3 ms·
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 ind
by 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 agoOr 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 agoSetting up that much nuclear would first fix the problem of emissions. But sure if we have extra energy and resources after that.
- prewett 3y agoCarbon offsets always seemed to me to be a way of ameliorating one's guilt of one's pollution. If recycling rarely actually happened, I figured that carbon offsets tended not to happen, too. We do not even really have the technology to do it on a large scale. People were really indulgences (heh, literally, they could continue to indulge in polluting instead of doing the hard to work to figure out to live differently). I'm shocked, shocked! to find grift in the indulgences market. Real virtue cannot be purchased.
- nonethewiser 3y ago> Carbon offsets always seemed to me to be a way of ameliorating one's guilt of one's pollution. This is actually very common. Here me out - EVs are not bad and in most scenarios produce less emissions than ICE vehicles. But they are similarly used to displace guilt about emissions. EVs don’t eliminate emissions as some assume. They just displace them further up the supply chain. And if electricity is generated primarily by coal (which is the case in China, for example, which boasts about EVs) then it actually increases emissions. EVs aren’t inherently cleaner, but they do inherently hide emissions. This does not describe every proponent of EVs but it does describe too many proponents of EVs.
- marginalia_nu 3y ago> Someone willing to extract CO2 from the air and store it in some rock forever can indeed offset some carbon you emitted. This isn't what carbon offsets typically are though. More like this: I promise not to slash and burn this forest if you give me $1000. There, you've now removed however many CO2 from being emitted, meanwhile I sell the forest to someone else who either makes the same deal with some other guy or just cuts it down because whatever they aren't under any obligations to not slash and burn the forest.
- TearsInTheRain 3y agosell the same plot of forest to n number of people. Send everyone the same pic of the forest they "saved"
- marginalia_nu 3y agoYes, exactly. In practice, there is no limit to how many times you can vow to not cut down a tree.