Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Investigation: 78% of carbon offset projects globally are “likely junk“

power-technology.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 173 posts

Re: Investigation: 78% of carbon offset projects globally are “likely junk“

#111

Post by elil17 »

People who actually want to make a climate impact with their money are supporting policy change and technology research.

One estimate puts the price of averting a ton of CO2 through the Clean Air Task Force's policy advocacy programs at $0.10 to $1 [1]. They've played a huge role in shaping things like the US's latest infrastructure bill.

However, donating to them means admitting that preventing climate change is messy, political, and uncertain - not great for greenwashing your company.

1: https://www.catf.us/timeline/rated-top-climate-charity/

Re: Investigation: 78% of carbon offset projects globally are “likely junk“

#112

Post by john-radio »

greenthrow wrote: post #107

Don't disagree with the hypothesis but this is a low quality article and source.

The article is just a thin wrapper of blogspam around an investigation by The Guardian: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/sep/19/do-carbo... which I think is high quality.

Re: Investigation: 78% of carbon offset projects globally are “likely junk“

#113

Post by michaelt »

pfisch wrote: post #81
moralestapia wrote: post #14

Three 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…

Seems like planting trees is easy enough? What is wrong with projects like that?

How do I know the new trees have really been planted, and that they haven't sold them dozens of times over?

How do I know the trees will survive and actually pull carbon out of the atmosphere, rather than dying in a year or two? Which they might do, if they're planted on unsuitable but cheap land.

How do I know that, in 20 years time, they won't have gone out of business and sold the land on to a logging company who turns it all into firewood?

There's also a wealth of scammers who'll do things like "buy rainforest to protect it from development" when no development was going to happen anyway.

Re: Investigation: 78% of carbon offset projects globally are “likely junk“

#115

Post by narrator »

breezeTrowel wrote: post #101
narrator wrote: post #25

The Permian Basin in Texas, which has provided most of the oil supply growth for the last decade, is starting to slowly decline from its peak. Let's say that climate change is a nice way to tell people that we're running out of oil. Why would you want to do that? You'd want to say that energy demand is the problem, not energy supply. Thus, we need to get people to cut back on their usage and come together in a global…

Not sure I follow this narrative regarding China building a ton of coal plants being a signal for oil shortage. Can you elaborate? There aren't any power plants that run on oil there and the whole thing seems like a move away from hydroelectric power which has been severely weakened due to drought.

If climate change is the motivation for the great energy transition, then China would build a lot of coal plants to prepare for running out of oil and an enormous need for new sources of electricity in order to expand electrification of transport and possibly hydrogen production for long range air travel and other applications where electrification to replace oil is impractical. They wouldn't be concerned at all about the carbon emission impact of their coal plants and would simultaneously encourage the west to stop building coal plants so they could get a cheaper supply.

Re: Investigation: 78% of carbon offset projects globally are “likely junk“

#116

Post by dvdkon »

SantalBlush wrote: post #5

Let's get a baseline for comparison. For example, how many climate tech startups, or tech startups in general, are "likely junk"? That would give us some helpful context.

Junk startups don't cause much harm to the outside world. In contrast, selling junk carbon offsets is basically fraud, you're selling an environmental impact that just isn't there.

Re: Investigation: 78% of carbon offset projects globally are “likely junk“

#117

Post by cm2012 »

londons_explore wrote: post #37

In other news, world oil consumption is at record highs at 101.5 million barrels of oil per day. Thats 2 liters (large coke bottle) of oil per person in the world per day, and when burned turns into 3000 liters of CO2 (about the volume of a large couch). If everyone produced a couch-size piece of any other kind of junk each day, within a week the streets would be jammed with couches. But because it's invisible gas, l…

Emissions are dropping like a rock though in the US and EU.

Re: Investigation: 78% of carbon offset projects globally are “likely junk“

#118

Post by WalterBright »

Not surprised in the least. The simple, effective, and efficient way to deal with CO2 emissions is to tax the carbon content of fuels. The other schemes are all nonsense, and it baffles me why otherwise intelligent and educated people think they can determine the "carbon footprint" of a business.

Re: Investigation: 78% of carbon offset projects globally are “likely junk“

#119

Post by [deleted] »

WalterBright wrote: post #118

Not surprised in the least. The simple, effective, and efficient way to deal with CO2 emissions is to tax the carbon content of fuels. The other schemes are all nonsense, and it baffles me why otherwise intelligent and educated people think they can determine the "carbon footprint" of a business.

[deleted]

Re: Investigation: 78% of carbon offset projects globally are “likely junk“

#120

Post by freitzkriesler2 »

autoexec wrote: post #29
freitzkriesler2 wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't laugh but a lot of public toilets in Europe are precisely this.

I'm honestly surprised Europe puts up with it. I imagine if they tried it here, people would just let loose on the floor if they were out of change. It seems like some do even while they're free. Maybe public urination is less of a big deal in Europe and people are fine with doorways or bushes if they're unable to pay the pee fee.

I know in a lot of cities they have public latrines so popping a number 1 is easier.

Number 2 is harder. And yeah, if I had to drop a 2 and didn't have any change, I would probably do it right in front of the pay toilet to prove a point.

Post reply on HN