Cambridge study says carbon offsets are not nearly as effective as they claim to be.

  • frezik@midwest.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    1 year ago

    No, it’s nothing like that. Nature doesn’t care if a given gram of co2 was recently released or not. It only cares about the sum total. If the carbon capture schemes actually did grab a gram for every gram released, and then keep it stored for at least a century, that’d work fine.

    It’s just that they almost certainly don’t. They’re way too cheap for the best capture systems we have, and they’re not necessarily sequestering that carbon to keep it out of the atmosphere for more than a few years.

    We are almost certainly going to need actual carbon sequestration. We’re too close to emitting too much already.

    • evranch
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      When discussing carbon offsets with the regulator I asked if the buyers would get a refund if their chunk of carbon offset forest burned down in a forest fire.

      He laughed and said they should but there’s not a chance, because the system only exists to legitimize emissions. In fact many of them have already burned. And that’s right from a government agent.

      Kelp farming or ocean seeding are the only natural carbon capture that make sense, but we aren’t doing them. That and paying people not to destroy existing forests and grasslands, but that seems hard to sell as well.

    • Aesthesiaphilia@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      All the IPCC models assume massive amounts of sequestration, I believe

      It’s a necessity at this point, even if all fossil fuel use stops globally tomorrow