Global warming strikes again...

[Senethro]

Are past events a good predictor of future in this case?

(edit: among a bunch of other pernickets like "are earthquakes a climate related disaster?", "what indeed is shellenberger etc explanation?" that I'm only somewhat interested in.)

 

[DaggerDigwillow]

i mean the problem is just that you're wrong. you're massively misrepresenting the scientific consensus. they're generally extremely worried and frustrated, especially since the tech is already available

like when the practicality of moving coastal settlements is countered by something as damnable as an hbomberguy meme, you're not really dealing with the world as is. yea yea sensationalism clicks whatever. i'd like to know what you'd do if your house vaporized without a new one being ready, that you yourself have to buy on top of that

Well first off science isn't based on consensus. Bjorn, Shellenberger and I are expressing deep worry over the misinformation and the mismanagement/appropriation of capital being wasted. The effects are concerning and all of that is in agreement with the scientific community and the published reports I've cited. All of that concern, however, also needs to be kept within the context of proportionality. It is one thing to realize we are facing disasters it is another thing entirely to claim we are facing the end of the world.

See chapter four of the IPCC Special Report on the Ocean and Cryosphere in a changing Climate which regards this exact question concerning the problems faced by countries like bangladesh and the solutions offered.

 

[Lexicus]

are earthquakes a climate related disaster?"

They certainly can be. At the very least, ice melting is known to affect seismic activity.

 

[Angst]

Well first off science isn't based on consensus. Bjorn, Shellenberger and I are expressing deep worry over the misinformation and the mismanagement/appropriation of capital being wasted. The effects are concerning and all of that is in agreement with the scientific community and the published reports I've cited. All of that concern, however, also needs to be kept within the context of proportionality. It is one thing to realize we are facing disasters it is another thing entirely to claim we are facing the end of the world.

See chapter four of the IPCC Special Report on the Ocean and Cryosphere in a changing Climate which regards this exact question concerning the problems faced by countries like bangladesh and the solutions offered.

i don't know about shellenberger, but bjørn lomborg's work is somewhere between shoddy and useless. his base premise is techinically ok, but his data has been throughoutly scrutinized and generally rejected. he did a lot of really cruddy cherrypicking to support his political theory. he's majorly picked up these days as a talking head for think tanks that don't care/know about the climate. he was in his heyday too. he underrated both the costs of climate change and the capability of concurrent tech

"science based on consensus" and similar is the vast majority of time just a caveat fools say when they want to appeal to fringe bonkers opinions.

if you read that opinion and think coastal regions will be fine, you're reading with confirmation bias. do it again.

 

[Arakhor]

Bjorn Borg? Wasn't he a tennis player?

 

[Angst]

Bjorn Borg? Wasn't he a tennis player?

lmao i meant lomborg, yea.

 

[Lexicus]

Remembering his name is a waste of one's mental bandwidth tbh

 

[Angst]

Remembering his name is a waste of one's mental bandwidth tbh

yea.

i'd like to add that i've spent *a lot* of time with the guy. he made a huge mess in denmark (or more appropratiely said, the ones that appointed him)

 

[Fippy]

We had the driest summer here since records started, i often heared "that's not normal anymore".

 

[Samson]

More than 90% of rainforest carbon offsets by biggest provider are worthless, analysis shows

The forest carbon offsets approved by the world’s leading provider and used by Disney, Shell, Gucci and other big corporations are largely worthless and could make global heating worse, according to a new investigation.​

​

The research into Verra, the world’s leading carbon standard for the rapidly growing $2bn (£1.6bn) voluntary offsets market, has found that, based on analysis of a significant percentage of the projects, more than 90% of their rainforest offset credits – among the most commonly used by companies – are likely to be “phantom credits” and do not represent genuine carbon reductions.​

​

The analysis raises questions over the credits bought by a number of internationally renowned companies – some of them have labelled their products “carbon neutral”, or have told their consumers they can fly, buy new clothes or eat certain foods without making the climate crisis worse.​

​

The investigation found that:​

• Only a handful of Verra’s rainforest projects showed evidence of deforestation reductions, according to two studies, with further analysis indicating that 94% of the credits had no benefit to the climate.
• The threat to forests had been overstated by about 400% on average for Verra projects, according to analysis of a 2022 University of Cambridge study.
• Gucci, Salesforce, BHP, Shell, easyJet, Leon and the band Pearl Jam were among dozens of companies and organisations that have bought rainforest offsets approved by Verra for environmental claims.
• Human rights issues are a serious concern in at least one of the offsetting projects. The Guardian visited a flagship project in Peru, and was shown videos that residents said showed their homes being cut down with chainsaws and ropes by park guards and police. They spoke of forced evictions and tensions with park authorities.

