General > General Technical Chat
heartbroken that John Clauser seems to have joined climate change denial.
<< < (22/67) > >>
Siwastaja:
I have zero belief in any compensation or certification systems. Almost all are eventually proven as scams, those which aren't yet, will likely soon be, and those that are not outright scams have poor efficiency. It's just human nature. If you want to affect the outcome, you have to directly work towards it, not indirectly pay someone else to do that in a complex system with little transparency (or one where it's just moving from bin A to bin B).

And think about it, reducing your winter-time room temperature by 0.5degC would do more to CO2 than all those dozens of certificates and compensation systems you participate in during the same time frame, even if they were legit and worked.
tom66:

--- Quote from: Siwastaja on August 03, 2023, 10:21:07 am ---I have zero belief in any compensation or certification systems. Almost all are eventually proven as scams, those which aren't yet, will likely soon be, and those that are not outright scams have poor efficiency. It's just human nature. If you want to affect the outcome, you have to directly work towards it, not indirectly pay someone else to do that in a complex system with little transparency (or one where it's just moving from bin A to bin B).

--- End quote ---

I seem to recall one in Scotland where carbon certs were paying to not cut down a forest - er... there's just one problem with that - it was already protected by national legislation so it would have been illegal anyway.

The only carbon offsetting worth anything is certified carbon removal - planting NEW trees, or using direct air capture.  The cost of doing such though is so much higher than pretending to actually do it.
jonovid:
the 70 or 100yr goal of communism is the deindustrialisation of the western countries.
then have the useful idiots remain childless and strip men of their manhood.
its all in the communist manifesto.
Siwastaja:

--- Quote from: tom66 on August 03, 2023, 11:05:38 am ---The only carbon offsetting worth anything is certified carbon removal - planting NEW trees, or using direct air capture.  The cost of doing such though is so much higher than pretending to actually do it.

--- End quote ---

Even then the question is, would those trees have been planted anyway? And is just someone making money planting more trees and cutting them (nothing wrong with that, normal forestry), i.e., normal relatively carbon-neutral business in disguise of something carbon-positive to suck public money.

It's all about how we brand things, not as much what they factually are; Finland is a perfect example, we have an excellent track record of relatively responsible forestry, we have most forest per capita in whole EU by a wide margin and this is not changing for worse at all. Basically unlike rest of the Europe, we have not cut down all of our forests starting in Middle ages because we see them as a valuable resource which we want to keep for unforeseeable future and not overuse. Actively planting new trees is natural part of that business, have been for more than half a century here.

Yet Russian trolls coined a negatively loaded term for a forest where trees have been planted, a tree field, and the political left spectrum here happily started using it against those who support use of forests and wood. Elsewhere in Europe, planting trees and making products out of wood is marketed as a good, environmentalist, woke-compatible thing, in Finland our leftist leaders, based on the Russian propaganda model, chose to brand the same thing as opposite, anti-climate action. It went so far as to accepting to pay 20 billion € sanctions to EU, while Sweden just simply opted out of that payment, but we did not want to.
Microdoser:
As soon as money becomes embedded into the framework of dealing with any issue, the issue for some people becomes : "How can I extract as much money as possible from this issue?"
 
This, of course, provides ammunition for people that do not agree with the issue as they can claim it is artificially created just for some people to make money. They can legitimately point to the people who do not care about the issue, and are trying to just make money, and say that what they are doing is what they are doing. They then go on to say that this completely taints the original issue and proves their case that it is artificially created. This is, of course, terrible logic as that claim does not follow from the facts they observe.
 
This applies no matter what the issue is. It's happened with Climate change, BLM, and many other issues.
Navigation
Message Index
Next page
Previous page
There was an error while thanking
Thanking...

Go to full version
Powered by SMFPacks Advanced Attachments Uploader Mod