5 ms·

I once worked somewhere where I found some evidence that the offsets we were considering buying were probably junk. The CEO agreed, bought them anyway, and prou

by _b 3y ago

I once worked somewhere where I found some evidence that the offsets we were considering buying were probably junk. The CEO agreed, bought them anyway, and proudly proclaimed to all staff how we were now a net-zero company. Junk offsets are cheaper.

GenerocUsername 3y ago
Feels like modern form of absolving sins. All you need is charismatic preacher to bop you on theforhead and say you are saved.
- VyseofArcadia 3y ago
  As soon as a coin the the coffer rings carbon dioxide from the air springs!
- Spivak 3y ago
  It's not a terrible idea as a way of funding work to scrub atmospheric carbon for companies who don't want to or can't do it themselves. I just wish we were more strict about only including sellers that remove (not reduce) carbon from the atmosphere in a directly measurable way.
  - IKantRead 3y ago
    > scrub atmospheric carbon I've seen this phrasing frequently in regards to carbon sequestration and it always seems to wildly understate the real problem with removing CO2 from the atmosphere. CO2 isn't some unnecessary byproduct of creating energy, compared to say soot in wood burning. The CO2 created is an essential part of the carbon cycle by which all living things store and release solar energy. CO2 + H2O + (Solar) Energy => Hydrocarbons + O2. This is how energy is stored on our planet from the energy in a high calorie soda to petroleum (okay technically sugar is not a hydrocarbon, but the idea still holds). When we extract energy from foods, burning organic material, or fossil fuels we do so by reversing that equation: Hydrocarbons + 02 => CO2 + H2O + Energy To "scrub" carbon necessarily requires more energy than we got out of the process in the first place. Photosynthesis, for example, is only 4% efficient. Which means it takes about 25x as much solar energy to build the log you burn then the heat and light you experience burning the log. "Scrubbing" CO2 fundamentally requires tremendous amounts of energy, and more than we got from the energy source in the first place. There are natural processes, like rock weathering, than can do this without energy inputs, but those are hard to replicate and scale.
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
    - Dylan16807 3y ago
      When I see people talking about processes where the end goal is removing carbon from the atmosphere, it's generally two setups. The first setup is growing a lot of plants, turning them to charcoal, and burying it. This does require lots of energy, but the plants do it for you. You don't have to input the energy. The second setup is a process that uses CO2 but doesn't generate fuel, so it needs much less energy than creating hydrocarbons.
    - edhosodhi 3y ago
      > There are natural processes, like rock weathering, than can do this without energy inputs, but those are hard to replicate and scale. any efforts to combat this issue? or approach it through a different perspective entirely ? seems like a fundamental/ circular problem, where in search for energy, optimisation for the long term (sustainable conservation of fossil fuels) you need to input more energy or ‘value’ than you get ‘value’ out of it
- anonporridge 3y ago
  It is. A modern instantiation of buying indulgences from the Catholic Church. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indulgence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indulgence A hug part of the power of religions, such as christianity or ESG, is that it provides a mechanism to allow normal people to engage in evil but feel forgiven or justified. "If someone can make you believe absurdities, they can make you commit atrocities."
  - Dylan16807 3y ago
    Getting some carbon out of the air isn't an absurdity. There are lots of evils that can easily be undone (in multiples!) with cash. Like littering.
    - anonporridge 3y ago
      Getting fossil fuel sourced carbon permanently out of the atmospheric carbon cycle with currently available tech (i.e. planting trees doesn't work because they burn and decompose) is an absurdity. Perhaps the best you can do is mitigate warming factors, like investing in burning previously vented methane, but that might be risking triggering a Cobra Effect, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perverse_incentive#The_original_cobra_effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perverse_incentive#The_origina... There's no realistic tech on the horizon that can actually reverse novel carbon emissions. Even if we had that kind of carbon capture tech, we would likely need to devote at least as much energy as we got in aggregate from all our fossil fuel burning human civilization captured over the past century to the project. We're several orders of magnitude in renewable and nuclear generation fleets away from that possibility. The adults in the room aren't talking about reversing carbon pollution on human timescales anymore. They're talking about planetary heat engineering to adapt to a more densely insulated Earth. That means adapting to a changing environment on the ground, as well as possibly limiting the amount of solar energy entering the system in the first place. Humanity is entering childhood's end. We can't depend on our mother to do all the work of providing a safe cradle for us anymore. We either grow up and take ownership by proactively managing our environment, or we die. The teenage years are usually painful.
      - 3y ago
j_walter 3y ago
Sounds like your CEO is a piece of shit. Luckily not all companies operate this way and being directly involved in my company's net zero initiative I know we investigate every single carbon offset we purchase and its rarely the cheapest option. In some cases it's a little frustrating when you see things like "this offset is we won't cut down a forest in Alaska for the next 10 years" as that is piss poor, but there needs to be better regulations and oversight...and the government doesn't care because they are getting their piece of the pie too.
candiddevmike 3y ago
If only there was a way for the government to incentive folks to stop consuming and companies to stop producing by rewarding folks who don't with some kind of monetary compensation.

by _b 3y ago

GenerocUsername 3y ago

Feels like modern form of absolving sins. All you need is charismatic preacher to bop you on theforhead and say you are saved.

