More Than 90% of Rainforest Carbon Offsets By Biggest Provider Are Worthless, Analysis Shows (theguardian.com) 128
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 Guardian: The research into Verra, the world's leading carbon standard for the rapidly growing $2bn 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. But doubts have been raised repeatedly over whether they are really effective. The nine-month investigation has been undertaken by the Guardian, the German weekly Die Zeit and SourceMaterial, a non-profit investigative journalism organisation. It is based on new analysis of scientific studies of Verra's rainforest schemes. It has also drawn on dozens of interviews and on-the-ground reporting with scientists, industry insiders and Indigenous communities. The findings -- which have been strongly disputed by Verra -- are likely to pose serious questions for companies that are depending on offsets as part of their net zero strategies.
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. But doubts have been raised repeatedly over whether they are really effective. The nine-month investigation has been undertaken by the Guardian, the German weekly Die Zeit and SourceMaterial, a non-profit investigative journalism organisation. It is based on new analysis of scientific studies of Verra's rainforest schemes. It has also drawn on dozens of interviews and on-the-ground reporting with scientists, industry insiders and Indigenous communities. The findings -- which have been strongly disputed by Verra -- are likely to pose serious questions for companies that are depending on offsets as part of their net zero strategies.
Obvious result (Score:5, Funny)
They should have put the carbon credits on the blockchain - that would have really jazzed things up!
Re: (Score:2)
They should have put the carbon credits on the blockchain - that would have really jazzed things up!
That is an excellent idea! [veritree.com]
Re: (Score:3)
Wow, never saw that one coming. /sarc
The purpose isn't too offset carbon (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:The purpose isn't too offset carbon (Score:5, Insightful)
Not buying any of their productions seems to be the answer.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
It's pretty crazy that works on anyone when on the same aisle you can find Crystal Geyser water where they brag about their post-consumer waste content, and how they own their own recycling plant so they can recycle your bottles. Guess it proves the value of addiction.
Re: (Score:2)
We must end our crippling addiction to (checks notes) WATER!
Brawndo is where its at. It's got electrolytes!
Re:The purpose isn't too offset carbon (Score:5, Insightful)
We must end our crippling addiction to (checks notes) WATER!
I get that you're being facetious, but OP has a point. The amount of bottled water that this country (and others, I assume) is absolutely mind-boggling. And stupendously wasteful. The amount of energy it consumes from cradle-to-grave is just stupid. Produce the bottle, ship it to the bottler, fill it, load it on a truck, ship it half-way across the country to a distribution center, ship it to the store, bring it home, then deal with the empty bottle. Or: Fill a re-usable bottle with essentially the same water that was economically piped right into your home. If you install a filter at home it's literally the same water you get out of an Aquafina bottle. (Or whatever your brand of choice is.) Shipping "Artesian Glacier Voodoo Elf-cum Spring Water" half-way across the globe is a completely different level of stupid.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
We must end our crippling addiction to (checks notes) WATER!
I get that you're being facetious, but OP has a point. The amount of bottled water that this country (and others, I assume) is absolutely mind-boggling.
I live in the heart of Silicon Valley. If I leave the house for two or three days, then turn on the tap, the water comes out greyish black, and it takes several minutes to get water that is fully clear. I worry about even showering in our tap water, much less drinking or cooking with it.
So with all due respect, you can have my bottled water when you pry it out of my cold, dead hands. If the entire U.S. had first-world-quality water, then maybe, but we aren't there yet. We aren't close.
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, but that's because you live in a third world country (California) run by autocratic despots. The rest of us - with the possible exception of Illinois (radium) and Michigan (lead) have relatively clean water coming out of our tap.
IIRC, you have a large city, San Francisco, I believe, which had 10k homeless people, created a billion (yes, billion) dollar program to address homelessness, and now has only 10,000 homeless people. Apparently, spending even $100,000 per homeless person is not enough.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, but that's because you live in a third world country (California) run by autocratic despots. The rest of us - with the possible exception of Illinois (radium) and Michigan (lead) have relatively clean water coming out of our tap.
Keep telling yourself that. Have you actually tested your water to see if it is safe? You may be in for a shock [greatlakesnow.org].
Re: The purpose isn't too offset carbon (Score:2)
Re: The purpose isn't too offset carbon (Score:4, Informative)
99.99% of tap water in Germany meets legal standards, which are very similar to EPA standards. This is fairly typical for Western Europe.
It is in the US too. But that doesn't make headlines. I suspect the GP has something wrong with his own home's plumbing.
