• float@feddit.de
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    17
    ·
    1 year ago

    The problem is that for fossil fuels, there is no good way to “completely remove” them. Most of the “carbon neutral” ads are plain greenwashing. But taxing it would be a good step nonetheless.

      • float@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        From what we know about physics and chemistry so far, it looks like there is no magical way to reverse this, that wouldn’t require a huge amount of energy, resources and effort. Also, it’s a bit to late to put money into research now. We know what to to do and how to “fix” things but we don’t like the consequences so we (mostly) keep going as if nothing is wrong.

        • copacetic@discuss.tchncs.de
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Carbon capturing is certainly possible. It isn’t worth it economically yet. Further research should make it cheaper. Meanwhile we will (hopefully) increase the CO2 tax. At some point it becomes economically worthwhile and companies will emerge to earn that money.

          • float@feddit.de
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            I didn’t say it’s not possible. I said it’s not possible to undo what we’ve done and what we’re still doing. It won’t be fixed by removing the excessive CO2 from the atmosphere. Besides, I also think that it’s not feasible at the required scale.

    • letmesleep@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Most of the “carbon neutral” ads are plain greenwashing.

      Well, there’s some issues with carbon offsetting and the promises made by the involved companies. But that’s more of a regulatory issue.

      For now you can indeed offset your emissions very cheaply by paying NGOs like atmosfair (i.e. one of the NGOs that has working programs). What they do is finding issues where emissions can be avoided cheaply and then funding projects to avoid these emissions. Obviously, that wouldn’t work if everyone (or even a large enough share) of people tried to offset their emissions, but right now and at the margin is a very efficient way to decrease emissions. Hence I wouldn’t be too critical of it. Offsetting won’t safe us in the long run, but it will buy us some time to implement sustainable solutions.

      • float@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        I don’t know the details but how you describe it, it sounds like it doesn’t reduce the emissions but shift them from one piece of paper to another one. Isn’t that still exactly greenwashing? I pay someone to make a 3rd party reduce their emissions so that I can fill that gap again.

        • letmesleep@feddit.de
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          I pay someone to make a 3rd party reduce their emissions so that I can fill that gap again.

          If you do that, sure, then we have a problem. But so do you, since you may end up in jail. If you call a product carbon neutral in your advertising, you’ll need to have a reason to believe that all emissions from that product were offset, otherwise you’re guilty of fraud. So - in the context of that product - there’s no legal way to start emissions again. Obviously in practice there’s a lot of wiggle room regarding what emissions can be attributed to your product and how well the offset works and you’ll have in dubio pro reo on your side, but in principle offsetting actually erases the entire carbon footprint of a product.

          We’re not speaking about emission rights here. In those cases, yes, shifting them from one entity to another doesn’t directly decrease emissions but it still helps since it makes emissions more expensive and therefore leads to companies looking for ways to avoid them.

          Edit: The 3rd parties in case of emission offsetting don’t tend to be limited by emission rights. We’re talking about thing like giving solar cookers to farmers in the developing word. That example these people an option to avoid using coal and helps with the climate, but it also helps them avoid the health problems that come with coal fires.