 

[Lexicus]

More than 90% of rainforest carbon offsets by biggest provider are worthless, analysis shows

The forest carbon offsets approved by the world’s leading provider and used by Disney, Shell, Gucci and other big corporations are largely worthless and could make global heating worse, according to a new investigation.​

​

The research into Verra, the world’s leading carbon standard for the rapidly growing $2bn (£1.6bn) voluntary offsets market, has found that, based on analysis of a significant percentage of the projects, more than 90% of their rainforest offset credits – among the most commonly used by companies – are likely to be “phantom credits” and do not represent genuine carbon reductions.​

​

The analysis raises questions over the credits bought by a number of internationally renowned companies – some of them have labelled their products “carbon neutral”, or have told their consumers they can fly, buy new clothes or eat certain foods without making the climate crisis worse.​

​

The investigation found that:​

• Only a handful of Verra’s rainforest projects showed evidence of deforestation reductions, according to two studies, with further analysis indicating that 94% of the credits had no benefit to the climate.
• The threat to forests had been overstated by about 400% on average for Verra projects, according to analysis of a 2022 University of Cambridge study.
• Gucci, Salesforce, BHP, Shell, easyJet, Leon and the band Pearl Jam were among dozens of companies and organisations that have bought rainforest offsets approved by Verra for environmental claims.
• Human rights issues are a serious concern in at least one of the offsetting projects. The Guardian visited a flagship project in Peru, and was shown videos that residents said showed their homes being cut down with chainsaws and ropes by park guards and police. They spoke of forced evictions and tensions with park authorities.

pikachushockedface.jpg

 

[Joij21]

The forest carbon offsets approved by the world’s leading provider and used by Disney, Shell, Gucci and other big corporations are largely worthless and could make global heating worse, according to a new investigation.

Disney!!!

Maybe this is what others mean when they say they are doing more than their fair share in fighting climate change.

 

[MrCynical]

The whole idea of carbon offsetting and similar has always reminded me of the medieval practice of selling "indulgences". I.e. paying a priest to say your sins "didn't count" or had somehow been compensated for. As such it's zero surprise to me that it's merely a way for those with money to wash their hands of responsibility, with no real environmental benefit.

Every time I see the "carbon neutral since 2007" claim at the bottom of the Google home page, I have an instinctive "Yeah, right..." reaction. If they'd actually got enough real trees planted to honestly claim to have balanced out their emissions, we should be able to see huge resulting forests on Google Earth by now...

 

[Joij21]

Gucci, Salesforce, BHP, Shell, easyJet, Leon and the band Pearl Jam were among dozens of companies and organisations that have bought rainforest offsets approved by Verra for environmental claims.

My sister's boyfriend works there. Tough time, tough time. Especially with all of the recent layoff panic! Huh! Definitely wouldn't wanna work there.

Every time I see the "carbon neutral since 2007" claim at the bottom of the Google home page, I have an instinctive "Yeah, right..." reaction. If they'd actually got enough real trees planted to honestly claim to have balanced out their emissions, we should be able to see huge resulting forests on Google Earth by now...

I bet ya most of their carbon emissions come from all the Google trucks taking snapshots of people for "street view" against their will.

 

[El_Machinae]

They're very different from indulgences. There are vast tracts of wild lands that are suitable for being set aside and protected, and expecting people to do it for free (or to avoid sanctions) is the height of conceit. Carbon credits are a very hard institution to set up, they're across international borders and full of experts whose projects and credentials are impossible to vet. But carbon is fungible, which means that using money to shift who gets to spend carbon is reasonable. It's just nearly impossible to do well. Nevermind that greenwashing is also a thing, but these companies paid real money and got ripped off.



