[HN Gopher] Carbon offsetting is just another form of greenwashing ___________________________________________________________________ Carbon offsetting is just another form of greenwashing Author : boredemployee Score : 93 points Date : 2022-08-07 20:50 UTC (2 hours ago) (HTM) web link (www.theartnewspaper.com) (TXT) w3m dump (www.theartnewspaper.com) | mhh__ wrote: | Tax the fucking carbon | xupybd wrote: | To what end? | | Is taxing carbon going to avoid any climate problems, or is it | just going to move money around and do little to change the | amount of carbon emitted. I suspect the latter. | | We need to think about solutions from end to end not just ones | that appear to punish the parties that we think need punishing. | mhh__ wrote: | Taxing carbon is the _only_ way the government can be | reasonably confident of effecting any change while minimizing | economic disruption. | | Markets work, use them. | wonnage wrote: | Directly regulating the amount of pollution emitted is | effective too, look at how California's auto emissions laws | have become a de-facto standard. The US is the #1 source of | demand in the world, entire economies (e.g China's) have | been built around suppressing domestic demand in favor of | making more money exporting to the US. If we change our | regulations, the rest of the world will follow. | trothamel wrote: | That's a very good way to get unelected. | Findecanor wrote: | I believe the best type of carbon tax would be an import tax | on goods from countries that have more lax environmental | legislation. | | Not only would that attack the problem of "embodied | emissions", but if you spin it right it could be seen as | protecting domestic industry. | ZeroGravitas wrote: | A proper carbon tax would only increase flight costs by about 8%, | since there's lots of other costs than fuel. | | People don't seem to believe that though. Because a carbon tax | high enough to make your flight cast 8% more, would totally | destroy the fossil fuel industry, as everyone would suddenly have | a financial incentive to burn less of it, and there's | alternatives for almost all uses. And so, a measure that would | kill the fossil fuel industry, and not really bother any other | industry, is portrayed as an impossible dream because the fossil | fuel industry has a lot of money and power. | indymike wrote: | > a measure that would kill the fossil fuel industry | | Increasing the cost of flights by 8%, and by doing so, killing | the source of fuel for those flights sounds like economic | Armageddon. | tunesmith wrote: | These kind of opinions are increasing in frequency and they all | seem poorly reasoned to me. Yes, there are standards | organizations to make sure that, for instance, tree farms aren't | just logging their trees and selling the same plots for offsets | again. The author makes the point that the timeframes are too | long, but that just strikes me as thinking similar to "planting | trees doesn't work, we need x instead!" When the point is that | every little bit helps. | | Given good enough standards, it just means that while carbon | offset opportunities are plentiful, they'll be cheap - and as | they become more popular, the price will increase, and this is a | _good_ thing. | | I also really dislike the "corporations are trying to avoid | responsibility by passing it on to the people!" argument, because | it just seems a lazy argument designed to remove any personal | agency. Corporations are made out of people. If people didn't | exist, neither would the corporations. If demand for a | corporations products or services dried up, the corporation would | cease to exist. As corporations reduce their emissions, the per- | person carbon footprint shrinks. In the US, the per-person carbon | footprint is lower than it used to be. They're related. | Communicating a per-person carbon footprint _increases_ people | demanding corporations reduce emissions. If the per-person carbon | footprint were a scheme developed by corporations to avoid | accountability, it seems a very poorly-thought-out and | ineffective scheme from those corporations. | hgsgm wrote: | ajsnigrutin wrote: | > I also really dislike the "corporations are trying to avoid | responsibility by passing it on to the people!" | | Oh come on... People like Leo Dicaprio and Taylor Swift fly on | their private jets to tell Johnny Average here, that he should | bike for 15 miles to his workplace. Organizations are the | same... look at coca cola for example, some water, sugar and | aromas, in a plastic bottle, plastic cap, plastic sticker, | packed in a sixpack wrapped in plastic, on a pallet, wrapped in | more plastic. Reusable glass bottles? Nope (atleast not in my | country). Just look at packaging of most items.. clamshell | packaging, toothpaste double or tripple wrapped, shrinkflation | (less product, same amount of packaging, more packages bought), | single peppers wrapped in plastic, bananas wrapped in plastic, | electronics literally designed to be unrepairable, tractors | going that way too, cars following, user replacable batteries | are usually too expensive to replace on 2 