7 ms·

Are the other 22 % certain junk? The effects fundamentally do not seem offsetable. The offset industry is based on an idea that you can remove greenhouse impac

by akho 3y ago

Are the other 22 % certain junk? The effects fundamentally do not seem offsetable. The offset industry is based on an idea that you can remove greenhouse impacts from your process without a significant impact on prices, and a corporation is somehow better positioned to donate to a fund than a consumer is. That's bullshit.

Aunche 3y ago
The most verifiable type of offset that I've heard about is landfill methane capture. You can measure the amount of methane captured, and that is what you've offset.
- londons_explore 3y ago
  But then what happens to the methane? Typically it's burned to make CO2. CO2 lasts longer in the atmosphere than methane.
  - Jarwain 3y ago
    Methane has roughly 25x the warming power as CO2, but burning 1kg of methane only produces a bit over 2kg of CO2
  - ZeroGravitas 3y ago
    Burning methane that would otherwise be released into the atmosphere is a good thing. Better yet to actually use it for something that will offset fossil fuel use though. I think they burn the various CFCs and HFCS they extract from old refrigeration units for similar reasons.
  - IKantRead 3y ago
    The methane will eventually break down in to CO2 on it's own, so whether your burn it or not you'll get that CO2. However before it breaks down methane is a wildly more potent greenhouse gas. It still takes decades to break down, during which time it's going to be multiple magnitudes more impactful that the CO2 it will eventually become either way.
Maken 3y ago
From the report: 16% were problematic, AKA they could not determine with enough precision if they were junk. The remaining 6% didn't publish enough information to even assess them. So yes, they are also junk.
- black_puppydog 3y ago
  I came here to confirm that I hadn't missed something in the article. Thanks for confirming. This is so fucked up...
  - christkv 3y ago
    I'm not surprised the pioneers of this was Enron after all.
- nonethewiser 3y ago
  That is incredible. I just assumed the other 22% were not junk but it’s actually worse than the title implies.
londons_explore 3y ago
In principle, offsetting CO2 production seems like a sensible idea to me. Someone willing to extract CO2 from the air and store it in some rock forever can indeed offset some carbon you emitted. The reality is that nobody is doing that - instead the fraudulent offsetting companies are getting paid to do something they wanted to do anyway - for example planting trees for papermaking, or just plain-old lying about what they're doing.
- IKantRead 3y ago
  > Someone willing to extract CO2 from the air and store it in some rock forever can indeed offset some carbon you emitted. Except that doing so requires more energy than you got out of the process which created the CO2 in the first place. The only way to mitigate climate change is to keep CO2, in the form of Hydrocarbons, in the ground in the first place. If we have any hope at averting the worst case scenario we would be start globally marking proven reserves as "never to be extracted". As it stands we are on course to release all of the CO2 stored in currently leaded fossil fuel reserves. We can slow that process down a bit by regulation, but it will matter on the scales we're working with.
  - unglaublich 3y ago
    > Except that doing so requires more energy than you got out of the process which created the CO2 in the first place. That's fossil fuels for you: they are nothing more than an energy loan which we have to pay back with interest.
  - tick_tock_tick 3y ago
    Or couldn't we just build a ton of nukes and start sucking? The power ratio only matters when power actually has a real cost.
    - blharr 3y ago
      Setting up that much nuclear would first fix the problem of emissions. But sure if we have extra energy and resources after that.
nonethewiser 3y ago
> Are the other 22 % certain junk? I wondered the same thing. It’s hard to imagine a single non-junk example. If we could just pay money to undo emissions then none of this is even a problem.
3seashells 3y ago
They premise is basically a violation of the law of thermodynamics and market forces. Any process making this viable, would quickly replace any other energy source available?

by akho 3y ago

Aunche 3y ago

The most verifiable type of offset that I've heard about is landfill methane capture. You can measure the amount of methane captured, and that is what you've offset.

londons_explore 3y ago
But then what happens to the methane? Typically it's burned to make CO2. CO2 lasts longer in the atmosphere than methane.
- Jarwain 3y ago
  Methane has roughly 25x the warming power as CO2, but burning 1kg of methane only produces a bit over 2kg of CO2
- ZeroGravitas 3y ago
  Burning methane that would otherwise be released into the atmosphere is a good thing. Better yet to actually use it for something that will offset fossil fuel use though. I think they burn the various CFCs and HFCS they extract from old refrigeration units for similar reasons.
- IKantRead 3y ago
  The methane will eventually break down in to CO2 on it's own, so whether your burn it or not you'll get that CO2. However before it breaks down methane is a wildly more potent greenhouse gas. It still takes decades to break down, during which time it's going to be multiple magnitudes more impactful that the CO2 it will eventually become either way.

Maken 3y ago

From the report: 16% were problematic, AKA they could not determine with enough precision if they were junk. The remaining 6% didn't publish enough information to even assess them. So yes, they are also junk.

black_puppydog 3y ago
I came here to confirm that I hadn't missed something in the article. Thanks for confirming. This is so fucked up...
- christkv 3y ago
  I'm not surprised the pioneers of this was Enron after all.
nonethewiser 3y ago
That is incredible. I just assumed the other 22% were not junk but it’s actually worse than the title implies.

londons_explore 3y ago

In principle, offsetting CO2 production seems like a sensible idea to me. Someone willing to extract CO2 from the air and store it in some rock forever can indeed offset some carbon you emitted. The reality is that nobody is doing that - instead the fraudulent offsetting companies are getting paid to do something they wanted to do anyway - for example planting trees for papermaking, or just plain-old lying about what they're doing.

IKantRead 3y ago
> Someone willing to extract CO2 from the air and store it in some rock forever can indeed offset some carbon you emitted. Except that doing so requires more energy than you got out of the process which created the CO2 in the first place. The only way to mitigate climate change is to keep CO2, in the form of Hydrocarbons, in the ground in the first place. If we have any hope at averting the worst case scenario we would be start globally marking proven reserves as "never to be extracted". As it stands we are on course to release all of the CO2 stored in currently leaded fossil fuel reserves. We can slow that process down a bit by regulation, but it will matter on the scales we're working with.
- unglaublich 3y ago
  > Except that doing so requires more energy than you got out of the process which created the CO2 in the first place. That's fossil fuels for you: they are nothing more than an energy loan which we have to pay back with interest.
- tick_tock_tick 3y ago
  Or couldn't we just build a ton of nukes and start sucking? The power ratio only matters when power actually has a real cost.
  - blharr 3y ago
    Setting up that much nuclear would first fix the problem of emissions. But sure if we have extra energy and resources after that.

nonethewiser 3y ago

> Are the other 22 % certain junk? I wondered the same thing. It’s hard to imagine a single non-junk example. If we could just pay money to undo emissions then none of this is even a problem.

3seashells 3y ago

They premise is basically a violation of the law of thermodynamics and market forces. Any process making this viable, would quickly replace any other energy source available?