The Carbon Offset Problem

Credits are sold to not cut trees in areas that aren't going to be cut, or then get cut. Multinational companies tout these credits as them doing good things when they actually aren't. Media doesn't care.

What of this is surprising?

Well, that there isn't a few people getting rich off of it.

Carbon offsetting by protecting existing forests… what? "Pay me money and I won't chop this tree down." Guess we are holding forests for ransom now.

Solving a problem created by inherent traits of the market with a market solution is like helping an alcoholic overcome addiction by making non-alcoholic softdrinks more available to them while still allowing them the same access and options to alcoholic drinks hoping they make the right choice.

Follow the money!

I had always suspected that carbon offsets were just a bunch of greenwashing. If you're concerned about carbon emissions, then get to the root of the problem and find a way to reduce them. Offsetting is just a hedge, and hedges are not sustainable.

Myriad as an adjective hype!

Forrest offsets are not a scam because of underaccouting due to future events. They are fundamentally a scam because combusting million year old (permanently sequestered) carbon is a permanent generation event and a living organism does not permanently sequester it. PERIOD. This is like buying offsets from a refinery who just sold their CO2 to Coca-cola to put in drinks. The CO2 will end up in the atmosphere you have only slowed it down not offset anything. The only real offsets are not burning carbon or physically pumping the carbon back into the geologic formations it came out of. Forrest offsets are Fraud, or racketeering to be specific, and should be illegal.

I will also say direct air capture offsets are real and verifiable. You can account for the CO2, when it was collected, where it was stored, and how it is maintained. The problem is that they cost more than $1,000 per ton compared to say $6 for these fake greenwashing credits. Since this is such a new technology the cost can come down but that requires funding this technology and right now a lot of that money is instead being used for fake offsets.

One name: Maurice Strong.

huge corporations wanting money from you in return of giving you nothing for it are a scam.
no shit, sherlock. let's enjoy the video.

I live near Hawk Mountain and attend university in Bethlehem. The introduction of this video was great.

Carbon offset does work if it means growing new trees in areas without trees. Using existing forests for carbon offset is stupid, especially considering that cutting down the existing trees and then growing new ones in their place might actually offset more carbon (young trees absorb more CO2 than old trees).

I used to work in the carbon credit industry… which is growing quite a bit recently and I remember the cognitive dissonance when many of these points were brought up by people like myself and landowners we were trying to get involved with our carbon crediting scheme. Carbon accounting and crediting is a convoluted and challenging process and should be one part in our arsenal when it comes to mitigating climate change.

Yes, but Green Lies are more noble than White Lies so it doesn't matter if it's a scam.

What a shock, massive corporations lie about how beneficial they are to society and governments clap.

It's pronounced app-ah-latch-ah

Always was weary of these programs. Confirmed, they're bulls*it

They need to stop calling this shit "credits". Credits imply DEBT, and debt implies PAYING. And paying reminds of TAXES. And LITERALLY NO ONE likes being told they have to pay a tax for, literally, existing, when we're already being taxed to hell and back and rammed in the fucking bunghole with income, sales, and whatever tax those self-serving bastards in power can come up with. I'm fucking tired of being told by media and a uthoritiesthat muy existence is a CRIME that I must pay for. FUCK THAT.

There's something icky to me about targeting people living subsistence lifestyles and using traditional stoves, and not the modern industrial output that's most affecting climate change.

That's not to say that more efficient stoves are bad, only that we're blaming people in India for our own pollution.

Go buy the Amazonian forests from soy bean farmers

The basic concept of carbon credits is fraudulent it should be no surprise that every attempts at rolling out carbon credits is a fraud.

There is literally not enough regulations and also this offset is mostly theoretical and definitely doesn’t help the environment actually. ‘Protecting’ not threatened forests does nothing while huge corps also finance oil and gas industry

15:55 It is one of the core fundamentals of economics since the dawn of economics: It's the Jevon paradox. Same thing happened with more efficient cars, especially EV and self-driving. Some studies report that EV autonomous vehicles can add up to 20-50% more driving than Business-As-Usual. Why is this bad? AVs are heavier, meaning they damage the road faster, and most electricity sources are still based on fossil fuels. What I'm saying things are SO MUCH MORE NUANCE in economics and environmental conditions. So far, the ONLY effective ways to protect the environment is just… CONSUME LESS STUFF!

Ah yes, Philadelphia is my favorite city in Western Pennsylvania

Thank you.