Its the modern day equivalent of 'Indulgences'
It's the modern day global religion, so indulgences is an apt name.
Investigation: 78% of carbon offset projects globally are “likely junk“
71–80 of 173 posts
Re: Investigation: 78% of carbon offset projects globally are “likely junk“
#72(carbon offsets trade like cryptocurrencies if you haven't checked it out)
Re: Investigation: 78% of carbon offset projects globally are “likely junk“
#73Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
But then what happens to the methane? Typically it's burned to make CO2. CO2 lasts longer in the atmosphere than methane.
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.
Re: Investigation: 78% of carbon offset projects globally are “likely junk“
#74Carbon cap and trade, Carbon Offsets, and any other scheme to "cap and market" pollution is not about saving the environment, it is protectionist program of wealth redistribution nothing more. These programs are about control, and wealth redistribution lets stop pretending otherwise
Worked for Sulphur Dioxide.
Re: Investigation: 78% of carbon offset projects globally are “likely junk“
#75Why tf did that website resirect-nuke my browser back ability?
I flagged it because it does hijack the back button.
Re: Investigation: 78% of carbon offset projects globally are “likely junk“
#76Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
> 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 + (So…
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.
Re: Investigation: 78% of carbon offset projects globally are “likely junk“
#77Are 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.
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…
> 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.
Re: Investigation: 78% of carbon offset projects globally are “likely junk“
#78Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
> 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 + (So…
> 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
Re: Investigation: 78% of carbon offset projects globally are “likely junk“
#79Earlier quoted context omitted.
Feels like modern form of absolving sins. All you need is charismatic preacher to bop you on theforhead and say you are saved.
It is. A modern instantiation of buying indulgences from the Catholic Church. 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."
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.
Re: Investigation: 78% of carbon offset projects globally are “likely junk“
#80Three years ago I entered this business as I saw some opportunity. After about a year I got out because everything there was fraud. F R A U D. >most of them exaggerate climate benefits and underestimate the potential harm [...] >projects were categorised as “likely junk or worthless” due to one or more “fundamental failing” that undermines its alleged emissions offsetting power [...] Stop trying to disguise these ope…
Step 1 - buy something “full of carbon” or potentially “making carbon” (like a future cow farm) Step 2 - get paid for “offsets” not to do that thing that you never did
Well, since you need licenses for those cows, which are limited in number, by not exploiting those (and also not selling those!) you _are_ indeed offsetting some emissions. (Given that the quota are not adjusted for unexploited licenses).