8
Is "Negative Emissions" Even Attainable?
(www.theguardian.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 16 Jun 2023
8 points (90.0% liked)
Doomers
323 readers
1 users here now
Musings and discussion surrounding the end of human civilization
Guidelines:
- Anyone can post
- Keep discussion civil and be respectful of others
- Keep content on-topic
- Appropriately label any NSFW content
- Do not post bigoted or hateful speech, nor incite violence or encourage criminal behavior
- Do not harass others
- Do not post extreme or offensive content
- Violations of any guideline will be subject to removal of post, public or private admonition, or temporary or permanent user removal at the discretion of any moderator
- Spam will be removed
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
The problem with "offsets" is that they come in two very different forms:
Conservationism (i.e.: promising not to cut down trees) does not actually affect the status quo, which is not helpful because the status quo is already unsustainable. It's a promise, quite literally, to do nothing.
Terraforming (i.e.: carbon capture, planting trees) on the other hand represents an active investment in reversing prior damage. Of course, when you frame it this way people get very nihilistic because they realize how incredibly expensive it would be to have a perceivable impact on the planetary scale.
I think that the terms "net-zero" and "carbon offset" have been deeply poisoned by the incentives at play surrounding them and expect that the idea will quietly die out as a consequence. That's a shame because micro-scale terraforming was how we got ourselves into this mess and it's probably the only way back out.