Offsets means that you can emit that amount of carbon because it’s implied somewhere else the carbon will be removed. Except we can’t remove large scales of carbon, so that’s the scam part.
Yes, they do. The issues of why that’s not a solution are complicated, but I’ll touch on a few. Let’s just say that we should absolutely be reforesting with multi-species forests everywhere we’ve taken away, but mostly to try and bring back some biodiversity we’re killed, if possible. As a carbon sink plants of any sort, even fast-growing algae, have their limits, and we can’t possibly plant enough to offset the millions of years of plant growth we’ve put into the air via fossil fuels. I can’t speak for Australian land, who owns it, what it’s used for or how arable it is for lots of trees.
So let’s renew what we’ve taken, but for other reasons not the falsehood that it’s a viable large-scale carbon sink.
As far as I’ve understood it, it’s implied that the carbon offset is used to finance some of the polluting industries to reduce production some amount relative to the offset payment. But even then, the problem is that reducing the production will just result in increased production elsewhere, since the demand for their product isn’t affected by the carbon offset payment.
Right. It’s a big shell game made to look like things are getting done to appease any PR concerns. The very little bit that may go into actual reduction would be something like CCS for exhaust stacks, which in turn is used to increase production because, hey we’re doing something about it (and using the CO2 gathered for products that end up back in the air). It does not balance out if you can get all the numbers. The annual world CO2 measurements are right there.
Offsets means that you can emit that amount of carbon because it’s implied somewhere else the carbon will be removed. Except we can’t remove large scales of carbon, so that’s the scam part.
Don’t trees offset carbon by being made of it? For a few decades anyways. A country like Australia has oodles of free land.
Yes, they do. The issues of why that’s not a solution are complicated, but I’ll touch on a few. Let’s just say that we should absolutely be reforesting with multi-species forests everywhere we’ve taken away, but mostly to try and bring back some biodiversity we’re killed, if possible. As a carbon sink plants of any sort, even fast-growing algae, have their limits, and we can’t possibly plant enough to offset the millions of years of plant growth we’ve put into the air via fossil fuels. I can’t speak for Australian land, who owns it, what it’s used for or how arable it is for lots of trees.
So let’s renew what we’ve taken, but for other reasons not the falsehood that it’s a viable large-scale carbon sink.
As far as I’ve understood it, it’s implied that the carbon offset is used to finance some of the polluting industries to reduce production some amount relative to the offset payment. But even then, the problem is that reducing the production will just result in increased production elsewhere, since the demand for their product isn’t affected by the carbon offset payment.
Right. It’s a big shell game made to look like things are getting done to appease any PR concerns. The very little bit that may go into actual reduction would be something like CCS for exhaust stacks, which in turn is used to increase production because, hey we’re doing something about it (and using the CO2 gathered for products that end up back in the air). It does not balance out if you can get all the numbers. The annual world CO2 measurements are right there.