year old devices, | sotware updates slow down devices, big corps requiring | computer-bound workers to come to office, instead of working | from home, clothes companies replacing cotton clothes with | synthetics, leaking microplastics everywhere, companies | catchign fish in US seas, or even meat, shipping them to china | to be cleaned, cut and packaged, and then shipped back to US, | zero regulation on 3rd world, where corpos either mine raw | materials or "recycle" stuff (and recycling copper means | burning the insulation off first... literally burning heaps of | plastic),... and lets not forget the "accidents" when companies | like BP ignore safety and cause fucking huge oil spills and | destroy huge areas with their carelessness, and they don't even | get properly punished for that. | | But no... let's pass the blame on people, who have no | alternative on the market, and let's ban straws, because | "that'll surely help the environment". | wonnage wrote: | > In the US, the per-person carbon footprint is lower than it | used to be. They're related. Communicating a per-person carbon | footprint increases people demanding corporations reduce | emissions. | | How much of that is simply a result of moving dirty | manufacturing industries into other countries? | smileysteve wrote: | This seems like a no true scotsman opinion. | | The author is asking questions about life span or species of | trees without doing any of the journalistic legwork. | | There are many reasons to say that credits aren't enough if we're | still contributing carbon, because few people have been saying | "don't plant trees" in the areas that have established credits. | | But it's not the same as green washing; it might be more similar | to cancer awareness campaigns, but there is some action. | | And of course the answer is "do x less", but that's not an option | most of the developed world will choose. Do Y more is much more | achievable, especially if it benefits the end user. | | So new recycling campaign "Recycle aluminum cans, it'll save you | 5% on your next 24 cans, reduce the trade deficit, and help build | pontoon boats and airplanes" | cowpig wrote: | I think this video by Wendover Productions does a much better | job than the article of both highlighting specific examples and | laying out the perverse incentive structures that carbon | offsetting creates: | | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AW3gaelBypY | | Here is the list of sources for that video if you're | interested: | | [1] https://www.hawkmountain.org/news/special-projects/help- | the-... | | [2] https://www.bluesource.com/demo/hawk-mountain/ | | [3] | https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidrvetter/2020/03/18/jpmorga... | | [4] https://www.jpmorganchase.com/content/dam/jpmc/jpmorgan- | chas... | | [5] | https://gspp.berkeley.edu/assets/uploads/research/pdf/Haya-E... | | [6] | https://web.archive.org/web/20220605103102/http://apps.who.i... | | [7] https://eco-act.com/carbon-credits/cleaner-cookstoves-low- | ca... | | [8] https://depts.washington.edu/airqual/Marshall_66.pdf | | [9] https://blogs.worldbank.org/energy/understanding- | cookstove-a... | | [10] | https://mediamanager.sei.org/documents/Publications/Climate/... | | [11] | https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsfs.2019.006... | | [12] | https://app.hubspot.com/documents/3298623/view/251152947?acc... | TSiege wrote: | This really misses the point of the claim. Carbon Credits are | greenwashing because as it currently exists doesn't work. And | almost every approach is based an unfounded schemes. | Furthermore, carbon offsets are used to justify ecological | damage; they exist for no other purpose. | | The problem with carbon offsetting is that almost none of the | solutions work for long term. For example, if you're digging up | oil and burning it, planting a tree wont help. The carbon you | dug up from miles underneath our feet is removed from the | global carbon cycle for millions of years, the carbon in a tree | lasts as long as that tree is alive. Every living organism | should be assumed to be decayed and returned to the carbon | cycle unless specifically proven otherwise. For example, most | of the carbon offset operations in California are being | destroyed by wild fires | [(1)](https://www.reuters.com/world/us/wildfires-are- | destroying-ca...) | | If we want to be honest and about what is effective, it's not | taking that flight and keeping that oil in the ground. We will | delude ourselves if we think any growing any lifeform to | capture carbon will work unless humans directly put it into the | ground in old oil fields. The only other possibly viable | alternative is through mineral reactions with carbon, turning | it into stone | madeofpalk wrote: | > If we want to be honest and about what is effective, it's | not taking that flight and keeping that oil in the ground. | | I live in the UK. I think it's reasonable to visit my family | in Australia every few years. Is it bad if I purchase carbon | offsets? | hgsgm wrote: | SpicyLemonZest wrote: | Carbon offsets are just donations to environmental