Re: (Score:2)
If I leave the house for two or three days, then turn on the tap, the water comes out greyish black
That makes it sound like the problem is occurring somewhere close to your tap. If it were a problem with the supply, what would your being away for a few days have to do with it? If you put water in a glass and let it sit for a few days does it also turn black?
Re: (Score:2)
If I leave the house for two or three days, then turn on the tap, the water comes out greyish black
That makes it sound like the problem is occurring somewhere close to your tap. If it were a problem with the supply, what would your being away for a few days have to do with it? If you put water in a glass and let it sit for a few days does it also turn black?
In relative terms, it is pretty close to my tap. The neighborhood owns the plumbing right up to a pedestal next to my house.
Whenever the whole neighborhood has a water shutdown (which randomly happens because of leaks or construction at least every couple of years), the water quality is a thousand times worse.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I find it funny how the richest country in the world can't even supply it's people clean water.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: The purpose isn't too offset carbon (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Sounds to me like you need to replace your pipes. Admittedly, when something similar happened to me I didn't worry about the iron oxide in the water except when washing clothes. But I did eventually get the pipes replaced.
Black gunk sounds like it might be copper sulfate mixed with something else. That is reasonably a bit more worrying, so you should it checked out.
Re: (Score:2)
the water comes out greyish black, and it takes several minutes to get water that is fully clear.
You should have your plumbing checked. If the water clears up after running for a few minutes, then the gunk isn't coming from the water mains. The problem is on your premises.
I also live in Silicon Valley (San Jose), and my tap water is fine.
Re: (Score:2)
Where I live in California there are water filtration machines all over town where you can fill reusable jugs of water for home use. A lot of the grocery stores have them so you can fill them while grocery shopping. I'm an hour North of SF so I feel fairly certain your area isn't any different.
If you find yourself using a lot of bottled water at home this is a much better option for home use as they make easy dispensers for the larger 5 gallon jugs and you won't be producing all that plastic waste which wil
Re: (Score:2)
So what state do you live in? Give me a few minutes and whatever state it is I'm certain I can cherry pick as you have done and make it look like a much bigger shit hole.
Of course if you ideologues didn't have this fake mythology of California being a terrible place to live you might actually have to think for a change and we wouldn't want that. You could hurt yourself.
Re: (Score:2)
Where I live in California there are water filtration machines all over town where you can fill reusable jugs of water for home use. A lot of the grocery stores have them so you can fill them while grocery shopping. I'm an hour North of SF so I feel fairly certain your area isn't any different.
Bottled water is way, way easier to store than jugs. Also, reusable jug systems have a nontrivial risk of legionella, mold, etc. Finally, reusable jug systems take up critical floor square footage, which makes them kind of impractical unless you're redoing your kitchen or have cabinets that you're willing to give up.
Re: (Score:2)
Bottled water is way, way easier to store than jugs
I'm not sure why storing 2 gallons of water in a bunch of disposable bottles with all their space wasting large tapered necks and indented bottoms is easier than one container that is not designed to look bigger than it is on a grocery shelf as most disposable bottles are.
Also, reusable jug systems have a nontrivial risk of legionella, mold, etc.
If you wash them this isnt a problem. I've never in my life heard of someone getting sick from their Brita pitchers for instance and shit tons of people have those. I'm sure it's happened but not so much that it should be a concern if you
Re: (Score:2)
Artesian Glacier Voodoo Elf-cum Spring Water
Yes, but is it gluten free?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
(I'm totally not googling "does cum have gluten in it" on a work computer)
It doesn't. Gluten comes from wheat, rye, barley, triticale, and nothing else.
Re: (Score:2)
Gluten comes from wheat, rye, barley, triticale, and nothing else.
Good to know that quadricale is gluten-free. Those tribbles had their shit together.
Re: (Score:2)
Problem is not many countries have safe drinking water coming out of the taps at home 24/7.
And of course many fall for the marketing of the water companies.
At home I just drink tap water and don't mind tap water from most places I visit, within Singapore. When I am in most other countries, tap water for drinking is a no no and I generally end up drinking bottled water.
Re: (Score:2)
It's only mind-boggling wasteful if one is focusing on the greatest social good.
If one considers it from a profit-making perspective, convincing people that bottled water is preferrable to tap is a good thing for companies that drink bottled water. Bonus points if the public water infrastructure is so underfunded and poorly ma
Re: (Score:2)
Water bottles [Re:The purpose isn't too offset...] (Score:2)
Even crazier that you on the same aisle you can buy a reusable metal bottle and just fill it with water from the tap.
Why?
Plastic bottles are reusable. Refill them from any water fountain.
Re: (Score:3)
Plastic bottles are reusable. Refill them from any water fountain.
