this post was submitted on 01 Sep 2023
530 points (98.0% liked)

World News

32311 readers
970 users here now

News from around the world!

Rules:

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Archive: [ https://archive.ph/G0ULZ ]

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] authed@lemmy.ml 19 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

Is it even possible for a gas company to offset CO2 emissions? They would have to charge insane amounts

[–] Infamousblt@hexbear.net 10 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It's not possible for anyone to offset CO2 because that's just not how CO2 works. If its going into the air it doesn't matter how much money moves around in the background, it's still going into the air. Carbon offsets were never going to accomplish anything because physics don't work that way

[–] authed@lemmy.ml 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

You could create a chemical reaction that transform it to carbon and O2?

[–] radisson@sh.itjust.works 4 points 1 year ago

That's pretty much what a tree is. But then it dies and burns/decomposes and it goes back in the atmosphere. It's temporary storage.

[–] P1r4nha@feddit.de 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Not really, because there are different "scopes" of emissions when declaring offsets:

Scope 1: emissions done directly during normal operations

Scope 2: emissions from the suppliers, transport and resourcing of raw materials etc.

Scope 3: indirect emissions caused by the use of the product and other effects the company is responsible for.

Obviously fossil fuel companies like Shell mostly have Scope 3 emissions. Barely any company that declares offsets even considers Scope 3 emissions though.

So all companies out there that even say they 100% offset, often just mean Scope 1 emissions. That's basically systemic green washing.

Also a lot of the offsets are nearly useless, so even if Scope 1 and 2 are offset you gotta subtract 90% ineffectiveness from the amount.