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

Post by blharr » Fri, Sep 29, 2023, 10:10 AM UTC

tick_tock_tick wrote: post #127

IKantRead wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 wou…

Or couldn't we just build a ton of nukes and start sucking? The power ratio only matters when power actually has a real cost.

Post by moralestapia » Mon, Oct 02, 2023, 4:04 AM UTC

dang wrote: post #167

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…

> Funny, some invisible hand just moved my post from being the top comment Looks like a mod downweighted your comment, probably because it was a bit fulminatey and a bit generic. Those are inauspicious markers for an HN thread, which is why the site guidelines ask people to avoid them ( https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html ). Your comment wasn't terrible, nor bad enough to get a moderation scolding—though…