6 ms·

Carbon offsets is not the same as co2 removal.

by oneplusone 7y ago

lapink 7y ago
If carbon offset is done well, wouldn't it be equivalent?
- kohtatsu 7y ago
  AFAICT offsets are "We stopped one tonne from going in", removal is "We took one tonne out".
  - throwaway894345 7y ago
    Unless I'm missing something, that sounds like the same net effect. Why is one better than the other apart from price?
    - hirsin 7y ago
      It's insufficient - there's a cap on how much carbon we can stop emitting, and maxing that out will not be enough to halt climate change. Agreed though, in the sense that we should fully fund the cheap options while also funding research on going carbon negative.
    - kempbellt 7y ago
      +0 tonnes is not equivalent to -1 tonne of C02 emission, because maths. Reducing current C02 levels is more difficult and expensive than just reducing C02 output, and has a greater impact on overall reduction, but both are moves in the right direction.
      - throwaway894345 7y ago
        > +0 tonnes is not equivalent to -1 tonne of C02 emission, because maths. Right, but we're talking about -1 tonne (reducing emissions) vs -1 tonne (taking carbon out of the atmosphere) and last I checked, -1 tonne is equivalent to -1 tonne. > Reducing current C02 levels is more difficult and expensive than just reducing C02 output, and has a greater impact on overall reduction It makes sense to me that it's easier/cheaper to reduce C02 output (at least as long as there is lots of low-hanging fruit), but it doesn't make sense to me that one would have a greater impact than the other.
        kempbellt 7y ago
        If you look at "reducing 1 tonne" of emission as -1 to the current emission output, sure. But if you see it as +0 to the current C02 levels, it's different math. -1 tonne (active output) is not equivalent to -1 tonne (overall C02 levels) It's splitting hairs over what we consider to be better. Either is an improvement that I am happy to see.
        sporkland 7y ago
        I don't follow. Pretend we have 5 tonnes of co2 in the air. If I have an emitter, say someone wanting to burn a forest. That would emit 1 tonne. Or I have a sequestration process that would remove 1 tonne. I can pay $X to either #1 or #2. In #1 case I stop the addition, e.g. 5 tonnes total. In #2 the forest gets burned so I'm up to 6 tonnes, but I've pulled down 1 tonnes so back to 5 tonnes. As mentioned by other posters, there are a _ton_ of side benefits of the different approaches (burn forest for agriculture) vs other benefits of forests. But it seems like from a pure CO2 in atmosphere the two approaches should be similar?
        kohtatsu 7y ago
        This reminds me of that one gag; let's both put $20 in a box, and I'll sell the box to you for $30. (I can't find the relation to what's at hand tho) Back on topic; in one we stop someone making a mess, in another we start cleaning it up. Eventually it ought to start getting cleaned up. i.e. CO2 has to fall. Developing technologies for that now is good. Stopping people from making messes is also good, and cheaper.

Carbon offsets is not the same as co2 removal.

lapink 7y ago

If carbon offset is done well, wouldn't it be equivalent?

kohtatsu 7y ago
AFAICT offsets are "We stopped one tonne from going in", removal is "We took one tonne out".
- throwaway894345 7y ago
  Unless I'm missing something, that sounds like the same net effect. Why is one better than the other apart from price?
  - hirsin 7y ago
    It's insufficient - there's a cap on how much carbon we can stop emitting, and maxing that out will not be enough to halt climate change. Agreed though, in the sense that we should fully fund the cheap options while also funding research on going carbon negative.
  - kempbellt 7y ago
    +0 tonnes is not equivalent to -1 tonne of C02 emission, because maths. Reducing current C02 levels is more difficult and expensive than just reducing C02 output, and has a greater impact on overall reduction, but both are moves in the right direction.
    - throwaway894345 7y ago
      > +0 tonnes is not equivalent to -1 tonne of C02 emission, because maths. Right, but we're talking about -1 tonne (reducing emissions) vs -1 tonne (taking carbon out of the atmosphere) and last I checked, -1 tonne is equivalent to -1 tonne. > Reducing current C02 levels is more difficult and expensive than just reducing C02 output, and has a greater impact on overall reduction It makes sense to me that it's easier/cheaper to reduce C02 output (at least as long as there is lots of low-hanging fruit), but it doesn't make sense to me that one would have a greater impact than the other.
      - kempbellt 7y ago
        If you look at "reducing 1 tonne" of emission as -1 to the current emission output, sure. But if you see it as +0 to the current C02 levels, it's different math. -1 tonne (active output) is not equivalent to -1 tonne (overall C02 levels) It's splitting hairs over what we consider to be better. Either is an improvement that I am happy to see.
        sporkland 7y ago
        I don't follow. Pretend we have 5 tonnes of co2 in the air. If I have an emitter, say someone wanting to burn a forest. That would emit 1 tonne. Or I have a sequestration process that would remove 1 tonne. I can pay $X to either #1 or #2. In #1 case I stop the addition, e.g. 5 tonnes total. In #2 the forest gets burned so I'm up to 6 tonnes, but I've pulled down 1 tonnes so back to 5 tonnes. As mentioned by other posters, there are a _ton_ of side benefits of the different approaches (burn forest for agriculture) vs other benefits of forests. But it seems like from a pure CO2 in atmosphere the two approaches should be similar?
        kohtatsu 7y ago
        This reminds me of that one gag; let's both put $20 in a box, and I'll sell the box to you for $30. (I can't find the relation to what's at hand tho) Back on topic; in one we stop someone making a mess, in another we start cleaning it up. Eventually it ought to start getting cleaned up. i.e. CO2 has to fall. Developing technologies for that now is good. Stopping people from making messes is also good, and cheaper.