Ugh no. Especially don't do that. [psu.edu] Refilling them is cool, just do it from a clean source. We have a Berkey filter, which is annoying AF but which works pretty well.
Page not found [Re:Water bottles] (Score:2)
The second reference in your link is "page not found" (and all of the archived versions on wayback machine are "page not found"). After two worthless references I stopped trying.
Re: (Score:2)
I make it a firm habit to not rely on articles where the first data quoted is a science fair project by a 13-year old.
Ad hominem. Ageism.
The second reference in your link is "page not found" (and all of the archived versions on wayback machine are "page not found").
second reference on archive.org [archive.org]
third reference on archive.org [archive.org]
How about you learn to internet before you critique people's references, noob?
Re: (Score:2)
I make it a firm habit to not rely on articles where the first data quoted is a science fair project by a 13-year old.
Ad hominem. Ageism.
We obviously have different ideas for where to get reliable science information. If you think you're getting reliable science from science fair projects by 13-year olds, there is really no way for us to communicate.
Bye.
Re: (Score:2)
We obviously have different ideas for where to get reliable science information.
Yeah, we do.
If you think you're getting reliable science from science fair projects by 13-year olds, there is really no way for us to communicate.
There's your Ad Hominem again. The 13 year old cited sources, which you were too dumb to locate, then you cried about not being able to locate them so we all know you can't internet.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Even crazier that you on the same aisle you can buy a reusable metal bottle and just fill it with water from the tap.
Water? Like from the toilet?
Re: (Score:2)
+1 funny if I had the points.
Re:The purpose isn't too offset carbon (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes we need to do is stop consuming, and judging the success of our economies by the amount we consume.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
To be clear, is what you are complaining about that Coke is encouraging people to recycle Coke bottles?
Yes. Because they know perfectly well that plastic bottles don't actually get recycled.
Re: The purpose isn't too offset carbon (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Where I live most plastic bottles are not recycled and I'd like to see Coca-Cola forced to do it themselves, even if it costs them money. In fact if they had to pass the costs on to consumers it would be a net win.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I admit I like Coke. I just wish they would sell me the syrup and the machinery to make my own soda for a reasonable price. Try getting caffeine free Coke zero from one of those make your own soda outfits. Heck I can't even get two liters.
Huh looks lie the combo: caffeine free zero doesn't exist, not here anyway.
Looks like the postmix boxes are a fixed 7l size, at about $100. It's not that much. You could use a peristaltic dosing pump off ebay and an arduino to pull out a bottle sized dose, and then carbona
Soda companies solved that problem long ago (Score:2)
With returnable bottles.
Re: (Score:2)
We did this whole deregulation thing and the soft drink companies decided it wasn't economical.
Re: (Score:2)
My local branch of Coca-cola spends a huge amount of money telling me I should be taking responsibility for all the waste they manufacture
They have a point. It is silly for Coca-cola to send someone to your house to collect your coke bottles but not your Pepsi bottles.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: The purpose isn't too offset carbon (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: The purpose isn't too offset carbon (Score:2)
So you're just going to watch while a conspiracy forms these carbon credit structures right in front of you and everyone, and tons of people say it's a conspiracy and it's obvious that this will never serve the needs we are facing, and then when it is proven to be a total failure and a conspiracy, your response is "It's not a conspiracy."
How does someone get to be so trusting of powerful wealthy liars and so distrusting of people who actually predict the bad behavior of those powerful wealthy liars?
I can on
Re: (Score:3)
The thing is, if you wait until the land is developed and occupied, it's too late.
The story of an alleged human ri
Go look up the John Oliver video on recycling (Score:2)
Owners of oil and gas deposits have trillions of dollars of wealth that best case scenario will be cut in half if we move to renewables. If you honestly think with that much money at stake that they're not trying to shape public perception... I don't think I'd call that being naive. That's not a strong enough word. I don't think English has a strong enough word for that. Maybe the Germans do. They've got some pretty long words.
Re: (Score:2)
will be cut in half if we move to renewables
Just in half? And why would it cut their wealth instead of their income? If it was a real solution for AGW it would cut their income by 100% and their wealth by nothing. Those folks use renewables to prevent an actual solution. Renewables require natural gas and coal to be built and to make the power reliable. You literally have that backwards. Renewables in most cases are no different than these carbon offsets. They are just plenary indulgences being sold by a snake oil salesman. Often the same one
Re: (Score:3)
You're not skeptical enough (Score:2)
Sure, the plastics companies, in response to a rise in environmental concerns by the public, started pushing the idea of plastics recycling... but if you stop there and simply heap scorn on "big plastics" you are still being manipulated.