I pivoted to politically preferring a carbon tax to carbon credits because the credit system is impossible, functionally. But a carbon tax system is way, way worse for the poorer regions of the world who've yet to emit at the scales that we do, because it eventually becomes a tariff.

 

[Angst]

The whole idea of carbon offsetting and similar has always reminded me of the medieval practice of selling "indulgences". I.e. paying a priest to say your sins "didn't count" or had somehow been compensated for. As such it's zero surprise to me that it's merely a way for those with money to wash their hands of responsibility, with no real environmental benefit.

Every time I see the "carbon neutral since 2007" claim at the bottom of the Google home page, I have an instinctive "Yeah, right..." reaction. If they'd actually got enough real trees planted to honestly claim to have balanced out their emissions, we should be able to see huge resulting forests on Google Earth by now...

i can't express enough how frustrating it is to look at your post here - and nod in agreement

 

[Angst]

They're very different from indulgences. There are vast tracts of wild lands that are suitable for being set aside and protected, and expecting people to do it for free (or to avoid sanctions) is the height of conceit. Carbon credits are a very hard institution to set up, they're across international borders and full of experts whose projects and credentials are impossible to vet. But carbon is fungible, which means that using money to shift who gets to spend carbon is reasonable. It's just nearly impossible to do well. Nevermind that greenwashing is also a thing, but these companies paid real money and got ripped off.



I pivoted to politically preferring a carbon tax to carbon credits because the credit system is impossible, functionally. But a carbon tax system is way, way worse for the poorer regions of the world who've yet to emit at the scales that we do, because it eventually becomes a tariff.

i understand what you're getting at but the indulgences comparison isn't wholly unfair. you mentioned greenwashing, and it's exactly stuff like... recycling (which barely happens even with recycling as a practice),

while hell isn't carbon, no, the mental model is similar - i understand that i'm doing something wrong, but i can pay it off by exporting carbon weight to developing countries/do carbon credits/consume more, but "morally", and then it does absolutely nothing for your, well, soul, in the end.

maybe the comparison is more poetic than anything. god isn't nature. science is vastly more complicated than latin priests. but paying off your moral debt is strikingly similar, to me.

if you don't believe so, i'm more than willing to listen. i always love to see things lined out rigidly. i'm just in a poetic mood right now.

 

[Joij21]

But a carbon tax system is way, way worse for the poorer regions of the world who've yet to emit at the scales that we do, because it eventually becomes a tariff.

I'm sure many white people who go to Disneyland/World while sipping their mocha latte (supposedly carbon credit neutral) would be totally ok with Africans being permanently kept down. After all they hunt lions! Oh the barbarity! Save the lions!

 

[El_Machinae]

You're not being 'kept down' if you're receiving fair compensation for keeping oil in the ground or if you're allowing land to remain undeveloped. Capital received can be used to purchase the materials that then allow circumventing the 'normal' process of polluting until you're rich so that you can then afford to transition. Societies want the stuff that burning carbon allows to be created, it's a means to an end.

There is a set amount remaining in the global carbon buffer. The planet doesn't care who emits it. The poor people of the planet definitely do. Right now, we're (collectively) releasing emissions for a combination of longterm capital and temporary human welfare. A portion of this is just outright fungible. If you're raising their Quality of Life more by getting them to not emit, then those 'non-emissions' count against the current budget.

The status quo, the one we all implicitly support, is that we should be allowed to emit it and then when we get worried about the environment, we'll just tariff them into poverty so that they cannot emit. The alternative, paying people to skip the steps of emitting works just fine. Except that it's bonkers-hard to do properly. Carbon emissions are fungible. Capital is fungible. We need incentives to create sequestering projects. We need to project certain regions from exploitation. Paying people to do these things is an overall good idea.

 

[Joij21]

You're not being 'kept down' if you're receiving fair compensation for keeping oil in the ground or if you're allowing land to remain undeveloped.

So what the hell are they to spend their compensation on?! If they don't develop the land they can't produce the various consumer goods that make having money worth it! How are they supposed to improve their housing quality as well?

So yes they would essentially be kept down by entitled, rich white people.