5 ms·

So, if you used climate credits, to build up those forrests. Do they get nil and void, if those forrests burn up?

sunshine-o 3mo ago
They should go negative because the gigantic amount of CO2 being released right now because of the obvious incompetence of the authorites is criminal.
pibaker 3mo ago
Bold to assume that buying emission offsets actually leads to anything tangible being done.
- stinkbeetle 3mo ago
  It fills the pockets of grifters.
- bigfatkitten 3mo ago
  Saving the environment with Microsoft Excel.
- ColdStream 3mo ago
  A lot of the more realistic environmentalists very quickly figured out that it was nothing more than an accounting trick. Greta Thunberg announces she has gone 'net-zero' on swearing after 'f-bomb' furore - https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/uk-news/greta-thunberg-announces-gone-net-22053969 https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/uk-news/greta-t...
juujian 3mo ago
Nope, read a couple stories about climate credits over the years, and this is a problem. The credits are permanent, even if the new grown forest burns down.
- Dylan16807 3mo ago
  If they grow the forest back it's fine for the credits to be permanent. But definitely don't treat it as a reset. Require the regrowth and don't give out new credits for it.
  - hahahaa 3mo ago
    Needs a coefficient of burn, so instead of 1kg maybe you count it as 200g to allow for burning and and then next replant which allocates to someone else.
- deleted 3mo ago
  [deleted]
c7b 3mo ago
How would non-permanent credits even work? You purchase the carbon-offset option on a flight, a tree gets planted somewhere, ten years later it burns in a wildfire. Then what?
- artisinal 3mo ago
  You claim a new tree on your insurance.
- MrVandemar 3mo ago
  Here's the thing you missed: "A tree gets planted". There's no guarantee that a tree planted to "offset" a flight will grow to any kind of maturity, let alone survive three months. Some saplings just die. Or maybe that tree got planted in a tree plantation for timber, or wood pulp, and 20 years later, it's framing timber or newsprint. (I am someone who does revegetation projects and have planted a large number of trees)
  - c7b 3mo ago
    If the program works as advertised (big if), the money should flow into projects like yours, with the success rate that those projects generally have. So far ok I'd say. Just pointing out that trying to adjust for fires would tie up capital and create a whole new layer of middlemen. Whatever you think of those programs in the first place, that doesn't sound like an improvement to me.
- hahahaa 3mo ago
  I suggest an adjusted value taking burn into account. E.g. you use 20% or whatever of the value. Theory: it ain't 0 if you plant a tree and it is not the whole tree. There has to be a % that represents on average the effectiveness of the plant over 200 years say. This also addresses the tree death issue.
  - c7b 3mo ago
    So 20% of the trees get planted later or maybe never? How is that better?
vasco 3mo ago
It's actually much better, now you can replant the same area and re-sell the credits. Almost as good as those farmers that say they were planning to cut thousands of trees this year and if you pay them they will not do it. And same next year.

They should go negative because the gigantic amount of CO2 being released right now because of the obvious incompetence of the authorites is criminal.

pibaker 3mo ago

Bold to assume that buying emission offsets actually leads to anything tangible being done.

stinkbeetle 3mo ago
It fills the pockets of grifters.
bigfatkitten 3mo ago
Saving the environment with Microsoft Excel.
ColdStream 3mo ago
A lot of the more realistic environmentalists very quickly figured out that it was nothing more than an accounting trick. Greta Thunberg announces she has gone 'net-zero' on swearing after 'f-bomb' furore - https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/uk-news/greta-thunberg-announces-gone-net-22053969 https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/uk-news/greta-t...

juujian 3mo ago

Nope, read a couple stories about climate credits over the years, and this is a problem. The credits are permanent, even if the new grown forest burns down.

Dylan16807 3mo ago
If they grow the forest back it's fine for the credits to be permanent. But definitely don't treat it as a reset. Require the regrowth and don't give out new credits for it.
- hahahaa 3mo ago
  Needs a coefficient of burn, so instead of 1kg maybe you count it as 200g to allow for burning and and then next replant which allocates to someone else.
deleted 3mo ago
[deleted]

c7b 3mo ago

How would non-permanent credits even work? You purchase the carbon-offset option on a flight, a tree gets planted somewhere, ten years later it burns in a wildfire. Then what?

artisinal 3mo ago
You claim a new tree on your insurance.
MrVandemar 3mo ago
Here's the thing you missed: "A tree gets planted". There's no guarantee that a tree planted to "offset" a flight will grow to any kind of maturity, let alone survive three months. Some saplings just die. Or maybe that tree got planted in a tree plantation for timber, or wood pulp, and 20 years later, it's framing timber or newsprint. (I am someone who does revegetation projects and have planted a large number of trees)
- c7b 3mo ago
  If the program works as advertised (big if), the money should flow into projects like yours, with the success rate that those projects generally have. So far ok I'd say. Just pointing out that trying to adjust for fires would tie up capital and create a whole new layer of middlemen. Whatever you think of those programs in the first place, that doesn't sound like an improvement to me.
hahahaa 3mo ago
I suggest an adjusted value taking burn into account. E.g. you use 20% or whatever of the value. Theory: it ain't 0 if you plant a tree and it is not the whole tree. There has to be a % that represents on average the effectiveness of the plant over 200 years say. This also addresses the tree death issue.
- c7b 3mo ago
  So 20% of the trees get planted later or maybe never? How is that better?

vasco 3mo ago

It's actually much better, now you can replant the same area and re-sell the credits. Almost as good as those farmers that say they were planning to cut thousands of trees this year and if you pay them they will not do it. And same next year.