be useless. If you think you've actually offset your flight and take the flight more often, that is bad. And that fact that we don't hold the standards organizations to a higher standard is definitely bad. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/may/04/carbon-offsets-used-by-major-airlines-based-on-flawed-system-warn-experts https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/may/04/carbon-o... discusses problems in the verification system most commonly relied on by airlines. As an example, of 12 projects that claimed to stop deforestation, 11 had no discernible effect, and the last overstated its impact by 40%. That's 95% "didn't happen". And they are temporary - a forest not cut down today may be cut down in 30 years. Or maybe not because someone else bought CO2 credits later for the exact same forest. (The offsets industry pointed out that the whole region saw reductions in logging for unknown reasons - and tried to take credit for all of it!) As https://secondnature.org/climate-action-guidance/purchasing-carbon-offsets-faqs/#cost https://secondnature.org/climate-action-guidance/purchasing-... says, the average CO2 offset only costs $3-6 per tonne. But the science on whether a tonne of CO2 was actually offset is sadly lacking. And there is a constant economic pressure to do the cheapest thing that sounds reasonable. And it is an invitation to scammers to cut corners from there. There is a good reason that environmental organizations like Greenpeace say to treat offsets as a scam. What does a real offset cost? Tech companies that are serious about making SURE that they have offset CO2 have been willing to promise https://charmindustrial.com/ https://charmindustrial.com/ about a billion dollars so far for verified CO2 removal. And it really is verified. Bio-oil is created out of agricultural waste and injected back into wells. If you want to KNOW that you've ACTUALLY offset your CO2, you can do likewise. It will cost you $600/tonne. Companies like Microsoft and Google aren't spending $600/tonne because they want to. But because that is a competitive rate for independently verifiable, absolutely did happen, CO2 removal. But you can continue to check that checkbox that guilt-free says you offset your carbon. And independent experts whose job isn't to pinky swear that it really happened are going to believe you really didn't offset your carbon.
junofan 4y ago
> it’s not taking that flight and keeping that oil in the ground I’m taking that flight. I can’t imagine a geopolitical regime that keeps oil in the ground for tens of thousands of years and beyond. The oil is coming out of the ground.
amelius 4y ago
> For example, most of the carbon offset operations in California are being destroyed by wild fires Shouldn't the corresponding carbon contracts be bought by the state, in that case, to keep the accounting correct?
- _y5hn 4y ago
  Forests are regarded as renewable store of carbon. However, with fires and drought for eternity, that model breaks down exponentially quite rapidly. Some fire is good, but not with a hot house earth climate.
ralfd 4y ago
We need mineral based carbon removal (weathering) or direct air storage and capture. Microsoft has a nice report what they bought and how long the carbon is captured: https://query.prod.cms.rt.microsoft.com/cms/api/am/binary/RE4MDlc https://query.prod.cms.rt.microsoft.com/cms/api/am/binary/RE... > More than 99% of the carbon removal volume we selected was from natural solutions with durability terms of 100 years or less, such as forest and soil projects. Looking ahead, we hope to increase the overall durability of our portfolio by helping to expand the market for long-term engineered solutions such as direct air capture and storage. They are contracting 500 MtCO2 removal from Carbofex, which is producing Biochar (plant coal) and label that as a medium term solution (carbon is taken out for 800 years). If that Biochar is stored secludedly that could be a method to get it completely out of the cycle https://www.carbofex.fi/Home https://www.carbofex.fi/Home

by TSiege 4y ago

madeofpalk 4y ago

> If we want to be honest and about what is effective, it's not taking that flight and keeping that oil in the ground. I live in the UK. I think it’s reasonable to visit my family in Australia every few years. Is it bad if I purchase carbon offsets?

hgsgm 4y ago
SpicyLemonZest 4y ago
Carbon offsets are just donations to environmental groups. There's nothing bad about either taking flights or making donations, but it's wrong in the "factually incorrect" sense to think that if you pick the right amounts to donate to the right groups you can make your flight environmentally friendly. It's like buying a "local business" offset every time you shop at Walmart - you can just do it if you want to or don't do it if you don't.
- nl 4y ago
  > Carbon offsets are just donations to environmental groups. Well that isn't true. Most carbon offset schemes are run by businesses.
tsimionescu 4y ago
Is it bad? No. Is it worse than never going, in terms of global warming impact? Yes. Is it still reasonable to do it every few years? Yes.
btilly 4y ago
It is surprisingly likely to be useless. If you think you've actually offset your flight and take the flight more often, that is bad. And that fact that we don't hold the standards organizations to a higher standard is definitely bad. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/may/04/carbon-offsets-used-by-major-airlines-based-on-flawed-system-warn-experts https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/may/04/carbon-o... discusses problems in the verification system most commonly relied on by airlines. As an example, of 12 projects that claimed to stop deforestation, 11 had no discernible effect, and the last overstated its impact by 40%. That's 95% "didn't happen". And they are temporary - a forest not cut down today may be cut down in 30 years. Or maybe not because someone else bought CO2 credits later for the exact same forest. (The offsets industry pointed out that the whole region saw reductions in logging for unknown reasons - and tried to take credit for all of it!) As https://secondnature.org/climate-action-guidance/purchasing-carbon-offsets-faqs/#cost https://secondnature.org/climate-action-guidance/purchasing-... says, the average CO2 offset only costs $3-6 per tonne. But the science on whether a tonne of CO2 was actually offset is sadly lacking. And there is a constant economic pressure to do the cheapest thing that sounds reasonable. And it is an invitation to scammers to cut corners from there. There is a good reason that environmental organizations like Greenpeace say to treat offsets as a scam. What does a real offset cost? Tech companies that are serious about making SURE that they have offset CO2 have been willing to promise https://charmindustrial.com/ https://charmindustrial.com/ about a billion dollars so far for verified CO2 removal. And it really is verified. Bio-oil is created out of agricultural waste and injected back into wells. If you want to KNOW that you've ACTUALLY offset your CO2, you can do likewise. It will cost you $600/tonne. Companies like Microsoft and Google aren't spending $600/tonne because they want to. But because that is a competitive rate for independently verifiable, absolutely did happen, CO2 removal. But you can continue to check that checkbox that guilt-free says you offset your carbon. And independent experts whose job isn't to pinky swear that it really happened are going to believe you really didn't offset your carbon.

junofan 4y ago

> it’s not taking that flight and keeping that oil in the ground I’m taking that flight. I can’t imagine a geopolitical regime that keeps oil in the ground for tens of thousands of years and beyond. The oil is coming out of the ground.

amelius 4y ago

> For example, most of the carbon offset operations in California are being destroyed by wild fires Shouldn't the corresponding carbon contracts be bought by the state, in that case, to keep the accounting correct?

_y5hn 4y ago
Forests are regarded as renewable store of carbon. However, with fires and drought for eternity, that model breaks down exponentially quite rapidly. Some fire is good, but not with a hot house earth climate.

ralfd 4y ago

We need mineral based carbon removal (weathering) or direct air storage and capture. Microsoft has a nice report what they bought and how long the carbon is captured: https://query.prod.cms.rt.microsoft.com/cms/api/am/binary/RE4MDlc https://query.prod.cms.rt.microsoft.com/cms/api/am/binary/RE... > More than 99% of the carbon removal volume we selected was from natural solutions with durability terms of 100 years or less, such as forest and soil projects. Looking ahead, we hope to increase the overall durability of our portfolio by helping to expand the market for long-term engineered solutions such as direct air capture and storage. They are contracting 500 MtCO2 removal from Carbofex, which is producing Biochar (plant coal) and label that as a medium term solution (carbon is taken out for 800 years). If that Biochar is stored secludedly that could be a method to get it completely out of the cycle https://www.carbofex.fi/Home https://www.carbofex.fi/Home