210
submitted 9 months ago by silence7@slrpnk.net to c/climate@slrpnk.net

Archived copies of the article: archive.today web.archive.org

all 16 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] Philing_Good@lemmy.world 40 points 9 months ago

If your rich and you pollute, it's "fine".

If your poor and you pollute, "what a dick"

[-] WhatAmLemmy@lemmy.world 26 points 9 months ago

If you're rich and commit a crime, that's an inconsequential fine.

If you're poor and commit a crime, that's crippling debt or jail time.

[-] null@slrpnk.net 26 points 9 months ago

I vote we start calling them Carbon Indulgences.

[-] LemmyKnowsBest@lemmy.world 1 points 9 months ago

why does that make me crave chocolate?

[-] GONADS125@lemm.ee 20 points 9 months ago

I can't believe how many people are just now realizing carbon offsets are a sham..

Hasn't anyone watched King of the Hill!?

[-] iturnedintoanewt@lemmy.world 16 points 9 months ago

If you search on YouTube "carbon offsets", the first result is the piece John Oliver did, which if you haven't watched i really recommend you to.

Carbon Offsets

[-] TheFriar@lemm.ee 6 points 9 months ago

I always liken it to the anti-child/slave labor movement in the late 90s. Companies learned if they just sub-subcontract, they can use child and/or slave labor and just keep saying, “[GAP] vociferously objects to slave and child labor. And through our rigorous internal investigation, we have found that a company we hired has in turn hired a company that was participating in this disgusting act. We have officially severed ties with the contractor which so profoundly failed in their quality control and, in [GAP’s] humble opinion, in their morality.”

[GAP] spits on the idea of slave labor pointedly

camera flashes, press murmurs as spokesperson leaves stand

[GAP] hires the contractor under their new LLC and continues profiting from slave labor

[-] gibmiser@lemmy.world 18 points 9 months ago

She should just directly fund new wind and solar energy non-profits.

[-] djquadratic@kbin.social 16 points 9 months ago

Funny article title. Skimmed it - raised good points about some of general pitfalls of carbon offset

[-] MonsiuerPatEBrown@reddthat.com 13 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

I have recently begun to think that all the super-rich are high on cocaine all the time. And that is solely based off of what I see on the internet.

outbound photo on reddit of bezos and current wife looking like super villains

[-] ApathyTree@lemmy.dbzer0.com 6 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

Interestingly, I’m pretty sure she got that “dress” (really, it’s panties and a corset with a mesh dress over top) on Amazon. I saw nearly the same thing just today. It was $25 and listed as a rave costume.

So your drug hypothesis is supported so far….

(Yes yes, I know it’s not actually the same thing, but it might as well be… normal people wouldn’t go out wherever in that..)

[-] metaStatic@kbin.social 7 points 9 months ago

"carbon offsets" brought to you by the people who sold you "a calorie is a calorie"

[-] Pietson@kbin.social 6 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

Always had the feeling there was something fishy about these carbon offset programmes. It just doesn't seem like a problem that can be solved by throwing more cash at it. Sad to hear this is indeed the case for most of these companies.

[-] iturnedintoanewt@lemmy.world 4 points 9 months ago

I think everyone should watch he John Oliver piece about it.

Carbon offsets

[-] silence7@slrpnk.net 4 points 9 months ago

Yeah, it takes having buyer and seller wanting to prevent emissions and using a third party auditor to verify. What we actually have is buyer and seller colluding with auditors to produce PR instead of emissions cuts

this post was submitted on 15 Jan 2024
210 points (96.1% liked)

Climate - truthful information about climate, related activism and politics.

5183 readers
564 users here now

Discussion of climate, how it is changing, activism around that, the politics, and the energy systems change we need in order to stabilize things.

As a starting point, the burning of fossil fuels, and to a lesser extent deforestation and release of methane are responsible for the warming in recent decades: Graph of temperature as observed with significant warming, and simulated without added greenhouse gases and other anthropogentic changes, which shows no significant warming

How much each change to the atmosphere has warmed the world: IPCC AR6 Figure 2 - Thee bar charts: first chart: how much each gas has warmed the world.  About 1C of total warming.  Second chart:  about 1.5C of total warming from well-mixed greenhouse gases, offset by 0.4C of cooling from aerosols and negligible influence from changes to solar output, volcanoes, and internal variability.  Third chart: about 1.25C of warming from CO2, 0.5C from methane, and a bunch more in small quantities from other gases.  About 0.5C of cooling with large error bars from SO2.

Recommended actions to cut greenhouse gas emissions in the near future:

Anti-science, inactivism, and unsupported conspiracy theories are not ok here.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS