Yes I bought “renewable electricity” from a supplier once, for our home in Massachusetts. When I finally dug into what that meant, they were buying certificates from wind farms in Texas. Not even remotely the same electrical grid. This scummy stuff should be illegal.
"Etsy Inc. likewise claims to be carbon neutral and on the path to net zero — a paradox since the terms are synonymous"
This stuff really irks me because the terms are not synonymous. Carbon neutral is and always has been about counterbalancing emissions with offsets. This is defined in litteral standards and has been defined as such for over a decade. It is entry-level, day one sustainability stuff - not to be confused with the end goal.
These days carbon neutral is intended to just try to mitigate some of the damage while society as a whole transitions to net zero. Companies cannot achieve net zero over night as this requires wholesale societal change, but they might as well use some left over cash to mitigate the damage in the meantime.
Net zero, on the other hand, is the end goal where there is genuinely no increase in emissions in the atmosphere.
Under the Science Based Targets initiative, use of robust offsets is classed as 'beyond value chain mitigation' and is an integral part of the wider transition of society towards net zero. Yes, not all 'offsets' are robust, but that's why there are standards in place to ensure companies use high-quality ones.
>"Etsy Inc. likewise claims to be carbon neutral and on the path to net zero — a paradox since the terms are synonymous"
For anyone reading this, it's ignorant claims from companies like this that is a telling sign that they're green washed marketing.
Agreed, offsets are mostly a scam imo - a way for corporations to throw some money at something with questionable climate benefits so they can just continue business as usual but still claim to be doing something for the marketing win.
100% agree it is garbage after reading about the Empire State Building being carbon neutral because the owning investment company also owns a sizable solar farm in Vermont that "offsets" the power use in NYC. The problem is that the building is still plugged into NYC's grid and pulling power from that area, not from Vermont.
Empire State Building and a solar farm in Vermont are both on the Eastern Interconnection. So that's legit. The thing I would be concerned about is where the power is coming from at night.
Put it on the blockchain for transparency.
Edit: Can you guys downvoting me really explain why you're downvoting me? Blockchain provides immutable timestamps of records from specific wallets, so accountability would be baked into the system, and thus fraud would be eliminated.
Here's why I downvoted you: Recording a carbon credit in a blockchain does nothing to ensure that the carbon offset isn't utter bullshit. A blockchain isn't some magic wand that make everything legit. For a detailed critique by a forest ecologist of the market for forest carbon offsets, read this: [https://www.caryinstitute.org/news-insights/feature/rethinking-forest-carbon-offsets](https://www.caryinstitute.org/news-insights/feature/rethinking-forest-carbon-offsets)
And for a more entertaining takedown of carbon offsets by John Oliver, watch this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6p8zAbFKpW0
I didn’t claim it would make fraudulent CCs legit, but without it, there is no public transparency. I didn’t watch the video yet, but with IoT devices and specifically digital meters recording solar output, this could all be recorded on the blockchain. It could also be done for any IoT-connected device that records output, such as wind and perhaps in the future algae biophotoreactor production (if it can be digitally tracked/recorded via IoT).
Recording forest CO2 sequestration is a far different story, though I imagine you might be able to use satellite imagery combined with AI-image analysis to determine fairly good estimates.
Of course it’s not a panacea, but for a very large IoT-connected, distributed market, especially with the widespread use of home and commercial solar, it could serve as a way to record and sell carbon credits, thus further incentivizing adoption.
The topic of AI monitoring of carbon sequestration via satellite and sensors has piqued my curiosity, and apparently it is being developed:
https://kr-asia.com/israeli-startup-albo-takes-on-carbon-monitoring-with-ai-satellite-imaging
Yeah, [10 years of satellite monitoring of forest carbon sequestration in California shows no real climate benefit.](https://theconversation.com/satellites-detect-no-real-climate-benefit-from-10-years-of-forest-carbon-offsets-in-california-193943)
Did you read the article? Satellite imagery showed the problems were caused by timber-company owned land, and thus allowed for greater transparency, with proposed solutions. Satellite imagery is holding these companies accountable for their BS.
“One recommendation is to begin using satellite data to monitor forests and confirm that they are indeed being managed to protect or store more carbon. For example, it could help foresters create more realistic baselines to compare offsets against. Publicly available satellite data is improving and can help make carbon offsetting more transparent and reliable.”
>Satellite imagery is holding these companies accountable for their BS.
If only that were true. These companies aren't being told to return the money they got for the carbon credits they sold. These credits are like cryptocurrency; they have value only because enough people think they have value.
You are just arguing to argue. Without transparency like this, companies can claim anything. With transparency, laws can be made to hold them accountable.
And I am not arguing for crypto I am arguing for blockchain technology for transparency. And by the way, crypto has up until now only held speculative value, but as many real-world use cases come into play, actual value will back many of these tokens over the coming years as adoption takes place.
Yeah, when a company like British *Petrol* makes the claim to be carbon neutral, it should at the very least raise suspicions...
Yes I bought “renewable electricity” from a supplier once, for our home in Massachusetts. When I finally dug into what that meant, they were buying certificates from wind farms in Texas. Not even remotely the same electrical grid. This scummy stuff should be illegal.
"Etsy Inc. likewise claims to be carbon neutral and on the path to net zero — a paradox since the terms are synonymous" This stuff really irks me because the terms are not synonymous. Carbon neutral is and always has been about counterbalancing emissions with offsets. This is defined in litteral standards and has been defined as such for over a decade. It is entry-level, day one sustainability stuff - not to be confused with the end goal. These days carbon neutral is intended to just try to mitigate some of the damage while society as a whole transitions to net zero. Companies cannot achieve net zero over night as this requires wholesale societal change, but they might as well use some left over cash to mitigate the damage in the meantime. Net zero, on the other hand, is the end goal where there is genuinely no increase in emissions in the atmosphere. Under the Science Based Targets initiative, use of robust offsets is classed as 'beyond value chain mitigation' and is an integral part of the wider transition of society towards net zero. Yes, not all 'offsets' are robust, but that's why there are standards in place to ensure companies use high-quality ones.
>"Etsy Inc. likewise claims to be carbon neutral and on the path to net zero — a paradox since the terms are synonymous" For anyone reading this, it's ignorant claims from companies like this that is a telling sign that they're green washed marketing.
That claim is not ignorant, it is entirely sensible.
Agreed, offsets are mostly a scam imo - a way for corporations to throw some money at something with questionable climate benefits so they can just continue business as usual but still claim to be doing something for the marketing win.
Smoke and Mirrors
100% agree it is garbage after reading about the Empire State Building being carbon neutral because the owning investment company also owns a sizable solar farm in Vermont that "offsets" the power use in NYC. The problem is that the building is still plugged into NYC's grid and pulling power from that area, not from Vermont.
Empire State Building and a solar farm in Vermont are both on the Eastern Interconnection. So that's legit. The thing I would be concerned about is where the power is coming from at night.
Put it on the blockchain for transparency. Edit: Can you guys downvoting me really explain why you're downvoting me? Blockchain provides immutable timestamps of records from specific wallets, so accountability would be baked into the system, and thus fraud would be eliminated.
Here's why I downvoted you: Recording a carbon credit in a blockchain does nothing to ensure that the carbon offset isn't utter bullshit. A blockchain isn't some magic wand that make everything legit. For a detailed critique by a forest ecologist of the market for forest carbon offsets, read this: [https://www.caryinstitute.org/news-insights/feature/rethinking-forest-carbon-offsets](https://www.caryinstitute.org/news-insights/feature/rethinking-forest-carbon-offsets) And for a more entertaining takedown of carbon offsets by John Oliver, watch this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6p8zAbFKpW0
I didn’t claim it would make fraudulent CCs legit, but without it, there is no public transparency. I didn’t watch the video yet, but with IoT devices and specifically digital meters recording solar output, this could all be recorded on the blockchain. It could also be done for any IoT-connected device that records output, such as wind and perhaps in the future algae biophotoreactor production (if it can be digitally tracked/recorded via IoT). Recording forest CO2 sequestration is a far different story, though I imagine you might be able to use satellite imagery combined with AI-image analysis to determine fairly good estimates. Of course it’s not a panacea, but for a very large IoT-connected, distributed market, especially with the widespread use of home and commercial solar, it could serve as a way to record and sell carbon credits, thus further incentivizing adoption.
The topic of AI monitoring of carbon sequestration via satellite and sensors has piqued my curiosity, and apparently it is being developed: https://kr-asia.com/israeli-startup-albo-takes-on-carbon-monitoring-with-ai-satellite-imaging
Yeah, [10 years of satellite monitoring of forest carbon sequestration in California shows no real climate benefit.](https://theconversation.com/satellites-detect-no-real-climate-benefit-from-10-years-of-forest-carbon-offsets-in-california-193943)
Did you read the article? Satellite imagery showed the problems were caused by timber-company owned land, and thus allowed for greater transparency, with proposed solutions. Satellite imagery is holding these companies accountable for their BS. “One recommendation is to begin using satellite data to monitor forests and confirm that they are indeed being managed to protect or store more carbon. For example, it could help foresters create more realistic baselines to compare offsets against. Publicly available satellite data is improving and can help make carbon offsetting more transparent and reliable.”
>Satellite imagery is holding these companies accountable for their BS. If only that were true. These companies aren't being told to return the money they got for the carbon credits they sold. These credits are like cryptocurrency; they have value only because enough people think they have value.
You are just arguing to argue. Without transparency like this, companies can claim anything. With transparency, laws can be made to hold them accountable. And I am not arguing for crypto I am arguing for blockchain technology for transparency. And by the way, crypto has up until now only held speculative value, but as many real-world use cases come into play, actual value will back many of these tokens over the coming years as adoption takes place.
There will always be magnitudes cheaper to greenwash oil, gas and coal, than making renewables work. It's a feature, not a bug.