Who is it that has you sorting your trash into bins for recycling? Who is it that makes all the legal contracts with the trash haulers and recyclers for your community?
While you've focused your attention on the left hand, the right hand was equally involved in the magic act
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
The part where you're under the impression that anyone actually thinks anything us humans have done is "good" for the environment. Nobody with more than one functioning braincell thinks electric vehicles (or any vehicle, really) is "good for the environment".
Your attempt at a "zinger" against electric vehicles made about as much sense as a football bat.
Re: (Score:2)
Wait. South Park did a WHOLE episode on it? Well fuck, I guess ya got me.
I have never heard a single person claim EVs are good for the planet, in the context you chose. I can find plenty that are aware they can be good for the planet in the context of comparing to ICE cars. Maybe I'll have to tune in to some media whose primary purpose is "owning libtards" to find these people you're talking about?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
formed my opinion by watching media whose primary purpose is owning libtards
Considering I'm a pretty regular consumer of quite a variety of news and other content, ranging politically from mid-left to slightly-right, and I've literally never heard anyone say anything close to what you're saying? I'd say it's fair to assume that only the stuff "righter" that my palate would be where you picked up the notion.
It's insulting in general to take someone else's life experience and propose that they're either lying, wrong, or stupid
Those are your words, not mine. Your only "proof" that "people express that opinion on a daily basis", so far, is a South Park episode. Again, forgive me for thinking that a Sout
Doing exactly what it was supposed to do.... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This is true, the part about shifting money among rich folks. However, those rich folks also get to make environmental marketing claims, which syphons money from poor folks to the rich folks.
Re: (Score:2)
also try to guilt you into paying for these offsets whenever you buy a plane ticket or a fridge or exhale too much.
Global Heating (Score:4, Interesting)
"....could make global heating worse...."
This is the Guardian's style guide at work. We will not talk about global warming, but about global heating. It's more alarming, you see, and we are in the middle of a climate crisis.
One of their stories today refers to "Outlook? Terrifying TV weather presenters on the hell and horror of the climate crisis".
Yes, the hell and horror of it. This was the hell and horror that the UK experienced in its full force this last summer, when temperatures soared into the life threatening 80's and 90's for hours at a time during the middle of the day.
And they experienced it yet again before Christmas when due to climate disruption temperatures actually fell below freezing for days on end! Unprecedented.
Fortunately we have the Guardian on hand to stamp out climate denialism and to make sure we call things by the right names. Its not warming, folks, its heating, and don't you make any mistakes about it. Or you will be persona non grata in more places than you ever thought possible.
Re: (Score:2)
This is the Guardian's style guide at work. We will not talk about global warming, but about global heating. It's more alarming, you see, and we are in the middle of a climate crisis.
Here's your sign [thesaurus.com].
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
I like that comparison photo of the TV from years ago and today, showing a weather forecast over Europe. On the old broadcast the colors were blue and green, indicating a nice moderate summer day. In the new one, despite very similar temperatures, the colors were black and red, and even 70-degree (F) temperatures were a hot orange. They made it give the impression of being inside an oven.
Re: (Score:2)
One of their stories today refers to "Outlook? Terrifying TV weather presenters on the hell and horror of the climate crisis".
Yes, the hell and horror of it. This was the hell and horror that the UK experienced in its full force this last summer, when temperatures soared into the life threatening 80's and 90's for hours at a time during the middle of the day.
When the average summer temp is mid 60's, 80+ becomes a big deal. People usually aren't prepared for it. Further, in that article you were talking about, they mentioned how the UK broke 104 degrees for the first time ever. There were over 3000 extra deaths due to the heatwave. Then, further in the article, one of the meteorologists brought up the death threats she gets for defending climate science.
Re: (Score:2)
Temperatures in the 80's are not unusual in British summers. Yes, at one carefully selected station near a runway they managed to record 104F.
3,000 extra deaths because of the heatwave? Was that traffic accidents as everyone headed for the beaches?
Re: (Score:2)
3,000 extra deaths because of the heatwave? Was that traffic accidents as everyone headed for the beaches?
Way to not give a shit about people dying.
Re: (Score:2)
Next they'll be telling us the floor is lava.
Did anyone think... (Score:3)
Did anyone think that the environmental movement was somehow impervious to fraud and rent seeking?
If they did, then they aren't paying attention.
Stop "offsetting" bad behavior, and just reduce the bad behavior. This is about like buying a Peloton and then figuring you can eat as many donuts as you like, because you get on that thing and pedal for 15 minutes a week.
Re: (Score:2)
I thought rent-seeking and grift was the reason the environmental movement existed. That, and to make nuclear power more expensive.
