3 ms·

> This is solvable with synthetic fuels and offsets. https://www.greenpeace.org/international/story/50689/carbon-offsets-net-zero-greenwashing-scam/ https://ww

> This is solvable with synthetic fuels and offsets. https://www.greenpeace.org/international/story/50689/carbon-offsets-net-zero-greenwashing-scam/ https://www.greenpeace.org/international/story/50689/carbon-... https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/jan/18/revealed-forest-carbon-offsets-biggest-provider-worthless-verra-aoe https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/jan/18/revealed... https://www.zeit.de/zustimmung?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.zeit.de%2Fwirtschaft%2F2023-01%2Fco2-certificates-fraud-emissions-trading-climate-protection-english https://www.zeit.de/zustimmung?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.zeit.de... https://australiainstitute.org.au/post/the-era-of-the-great-carbon-fraud-is-upon-us/ https://australiainstitute.org.au/post/the-era-of-the-great-... > Good luck forcing quality of life reduction as an explicit policy goal. Either we chose to do it willingly or we'll be forced to do it. One is chose frugality, the other is forced poverty, either way we'll eventually get there

JumpCrisscross 4y ago
I agree our current offset regime is a scam. That doesn’t mean it’s impossible to do right, or that doing it right shouldn’t be a precondition to scaling something like supersonic travel. (Would note that linking to Greenpeace seldom strengthens one’s argument.) > we chose to do it willingly or we'll be forced to do it These outcomes are distributed differently.
- lm28469 4y ago
  So your argument is based on a scam program and fuels we don't really have yet That's not very convincing. In a perfect world with perfect people and infinite money we could indeed do a lot of crazy things, but then again we have to deal with reality
  - JumpCrisscross 4y ago
    > your argument is based on a scam program and fuels we don't really have yet Your problem is based on a Mach 9 proposal and technology we don’t really have yet. We’re both necessarily speculating.
- xeyownt 4y ago
  What's the problem with Greenpeace? Because I'm funding their actions since 20 years now, and I wonder if I should switch to something else, like Exxon maybe. Or... I should stop giving indirectly any €€€ to Exxon and alike, and give all the gains to Greenpeace instead.

JumpCrisscross 4y ago

I agree our current offset regime is a scam. That doesn’t mean it’s impossible to do right, or that doing it right shouldn’t be a precondition to scaling something like supersonic travel. (Would note that linking to Greenpeace seldom strengthens one’s argument.) > we chose to do it willingly or we'll be forced to do it These outcomes are distributed differently.

lm28469 4y ago
So your argument is based on a scam program and fuels we don't really have yet That's not very convincing. In a perfect world with perfect people and infinite money we could indeed do a lot of crazy things, but then again we have to deal with reality
- JumpCrisscross 4y ago
  > your argument is based on a scam program and fuels we don't really have yet Your problem is based on a Mach 9 proposal and technology we don’t really have yet. We’re both necessarily speculating.
xeyownt 4y ago
What's the problem with Greenpeace? Because I'm funding their actions since 20 years now, and I wonder if I should switch to something else, like Exxon maybe. Or... I should stop giving indirectly any €€€ to Exxon and alike, and give all the gains to Greenpeace instead.