21–30 of 173 posts
This is in the voluntary carbon markets, quite separate to regulated carbon markets. It is unfortunate that so many may be junk, but in the end 380 billion T of carbon needs to be removed from the atmosphere between 2050 and 2100 to keep earth at 1.5 degree warming, assuming we hit current net zero pledges. This just means more regulation is needed for trust, not that carbon markets themselves should be ditched.
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.
So yes, they are also junk.
What would be the tells that oil supply depletion is what's really going on?
Electrification of transport would be a high priority.
Carbon credits would be likely BS and half-hearted and nobody would check.
China would build 6x more coal plants than the rest of the world combined[1] and encourage reduction in coal usage in other countries to provide a more ample supply[2].
[1] https://www.npr.org/2023/03/02/1160441919/china-is-building-...
[2] https://www.reuters.com/business/environment/china-urges-eur...
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.
All you need is charismatic preacher to bop you on theforhead and say you are saved.
They just turn everything into a new way to make money. I’m not even mad, it’s kind of impressive at this point, and they keep getting away with it! What’s next? Pay-per-use single occupant gender neutral restrooms?
Don't laugh but a lot of public toilets in Europe are precisely this.
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.
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.