Re: Did anyone think... (Score:2)
who would have thought (Score:2)
Offsets ARE worthless (Score:4, Insightful)
Because they do not lead to changes in behavior, and behavior change is NECESSARY
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
You make a good point for "Carbon Credits", but I don't think they are the same as "Carbon Offsets".
Re: (Score:2)
Well, if the offsets were actually valid, then they wouldn't be worthless. But I don't know why anyone would have believed they were valid even before this article.
P.S.: I haven't bothered to read the article, because I don't trust the reportage. But I still agree with the conclusions stated in the summary. And don't see why anyone would expect anything different. Every investigation of carbon offsets that I HAVE read said either that the claims of the offest were overstated, or that they were complete
No Shit (Score:5, Insightful)
Carbon offsets are a scam. It allowed companies to greenwash and continue to pollute.
The only real way to decarbonize is with nuclear.
High GWP gas destruction not scammy (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
well, I guess for those who missed clue#1... (Score:2)
the passage of a few years and seeing the scam in operation is there to open the eyes.
What was clue#1 that this was a scam?
The carbon offsets trading schemes were imagined and promoted by the con artists who brought the world Enron. Yup, the people who found a scheme to get rich selling a lack of energy, realized they could get even richer on a bigger scam: selling promises not to pollute, and more bigly, selling certificates of non-pollution where those certs got value from artificial scarcity. A funny du
No shit (Score:3)
Of course they pick the easy mode areas not under actual threat, what's the alternative? Kicking a few subsistence farmers off their land is easy, but the loggers have guns. In Brazil they would have to come in with a PMC to protect land under actual threat. So they buy some land far away from roads and rivers and pretend their paper ownership is protection, it's the only thing they can do really.
Their projects in Madagascar probably worked better because it has more strict hierarchy, with Brazil being more of an anarchy. If you pay the Madagascar president enough, your land doesn't get logged. Then again, that's more expensive than owning some Brazilian land on paper.
We'd be better served with realistic objectives (Score:2)
You have all this large companies and small nations running around trying to be carbon neutral or carbon negative by 2030 or some year they picked.
Its SILLY, the reality is you can only be neutral or negative with some combination of shifting, or strait up cooking the books. Basically until our our energy is source from not just 'renewables' but specifically Wind/Solar its all nonsense. non-plant life as we know it from the cellular level on up your smart phone (see what I did there) needs energy, that most
creative accounting (Score:3)
Allowing the market to make money from a creative accounting "fix" for de-carbonising the market. They encouraged the politicians to enable a new game to make even more money from creating nothing.
The whole rainforest part should give a hint.. (Score:2)
It is a largely carbon neutral affair, because all CO2 it capture with it's trees get released back with decomposition.
Stopping the thing from being burned (probably by force, given most people burning the rainforest are literally criminals that the third world governments just don't have enough resources to effectively fight) would indeed help, but not enough to actually offset for the manufacturing and shipping hell created by this disposable everything culture, where you should throw every gadget away ev
Oh, it's the *consumer's* fault is it? (Score:2)
duh (Score:2)
Offsets are always going to be bullshit, because the economic incentives don't exist to actually deliver real results.
Offsets are... (Score:2)
I am shocked! (Score:2)
It really took them this long to figure this out? Carbon offsets and carbon trading are nothing more than gimmicks that allow people/entities to virtue signal and feel better about themselves. Always have been, and always will be. "Carbon neutral" is unachievable and those putting such goals in to actual legal legislation and corporate charters have no concept of reality.
It's time to actually face reality and leave fantasy land behind. We need to focus our efforts on realistic, practical change instead
Idea for a real carbon offset business (Score:2)
Plant trees
Cut them down
Bury them in abandoned coal mines
Repeat
Carbon, captured from the air, and sequestered indefinitely.
Sell carbon offset credits based on how much wood you bury - much less room for accounting chicanery.
Re: (Score:3)
That's a form of sequestration, which varying for methods and timelines is legitimate. Unmandated (or mandated too, I supposed) industrial retrofits are legit also. It's the wetlands-that-were-never-threatened that sell certificates of preservation as carbon offsets that is one of the larger scams.
On the one hand it rewards virtue-signaling that has no effect. But worse, it literally strips money away from real projects that actually reduce carbon into the environment.
But these are the same people who shut
This is just... (Score:2)
...a secular revision of indulgences.
You've sinned? Give me some money and you'll be forgiven.
Just like recycling (Score:2)
I'd looked into this on a personal basis.
It's just like recycling where you're reassured of end-to-end chain of custody, except it's completely exempted by some stupid law.
I'd personally buy a few credits if it did anything . . . I think a lot of people would.
In other news... (Score:2)