Apple claims its new Apple Watch is carbon neutral and has done impressive work to decarbonize its supply chain, but making new stuff always leaves a mark on the climate.
Carbon credits and carbon neutrality are both just yet another combination of buzzwords to greenwash products so peoples consciences don’t interfere with them buying more stuff.
True but I also think there are some projects that do real good in the world. The problem is how do you identify those and avoid those that are flawed.
Obviously you shouldn’t buy more things than you would have simply because they claim to be environmentally friendly. But if you’re going to buy something, it’s helpful to know which companies are worse or better than the alternatives.
People will continue to consume, and offsets, if they can be managed well could have a role to play in decarbonization. The problem is that they are not currently managed well.
The idea that emissions can be “compensated” for by paying to prevent some other equivalent emission elsewhere, was false to begin with.
You’re still polluting. Even if the emission credits you paid to acquire turn out to be valid, (which they often don’t) you’re only paying for someone else to take four steps back so you can continue to take steps forward, when we should all be sprinting backwards, away from the cliff.
Yes, good projects do good. But feeding the half of the homeless doesn’t mean you get to kill the rest.
Why the fuck is the corporate world behaving as if good deeds can be “cashed out” to do evil?
Unfortunately we’ve built a society where pollution is a fundamental necessity of life. Virtually every act, even walking or riding your bike, will result in some level of increased carbon emissions somehow. So the question is not whether we have a right to pollute—there really is no other option. The question is how best to minimize that pollution until society can be restructured into a form where this pollution is no longer needed to keep people alive.
In the meantime, if we can figure out how to do offsets correctly (and that is a big if) they may help us buy more time for that transition to take place. Some offset projects also can have co-benefits that will make communities and ecosystems more resilient to the change that is already baked into our emissions.
But I completely agree that they should not be viewed as indulgences that can excuse excessive levels of pollution.
Offsets are a nice idea, but they aren’t being used as a way to buy time. By allowing companies to buy carbon credits instead of paying a carbon tax, for example. This, companies have to choose, but they must do something. Preferably all options at once.
Rather, they are being used as a marketing strategy to sell more, by placating the consumer’s sense of guilt. This specifically allows people to feel good about choosing to consume more when they might not need to, because the offset provides the illusion of that choice now being harmless.
But when offsets are used for marketing towards the consumer this way, they do not function as a brake. They are instead a way for consumers and corporations alike to have an excuse to not take their feet off the accelerator.
Carbon credits and carbon neutrality are both just yet another combination of buzzwords to greenwash products so peoples consciences don’t interfere with them buying more stuff.
True but I also think there are some projects that do real good in the world. The problem is how do you identify those and avoid those that are flawed.
Obviously you shouldn’t buy more things than you would have simply because they claim to be environmentally friendly. But if you’re going to buy something, it’s helpful to know which companies are worse or better than the alternatives.
People will continue to consume, and offsets, if they can be managed well could have a role to play in decarbonization. The problem is that they are not currently managed well.
The idea that emissions can be “compensated” for by paying to prevent some other equivalent emission elsewhere, was false to begin with.
You’re still polluting. Even if the emission credits you paid to acquire turn out to be valid, (which they often don’t) you’re only paying for someone else to take four steps back so you can continue to take steps forward, when we should all be sprinting backwards, away from the cliff.
Yes, good projects do good. But feeding the half of the homeless doesn’t mean you get to kill the rest.
Why the fuck is the corporate world behaving as if good deeds can be “cashed out” to do evil?
Unfortunately we’ve built a society where pollution is a fundamental necessity of life. Virtually every act, even walking or riding your bike, will result in some level of increased carbon emissions somehow. So the question is not whether we have a right to pollute—there really is no other option. The question is how best to minimize that pollution until society can be restructured into a form where this pollution is no longer needed to keep people alive.
In the meantime, if we can figure out how to do offsets correctly (and that is a big if) they may help us buy more time for that transition to take place. Some offset projects also can have co-benefits that will make communities and ecosystems more resilient to the change that is already baked into our emissions.
But I completely agree that they should not be viewed as indulgences that can excuse excessive levels of pollution.
Offsets are a nice idea, but they aren’t being used as a way to buy time. By allowing companies to buy carbon credits instead of paying a carbon tax, for example. This, companies have to choose, but they must do something. Preferably all options at once.
Rather, they are being used as a marketing strategy to sell more, by placating the consumer’s sense of guilt. This specifically allows people to feel good about choosing to consume more when they might not need to, because the offset provides the illusion of that choice now being harmless.
But when offsets are used for marketing towards the consumer this way, they do not function as a brake. They are instead a way for consumers and corporations alike to have an excuse to not take their feet off the accelerator.