VyseofArcadia 3y ago
As soon as a coin the the coffer rings carbon dioxide from the air springs!
Spivak 3y ago
It's not a terrible idea as a way of funding work to scrub atmospheric carbon for companies who don't want to or can't do it themselves. I just wish we were more strict about only including sellers that remove (not reduce) carbon from the atmosphere in a directly measurable way.
- IKantRead 3y ago
  > scrub atmospheric carbon I've seen this phrasing frequently in regards to carbon sequestration and it always seems to wildly understate the real problem with removing CO2 from the atmosphere. CO2 isn't some unnecessary byproduct of creating energy, compared to say soot in wood burning. The CO2 created is an essential part of the carbon cycle by which all living things store and release solar energy. CO2 + H2O + (Solar) Energy => Hydrocarbons + O2. This is how energy is stored on our planet from the energy in a high calorie soda to petroleum (okay technically sugar is not a hydrocarbon, but the idea still holds). When we extract energy from foods, burning organic material, or fossil fuels we do so by reversing that equation: Hydrocarbons + 02 => CO2 + H2O + Energy To "scrub" carbon necessarily requires more energy than we got out of the process in the first place. Photosynthesis, for example, is only 4% efficient. Which means it takes about 25x as much solar energy to build the log you burn then the heat and light you experience burning the log. "Scrubbing" CO2 fundamentally requires tremendous amounts of energy, and more than we got from the energy source in the first place. There are natural processes, like rock weathering, than can do this without energy inputs, but those are hard to replicate and scale.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - Dylan16807 3y ago
    When I see people talking about processes where the end goal is removing carbon from the atmosphere, it's generally two setups. The first setup is growing a lot of plants, turning them to charcoal, and burying it. This does require lots of energy, but the plants do it for you. You don't have to input the energy. The second setup is a process that uses CO2 but doesn't generate fuel, so it needs much less energy than creating hydrocarbons.
  - edhosodhi 3y ago
    > There are natural processes, like rock weathering, than can do this without energy inputs, but those are hard to replicate and scale. any efforts to combat this issue? or approach it through a different perspective entirely ? seems like a fundamental/ circular problem, where in search for energy, optimisation for the long term (sustainable conservation of fossil fuels) you need to input more energy or ‘value’ than you get ‘value’ out of it
anonporridge 3y ago
It is. A modern instantiation of buying indulgences from the Catholic Church. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indulgence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indulgence A hug part of the power of religions, such as christianity or ESG, is that it provides a mechanism to allow normal people to engage in evil but feel forgiven or justified. "If someone can make you believe absurdities, they can make you commit atrocities."
- Dylan16807 3y ago
  Getting some carbon out of the air isn't an absurdity. There are lots of evils that can easily be undone (in multiples!) with cash. Like littering.
  - anonporridge 3y ago
    Getting fossil fuel sourced carbon permanently out of the atmospheric carbon cycle with currently available tech (i.e. planting trees doesn't work because they burn and decompose) is an absurdity. Perhaps the best you can do is mitigate warming factors, like investing in burning previously vented methane, but that might be risking triggering a Cobra Effect, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perverse_incentive#The_original_cobra_effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perverse_incentive#The_origina... There's no realistic tech on the horizon that can actually reverse novel carbon emissions. Even if we had that kind of carbon capture tech, we would likely need to devote at least as much energy as we got in aggregate from all our fossil fuel burning human civilization captured over the past century to the project. We're several orders of magnitude in renewable and nuclear generation fleets away from that possibility. The adults in the room aren't talking about reversing carbon pollution on human timescales anymore. They're talking about planetary heat engineering to adapt to a more densely insulated Earth. That means adapting to a changing environment on the ground, as well as possibly limiting the amount of solar energy entering the system in the first place. Humanity is entering childhood's end. We can't depend on our mother to do all the work of providing a safe cradle for us anymore. We either grow up and take ownership by proactively managing our environment, or we die. The teenage years are usually painful.
    - 3y ago

j_walter 3y ago

Sounds like your CEO is a piece of shit. Luckily not all companies operate this way and being directly involved in my company's net zero initiative I know we investigate every single carbon offset we purchase and its rarely the cheapest option. In some cases it's a little frustrating when you see things like "this offset is we won't cut down a forest in Alaska for the next 10 years" as that is piss poor, but there needs to be better regulations and oversight...and the government doesn't care because they are getting their piece of the pie too.

candiddevmike 3y ago

If only there was a way for the government to incentive folks to stop consuming and companies to stop producing by rewarding folks who don't with some kind of monetary compensation.