Login

Recent searches

No recent searches

Search options

Not available on writing.exchange.
writing.exchange is one of the many independent Mastodon servers you can use to participate in the fediverse.
A small, intentional community for poets, authors, and every kind of writer.

Administered by:

Server stats:

336
active users

writing.exchange: AboutProfiles directoryPrivacy policy

Mastodon: AboutGet the appKeyboard shortcutsView source codev4.3.7

#offset

1 post1 participant0 posts today
Public
anlomedad

Kevin Anderson 2012:
"The inconvenient truth of carbon offsets"
nature.com/articles/484007a

This almost puts an end to My Great Idea:
for CO2 from your 1 flight per decade, multiply tons by 2 and € 680, and put a PV installation on poor family's roof for that amount.
Almost. Because PV is infectious signalling, the CO2 for electricity really doesn't get emitted and PV helps that family out of poverty.

But it is crucial that you watch that it gets truly done. Plenty poor people in your own city so you can factcheck it. Don't trust any organisation with doing it in India.

It is un-trustworthy organisations which force this idea into purely personal choice, and personal choices are insufficient. :(

P.S. € 680 per ton of CO2, times 2 for ✈️CO2, are the guesstimates by German EPA Umweltbundesamt for repairing damages occurring up to 2100. umweltbundesamt.de/publikation

I shouldn't be quoting it as I don't know how they assign € to the broader impacts of malnutrition or to deaths in famines, or wether the experience of dying in a mudslide is worth more than in a wildfire – and how they put a € on the friends' experience of such a loss.
But it works for ridiculing a carbon #offset of €35 per flight.

A roundtrip Frankfurt - Auckland is about 40,000 km. A person km in long distance air travel got assigned € 0.1606 in above PDF, table 3031, page 38. ( € 0.237 /pkm for short distance)

So an offset for this flight would be € 6424 – if we were to trust the calculation, and if we were to ignore damages occurring after 2100.

Last paragraph from Anderson's Nature article: Meanwhile, in an Indian village where my offset money has helped to fund a wind turbine, the villagers now have the (low-carbon) electricity to watch television, which provides advertisers of a petrol-fuelled moped with more viewers, and customers. A fuel depot follows, to meet the new demand, and encourages others to invest in old trucks to transport goods between villages. Within 30 years, the village and surroundings have new roads and many more petrol-fuelled mopeds, cars and trucks. Meanwhile, the emissions from my original flight are still having a warming impact, and will do for another 100 years or so. Where is the offset in that?
#StayGrounded#ClimateChange
Public
Chuck Darwin

A study of 26 #carbon #offset projects across six countries published in the journal Science last year found that
🔸few of them succeeded in stopping deforestation.

Whatever climate benefits the projects were purported to have were 🔸overblown by as much as 300 percent.

A separate investigationinto one of the world’s leading carbon #registries found that
🔸90 percent of its rainforest offsets turned out to be “phantom credits” that likely didn’t represent real-world reductions in greenhouse gas emissions.

And a 2022 report by nonprofit watchdog Carbon Market Watch determined that carbon offset credits offered by major European airlines were similarly🔸 linked to faulty forestry projects.

theverge.com/2024/5/22/2416242

The Verge · Big Tech thinks it can plant trees better than everyone elseBy Justine Calma
Public
VeganPizza69 ⓋⒶ

"How meat and milk companies are racing to ease your climate guilt."

washingtonpost.com/climate-env

WaPo finally posted a modest critique of meat industry greenwashing.

<💬>
Under another new California law, companies also must disclose the emissions created throughout their supply chains, and the Securities and Exchange Commission is working on a similar requirement.

It all has big food companies rushing to show progress in cutting emissions, particularly after so many of them promised to zero out their net release of greenhouse gases — known as going “carbon neutral” — by 2050 or earlier, in alignment with the Paris agreement on global warming. In the backdrop is a contentious debate over how those companies should calculate their carbon footprints.

The fight has shifted to an obscure independent organization called the GHG Protocol, a group made up of corporations, scientists and environmental groups that writes accounting rules for greenhouse gas emissions that will guide what climate claims companies can make under new state laws.

Among the companies involved in determining when and how farming and harvesting methods can be used to erase the emissions impact of products like hamburgers and dairy are McDonald’s, Nestlé and the Global Roundtable for Sustainable Beef, to which meat giants Tyson Foods and Cargill belong.

The deliberations of the GHG Protocol, which is managed by the World Resources Institute and the World Business Council for Sustainable Development, are kept confidential. But discord spilled into public in the fall, following its publication of draft guidelines for farm and forestry emissions. Dozens of environmental groups and academics say the rules as proposed would allow companies to declare climate-unfriendly products such as lumber, paper, beef and milk carbon neutral — or even carbon negative — by making modest land use adjustments that don’t truly mitigate the emissions of those products.
</💬>

There's certainly going to be more and more tension due to these corporations trying to find better greenwashing, better methods of faking data, more sophisticated bullshit.

It's going to get a lot worse before they lose.

The Washington Post · How meat and milk companies are racing to ease your climate guiltBy Evan Halper
#climate#carbon#carbonNeutral
Public *
Dr. Alexandre Santerne 🌍

I've just computed that if you want to #offset ONE #travel by #plane #Paris to #Rio (about 2.880 tCO2, according to @labos1point5), by not sending #email (without attachment), I need to completely stop sending emails for the next ...

272 YEARS !

assuming an average of 10 emails per day, each working #day. The #carbon #footprint of an email is considered to be 4g CO2eq.

It's much easier to #StayGrounded @StayGrounded_net !

@academicchatter
#sustainability #ClimateChange #academicchatter

Public
CelloMom On Cars

"A total of 39 of the top 50 #emission #offset projects, or 78% of them, were categorised as likely junk or worthless due to one or more fundamental failing that undermines its promised emission cuts.

Eight others (16%) look problematic, with evidence suggesting they may have at least one fundamental failing and are potentially junk, according to the classification system applied."

#CarbonOffsets #greenwashing
theguardian.com/environment/20

The Guardian · Revealed: top carbon offset projects may not cut planet-heating emissionsBy Nina Lakhani
Public
Kriszta Satori

'Revealed: top #carbon #offset projects may not cut planet-heating emissions

Majority of offset projects that have sold the most carbon credits are ‘likely junk’, according to analysis by Corporate Accountability and the Guardian'
theguardian.com/environment/20
#Climate #ClimateChange

The Guardian · Revealed: top carbon offset projects may not cut planet-heating emissionsBy Nina Lakhani
ExploreLive feeds
About