200
Corporations invested in carbon offsets that were ‘likely junk’, analysis says
(www.theguardian.com)
this post was submitted on 30 May 2024
200 points (100.0% liked)
News
37808 readers
1914 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.
Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.
7. No duplicate posts.
If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.
All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Carbon offsets have always been bullshit.
I don't know how anyone is still falling for them
That’s incorrect. There are legitimate offsets, and bullshit ones. Let’s say you have an online business. You can’t control the energy consumption from leased servers, or tell UPS to use electric vehicles for delivery. The only way you can reduce your business’s footprint is by offsetting. By funding alternative energy harnessing devices like solar or wind, even devices that do not directly power your business, there is a measured carbon reduction by the production of those devices that can be subtracted from your business’s footprint. Offsetting like this is recognized by climate scientists as legitimate.
The bullshit ones have estimated offsets based on experimental averages. Planting trees to combat deforestation, for example, while good for the environment, do not provide a measured reduction to carbon in the atmosphere. Those estimates are not recognized as legitimate offsets by the scientific community, but are widely used in business due to lower cost of implementation.
They had good salesmen at the start, and not enough market data to show they were bullshit, person in charge of paying wasn’t hired as an environmental officer but is just the niece back from cocaine rehab
Fixed that for you
But part of the problem is Republican voters believe anything their politicians say and never hold them accountable, and too many Dem voters have been acting that way too.
If there's no pressure to do the right thing, politicians will do what gets them the most money.
When voters of neither party has any standards, the corpos will do whatever they want.
A cynic would say that happened decades ago.
I know it's been over a decade that I've been accused of all sorts of stuff for having more standards than the letter D next to someone's name.
I know tons of clowns on Lemmy that will downvote you the second you mention you cant capitalism your way out of climate change. The same fucks shopping for EVs and refusing to go vegan, probably.
Why the hostility towards common folk buying EVs? I know EVs aren't actually very green, but if you have the choice and ability to choose between an ICE or EV, I'd rather they do the latter. Of course, I think many Hybrids have proven to be more carbon efficient over the lifetime of the vehicle than both ICE and EVs, but that's another discussion. And if you live in a situation where you don't actually need a car, that's also the most ideal.
Also, vegan isn't a viable option for many people. Hell, half the world doesn't even have access to reliable grocers or live in climates that aren't very capable of growing enough plants to live off of alone without supplementing with eggs or milk or some other animal product. A lot of people that have severe diet restrictions (e.g. Low FODMAP) are allergic to a shit ton of plants and fruits (I personally think some of the chemicals and/or GMOs used on/in our crops are what's triggering the sudden rise in people who are becoming gluten and/or FODMAP sensitive, but again, another discussion).
The hostility should be directed towards these corporations and those who are actively or aggressively working against solutions for climate change.
The hostility towards EVs is misplaced, likely due to both musk being a shithead and tons of misleading articles about how terrible they are. Over their lifetime, EVs have far less emissions than any other vehicle. It's not even close. Certainly there are better alternatives like public transport (which isn't available everywhere) or cycling (which isn't doable by everyone). However, in a car society, EVs are just about the best we can do.
As for the food restrictions, they are just not that common. Most people have access to and can tolerate rice and beans which are a complete protein set. As for vitamins the vast majority are found in high quantities in common plants (such as spinach). About the only thing to watch out for is B12 deficiency. Combatting that, however, does not require meat with every meal.
Certainly it'd be better if more variety and tasty plants were available. However, because plants are a staple to cuisine they are everywhere. If you look at the actual meat in your diet you'll find it's almost always served with a load of plant based food surrounding it.
I'm sympathetic with the difficulties going full vegan and am open to the notion that it's not possible for everybody. However, that does not mean that it's not an achievable diet for most people.
Heh
Reduction of consumption is our only answer. Your car didn't magically become eco friendly because ford said they would plant a couple tress after you bought it.