groups. | There's nothing bad about either taking flights or making | donations, but it's wrong in the "factually incorrect" | sense to think that if you pick the right amounts to donate | to the right groups you can make your flight | environmentally friendly. It's like buying a "local | business" offset every time you shop at Walmart - you can | just do it if you want to or don't do it if you don't. | tsimionescu wrote: | Is it bad? No. Is it worse than never going, in terms of | global warming impact? Yes. Is it still reasonable to do it | every few years? Yes. | peyton wrote: | > it's not taking that flight and keeping that oil in the | ground | | I'm taking that flight. I can't imagine a geopolitical regime | that keeps oil in the ground for tens of thousands of years | and beyond. The oil is coming out of the ground. | ralfd wrote: | We need mineral based carbon removal (weathering) or direct | air storage and capture: | | https://query.prod.cms.rt.microsoft.com/cms/api/am/binary/RE. | .. | | > More than 99% of the carbon removal volume we selected was | from natural solutions with durability terms of 100 years or | less, such as forest and soil projects. Looking ahead, we | hope to increase the overall durability of our portfolio by | helping to expand the market for long-term engineered | solutions such as direct air capture and storage. | amelius wrote: | > For example, most of the carbon offset operations in | California are being destroyed by wild fires | | Shouldn't the corresponding carbon contracts be bought by the | state, in that case, to keep the accounting correct? | Aunche wrote: | Wendover Productions recently made a very informative video about | carbon offsets that goes into much more detail. Certain types of | carbon offsets do work, but even those tend to underdeliver. | | https://youtu.be/AW3gaelBypY | Comevius wrote: | The problem with climate change is that it creates a reality | distortion field. Anyone who would honestly try to think about it | would give up on life, so instead we have this fake optimism | accompanied by fake solutions, basically a fantasy not unlike | Harry Potter. Those 2 billion new cars aren't going to help the | environment, which is already on the fritz, but if they are | electric that means we are on the right path to the unicorn to | come and fix everything. Which is great because then we don't | have to change our way of life. | | Meanwhile the world is less organized than ever. | boredemployee wrote: | this pretty much. i think the way we're living is so broken, | from education to everything else. | XorNot wrote: | God what a tired useless take. Climate change brings out an | endless parade of puritan morality dressed as | environmentalism: nothing can possibly be helping if we | didn't lower our quality of life getting it. LED lights? _Why | do you have light at all? It would be more efficient if they | were off!_ | boredemployee wrote: | Please, highlight who said we need to lower our quality of | life? Maybe avoiding waste is a great place to start. | alar44 wrote: | Anyone who is being realistic understands that we have to | stop eat food out of season, keeping all buildings at 68 | degrees during the summer, getting rid of multi hour | commutes in cars, taking vacations in cruise ships, | buying new phones every year, shipping everything in | multiple layers of plastic over 1000s of miles etc etc. | We are so fucking far past "reduce reuse recycle." No one | is changing anything about their lives and that should be | more than obvious to anyone paying attention. | bryanlarsen wrote: | If we had stayed on the path we were on, it was a path to over | 5 degrees of warming. | | If we keep our commitments, like the ones various nations have | made to ban gas cars by 2035, we'll limit our warming to about | 2.5 degrees. | | The difference between 2.5 degrees and 5 degrees is the | difference between a really bad time and an apocalypse. | tsimionescu wrote: | But no one is going to keep those commitments, few if any | countries are even close, and many are not even on any real | path. | | Not to mention, we're taking about 2.5 degrees of warning by | 2100. But the world didn't end there. If we don't go to 0 | emissions (and there is currently no realistic path to that | that any country even remotely accepts - massive degrowth of | the economy), we will eventually reach 5 or more degrees of | warming, it will just be a little later than 2100. | bryanlarsen wrote: | These are concrete commitments, which countries do have a | fairly good track record of keeping. The 2.5 does not | require the nebulous "40% below 2010 emissions" type of | commitments which countries have a really bad track record | of keeping. | | A country saying "We will do X" is much more likely to do X | than a country that says "We will achieve Y" will achieve | Y. | SubiculumCode wrote: | To be fair, toddlers do the same with their incessant | overconfidence, and yet in the end it is that overconfidence | that helps them gain skills and achieve great things. Sometime | blind optimism is optimal. | hotpotamus wrote: | I mean, don't we already know the