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

  • evranch
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    It already is! We’re proud to maintain our pastures in their native state and we grazed them rotationally with long rest to emulate the way the buffalo used to graze them long ago. They’re a mix of grass, brush, trees and slough. Even though my stock is gone we plan to background some steers or heifers occasionally just for the sake of the land as it needs grazing. However this will allow us to plan grazing around the grass instead of being forced to put our own animals out for need of feed.

    That was part of the reason I initially thought I could get some carbon offset credits simply for maintaining them in that state, because we are supposed to be encouraging people to maintain wild prairie, and the land does soak up significant carbon every year just by doing its natural thing.

    However as mentioned the system is a fraud. The only way to get carbon credits is to break it up and then rewild it after the damage has been done. They told me I could easily generate credits this way by destroying my native habitat and then replanting it… Which is absolutely a crime against nature.

    Carbon credits are a racket, tell your friends

    • RegularGoose@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      That sounds pretty cool. Too many people would just decide “this land isn’t profitable enough anymore, time to sell it to a developer.”