this post was submitted on 22 Apr 2024
155 points (100.0% liked)

chapotraphouse

13394 readers
899 users here now

Banned? DM Wmill to appeal.

No anti-nautilism posts. See: Eco-fascism Primer

Vaush posts go in the_dunk_tank

Dunk posts in general go in the_dunk_tank, not here

Don't post low-hanging fruit here after it gets removed from the_dunk_tank

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
 

internet-delenda-est

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 54 points 4 months ago (3 children)

Is a carbon offset just a financial instrument that's supposed to be a promise that a third party will reduce carbon emissions by that amount but in practice doesn't mean anything?

[–] [email protected] 34 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

It is the ultimate capitalist industry, billions of dollars predicated on the promise of not doing a thing you swear you totally would've done. It's like extortion but worse.

[–] [email protected] 37 points 4 months ago (2 children)

There's a program in germany where drivers of electric cars can sell their carbon offset, no such option however exists for not using a car and I think that's pretty much the whole thing in a nutshell

[–] [email protected] 31 points 4 months ago

Wow. This comment just makes me realise that 'carbon offsets' are the modern equivalent of buying indulgences 500 years ago.

[–] [email protected] 15 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Probably rather tax you for not having a car

[–] [email protected] 21 points 4 months ago (1 children)

I mean, yeah, pretty much. The Federal Enviromental Agency cites that every car is subsidized by about 5000€ a year on average via costs that drivers don't have to pay. Basically if you don't have a car a good chunk of your taxes go to somebody else for having one

[–] [email protected] 19 points 4 months ago

Yes it's how apple, amazon, google, microsoft, major airlines, etc. get to boldly claim they're carbon neutral or on track for it

They'll throw cheap change at an offset company promising to protect land that had little to no threat against it in the first place, then saying they reduced the tonnes of CO2 that would've happened if every square inch of that land was wholly logged and harvested

A lot of the time these offset companies are carbon positive. Like, they'll pay a logging company to sign an optionally renewable contract agreeing they'll keep away from a particular forest for a year or some shit... so the logging company uses the money they got to expand operations somewhere else in that time