cheap, half-assed solution? | (And therefore the one we'll take?) Eventually someone will | start solar radiation management, and we'll plod along like we | always do. | jwilk wrote: | See also: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EIezuL_doYw ("Carbon | Offsets! Can't we just buy our way out of climate change?" from | the Climate Town channel) | aaron695 wrote: | blueflow wrote: | I find the whole framing of "stopping emissions" odd. Where | burning charcoal and burning hard coal are treated the same. But | in fact, they are different: charcoal is made from plants, who | captured the carbon recently from the air. If the plants are | given enough time and space to recapture, burning charcoal is | carbon neutral. Hard coal, to the contrary, was isolated from the | carbon cycles for like, 300 million years, thus re-adding it to | the cycle is going to make a dent that plants probably cannot | offset. | | Stopping digging out carbon (hard coal, oil, liquid gas, | limestone) would be like the first thing to do, but it seems the | focus was shifted elsewhere... | cowpig wrote: | This argument could make some sense if we were talking about | designing a sustainable system in the abstract, but the climate | issue is an emergency leading to catastrophic outcomes in the | present, and so decreasing emissions by any means necessary in | the short-term is what matters. | blueflow wrote: | Continuing to dig out carbon and inserting it into the carbon | cycle is guaranteed to exceed what we can offset with plants. | What you describe is still a trajectory to doom or whatever | awaits us. | btilly wrote: | With plants that remain part of the life cycle? Sure. But | growing plants can lock away carbon more permanently | depending how it is disposed of. | | Consider https://charmindustrial.com/. They take bio waste | products (for example corn husks and cobs), turn it into | oil, then put that back into wells. So growing plants (in | this specific case, food) winds up permanently locking | waste away. | blueflow wrote: | > They take bio waste products [...], turn it into oil | | I was about to call bullshit because of the first law of | thermodynamics, but their FAQ states: | | > Unlike crude oil, bio-oil cannot sustain a flame, bio- | oil has much lower energy density | | Good! | | > are heated up to about 500degC in a few seconds without | burning | | I wonder where that heat comes from. | TSiege wrote: | Not really aware of anyone against charcoal other than the | industry where we destroy american forests to make charcoal | that we ship to europe to burn. Which 1) wastes energy from | shipping that almost certainly isn't green and 2) destroys | ecosystems that we need to begin rejuvenating in order to | stabilize the climate system | epolanski wrote: | Why is the elephant in the room, agriculture and cattle so little | discussed compared to transport. | | A burger pollutes more than driving an suv for 50 miles,yet the | enemy is always transport. | | Forget a family of 4 in a single lunch can easily pollute much | more than they would with transport in a week. | bryanlarsen wrote: | Transportation is 27% of US carbon emssions vs 11% for | agriculture. | epolanski wrote: | Cattle emission is severely downplayed, starting from the | fact that cattle produces methane which is 200 times worse | than carbon dioxide, it's also severely downplayed how much | it impacts resources like land, water and the many disaster | byproducts such as ocean dead zones.[1] | | Cattle is also the biggest reason for deforestation (Amazon | being the most famous example), people want to greedily eat | damn steaks everyday, put their head under the sand and | pretend electric vehicles will change our fate. Consuming | less will. | | Moving less is good for the environment but eating less meat | has much more impact. | | [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_zone_(ecology) | twobitshifter wrote: | The methane problem is easily solved by feeding them a diet | which includes seaweed, why this isn't mandated is beyond | me. | mbgerring wrote: | tinco wrote: | Carbon offsetting becomes effective when it causes less carbon to | be emitted. It has to be so expensive that it makes the consumer | of the carbon to think twice. This can only happen if the | offsetting is mandatory. The further up the chain it is the more | effective it is as well. | | We might be able to death by a thousand cuts the CO2 problem. The | more sectors we inconvenience with "green washing" type extra | costs, the more attractive greener alternatives become, and the | more funding potential solutions get. | | The article suggests investing in a strategic fund instead, but | it's really the same thing and has the same problem as the CO2 | offsetting which is that the calculation of the amount of offset | CO2 is not realistically calculated. The charities might have | unrealistic long term CO2 offset estimates, but making the amount | dependent on how much your budget allows for doesn't really make | things better. | | If you fly economy from LAX->AMS and back, you emit ~2500kg of | CO2. Easiest way to capture