Cambridge study says carbon offsets are not nearly as effective as they claim to be.

  • hellvolution@lemmygrad.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Carbon credits/offsets = bigger Ponzi scheme than nft + cryptocurrency!!! There’s none environmental protection with capitalism ruling!!! Plain & simple!

  • Aesthesiaphilia@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    Instead of offsets, companies should be pursuing direct carbon sequestration like with https://climeworks.com/

    No estimates, no accounting magic. Just a direct measure of physical, measurable tons of carbon directly removed from the atmosphere.

    • bioemerl@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Except carbon sequestration is not ever going to work and it’s always going to be more expensive than having just burned that fuel in the first place.

      Maybe you’ll get an advantage if it’s nearly free to do and you use exclusively solar power in areas with excesses of it.

      But on average? Sequestration is not an answer. The carbon dioxide in our atmosphere is just too rare to effectively pull out, and it’s never going to be capable of even reaching fractions of what we’re emitting right now.

      We have one answer to this problem and one answer only.

      Stop. Using. Fossil. Fuels.

      Tax carbon.

      Start getting ready to do geoengineering, because we are going to need it.

      People like to bitch and say that we shouldn’t be changing the environment, but guess what, we’re changing the environment if we like it or not, it’s only a question of it it’s in our interests or if it’s an uncontrolled self-destructive form.

      • Aesthesiaphilia@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        carbon sequestration is not ever going to work

        I don’t know what you’re talking about, it’s a thing that is currently being done. Not some future hypothetical tech.

        But yes it is too expensive for now. Costs are coming down hopefully that continues to be the case.

        And yes, the best, cheapest, most efficient way to reduce ghg is to eliminate fossil fuels.

        • bioemerl@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          It’s hilariously expensive and it’s expensive because physics. We measure carbon in the atmosphere in parts per million. The entire surface area of the planet is already littered with Caron absorbers and they don’t make a dent.

          It’s never happening