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

Study: Carbon offsets aren’t doing their job, overstate impact

arstechnica.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 233 posts

Re: Study: Carbon offsets aren’t doing their job, overstate impact

#171

Post by SamBam »

ls612 wrote: post #158

Carbon credits; Indulgences dressed to serve modern sensibilities

I mean, if they could actually work then they'd be perfectly valid.

Say Carbon-capture were at a point where we could actually say that my paying $100 caused an extra metric ton of CO2 to be extracted from the atmosphere.

Then it actually would work to reduce what I can and offset the rest. Carbon is fungible. If I release 100 tons and capture 120 tons, I've done the world a favor.

The issue is simply that the Carbon Capture schemes seem to be hot air.

Re: Study: Carbon offsets aren’t doing their job, overstate impact

#172

Post by netfl0 »

reilly3000 wrote: post #163

> “These carbon credits are essentially predicting whether someone will chop down a tree, and selling that prediction." I struggle to think of an expletive that works here. The people of the UK are providing welfare to companies for what? Not cutting down trees that don’t exist? The article later goes in to say researchers found evidence that 6% of the credits are having the intended effects. The malignancy of the au…

How is anyone surprised anymore.

Re: Study: Carbon offsets aren’t doing their job, overstate impact

#173

Post by maeil »

Misleading title; the study is very specifically about carbon offsetting by slowing deforestation. There are other incredibly common methods of carbon offsetting, e.g. renewable energy projects in developing countries. This study does not cover those. It's been known for a long time that tree-related carbon offsetting is one of the least reliable ways in general.

Re: Study: Carbon offsets aren’t doing their job, overstate impact

#174

Post by VintageCool »

SamBam wrote: post #168

If you had $5000 that you wanted to use to fight climate change, and you wanted to have it have a bigger multiplying effect than your own personal consumption (install heat pumps, get electric car, etc.), where would you put that, given that most carbon credits seem to be scams? That is, what's the least-scammy carbon credit, and/or place of concrete change? Places I donate to, but wonder how much the effect of each…

Donate to aspiring Democrats running for state legislatures in blues states with red State Legislatures or split governments.

> Back in 2019, [David Roberts] wrote for Vox that there is one weird trick states can use to ensure good climate and energy policy. That trick is: giving Democrats full control of the government. It has worked in California, Washington, Oregon, Colorado, Illinois, New Mexico, Massachusetts, New York, Hawaii — the list goes on.

> The 2022 midterm elections brought Democrats full control — with trifectas of both houses of the legislature and the governor's office — in four new M states: Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, and Minnesota.

> Does the one weird trick still work? Well, you’ll never guess what happened in Minnesota last week.

https://www.volts.wtf/p/minnesota-sets-out-for-net-zero-emis...

Re: Study: Carbon offsets aren’t doing their job, overstate impact

#175

Post by Turing_Machine »

asu_thomas wrote: post #140
pxmpxm wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah China is definitely the paragon to follow when it comes to CO2...

Did you think you were responding to something else? This is nonsensical as a response to my comment.

I think he's pointing out that non-capitalist countries (China, former Soviet Union, North Korea...) have uniformly been environmental hellholes.

Re: Study: Carbon offsets aren’t doing their job, overstate impact

#176

Post by taberiand »

turnsout wrote: post #152

At this rate, we'll be able to make every company carbon neutral by 2030 without making any actual changes to the environment! Go capitalism!

Don't underestimate them, I'm sure they'll find ways to make the environment considerably worse

Re: Study: Carbon offsets aren’t doing their job, overstate impact

#177

Post by amrocha »

VintageCool wrote: post #174
SamBam wrote: post #168

If you had $5000 that you wanted to use to fight climate change, and you wanted to have it have a bigger multiplying effect than your own personal consumption (install heat pumps, get electric car, etc.), where would you put that, given that most carbon credits seem to be scams? That is, what's the least-scammy carbon credit, and/or place of concrete change? Places I donate to, but wonder how much the effect of each…

Donate to aspiring Democrats running for state legislatures in blues states with red State Legislatures or split governments. > Back in 2019, [David Roberts] wrote for Vox that there is one weird trick states can use to ensure good climate and energy policy. That trick is: giving Democrats full control of the government. It has worked in California, Washington, Oregon, Colorado, Illinois, New Mexico, Massachusetts, N…

Not everyone lives in the US

Re: Study: Carbon offsets aren’t doing their job, overstate impact

#178

Post by beatthatflight »

reilly3000 wrote: post #163

> “These carbon credits are essentially predicting whether someone will chop down a tree, and selling that prediction." I struggle to think of an expletive that works here. The people of the UK are providing welfare to companies for what? Not cutting down trees that don’t exist? The article later goes in to say researchers found evidence that 6% of the credits are having the intended effects. The malignancy of the au…

Am I going blind? I can't find your quotes in the article linked?

Re: Study: Carbon offsets aren’t doing their job, overstate impact

#179

Post by hhs »

SamBam wrote: post #171
ls612 wrote: post #158

Carbon credits; Indulgences dressed to serve modern sensibilities

I mean, if they could actually work then they'd be perfectly valid. Say Carbon-capture were at a point where we could actually say that my paying $100 caused an extra metric ton of CO2 to be extracted from the atmosphere. Then it actually would work to reduce what I can and offset the rest. Carbon is fungible. If I release 100 tons and capture 120 tons, I've done the world a favor. The issue is simply that the Carbon…

> The issue is simply that the Carbon Capture schemes seem to be hot air.

If interested, this is how the University of Cambridge named the url of this story: https://www.cam.ac.uk/stories/carbon-credits-hot-air

Re: Study: Carbon offsets aren’t doing their job, overstate impact

#180

Post by lmm »

VintageCool wrote: post #174
SamBam wrote: post #168

If you had $5000 that you wanted to use to fight climate change, and you wanted to have it have a bigger multiplying effect than your own personal consumption (install heat pumps, get electric car, etc.), where would you put that, given that most carbon credits seem to be scams? That is, what's the least-scammy carbon credit, and/or place of concrete change? Places I donate to, but wonder how much the effect of each…

Donate to aspiring Democrats running for state legislatures in blues states with red State Legislatures or split governments. > Back in 2019, [David Roberts] wrote for Vox that there is one weird trick states can use to ensure good climate and energy policy. That trick is: giving Democrats full control of the government. It has worked in California, Washington, Oregon, Colorado, Illinois, New Mexico, Massachusetts, N…

They passed a law that "commits" them to doing something long after the end of the current legislative term, assuming it somehow avoids being amended or repealed until then. Have they made a concrete difference e.g. measurable reductions in emissions, or is this just feel-good party-politics?
Post reply on HN