that CO2 is by planting trees. Say | you want to capture it within 5 years. That's about 50kg per | tree, and about a third dies so you'll need to plant 150 trees to | cover your flight, which is $150 on teamtrees.org. Provided of | course they actually plant it within the next year (do they?). | | That's already $50 more than that GCC site suggested you spend if | you've got plenty money. Trees grow somewhat superlinearly so if | you give your tree 10 years you need maybe $50 worth of trees. | | Anyway, it still won't save the planet, that only happens when | all of this is mandatory and not just for flights but for | everything. | Devasta wrote: | If I pay for my friend to have a weekend away with his | girlfriend, thereby strengthening their relationship, then he | shouldn't be mad when I sleep with her too and weaken it right? | mastax wrote: | If you were going to sleep with her anyway that seems like a | net good. | RosanaAnaDana wrote: | I've been very careful to not wade into one of these threads too | readily, as when I read them, I almost always find a huge range | of variability around what people understand or don't understand | about forests, soils, or ecosystem scale biogeochemical cycling. | There also seem to be some very assertive, and often very | uninformed claims around voluntary versus compliance | marketplaces, and what role nature based mitigation efforts play | currently or might play in the future. | | However, it's becoming increasingly clear that most authors in | the pop science journalism space have a limited capacity for | understanding the nuance or uncertainties associated with remote | sensing models and principles of biogeochemistry. As well, the | armchair analysts make many wrong assumptions about forests, | forestry, or how carbon cycling works. | | Number one, is that forests work as long term carbon storage and | sinks. There are often claims made around what forests can or | cant do with regards to carbon cycling, and almost always they | tend to fundementally misunderstand how carbon cycling, and | nutrient cycling work in relationship to long term carbon | stability. Not used taking advantage of forests and their ability | to represent both (relatively, 10's-100's yr) short term stores | of carbon, as well as less labile longer term storage pools | (100's-1000's yr). We've been basically mining the world's | forests and haven't even remotely attempted using natural | ecosystems ability to not only sequester carbon, but to provide | significant opportunities for climate resilience. | | Granted, we have an extraordinary limited understanding of the | upper and lower bounds of many of these systems, but that's | hardly any argument that we can't engage with and begin learning | about the potential of these systems. | olivermarks wrote: | The oceans - half the world's surface - create more than half | the world's oxygen. https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/ocean- | oxygen.html | | Rainforests cover 2 percent of the Earth's surface. A forest is | considered to be a carbon sink if it absorbs more carbon from | the atmosphere than it releases. Carbon is absorbed from the | atmosphere through photosynthesis. It then becomes deposited in | forest biomass (that is, trunks, branches, roots and leaves), | in dead organic matter (litter and dead wood) and in soils. | This process of carbon absorption and deposition is known as | carbon sequestration. https://www.nrcan.gc.ca/climate-change- | adapting-impacts-and-... | | carbon dioxide is needed for plants to grow. | | After 30 years of measurements, the ocean carbon community is | realizing that tracking human-induced (carbon) changes in the | ocean is not as easy as they thought it would be. It wasn't a | mere matter of measuring changes in carbon concentrations in | the ocean over time because the natural carbon cycle in the | ocean turned out to be a lot more variable than they imagined. | https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/features/OceanCarbon | user_named wrote: | Okay, so you're saying that everyone but you is too stupid to | understand the question. But you also don't understand that the | question here is about carbon credits, not about carbon | sequestration or any biological process. | dspoka wrote: | And yet research on this topic suggest the opposite. "These | days everyone seems to thinks that "planting trees" is an | important solution to the climate crisis. They're mostly wrong, | and in this paper we explain why. Instead of planting trees, we | need to talk about people managing landscapes." [1] | | [1] | https://twitter.com/ForrestFleisch1/status/13062214459331297... | bradleyjg wrote: | Now take this Gell-Mann type observation and apply it broadly. | The internet is full of highly confident people that, if you | are lucky, skimmed a Wikipedia article. | | Sorting the gold from the dross is THE contemporary skill. | TedShiller wrote: | Carbon credits was invented to let billionaires fly private jets | and use mega yachts without criticism from the public ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2022-08-07 23:00 UTC)