We knew that when they were buying them. Carbon offsets are just another way to kick the can down the road past the point of no return.
Worse, they were pure PR. A way for a company to say "look how green we are, we are offsetting all our emissions!". Which, of course, they did by finding a shady company that "offset" the most for the least amount of money.
I wonder how many times the same tree was paid for by companies to "offset" their CO2.
It doesn't even kick any can down the road. It's throwing cash at a tree while rolling coal.
Carbon offsets have always been bullshit.
I don't know how anyone is still falling for them
That’s incorrect. There are legitimate offsets, and bullshit ones. Let’s say you have an online business. You can’t control the energy consumption from leased servers, or tell UPS to use electric vehicles for delivery. The only way you can reduce your business’s footprint is by offsetting. By funding alternative energy harnessing devices like solar or wind, even devices that do not directly power your business, there is a measured carbon reduction by the production of those devices that can be subtracted from your business’s footprint. Offsetting like this is recognized by climate scientists as legitimate.
The bullshit ones have estimated offsets based on experimental averages. Planting trees to combat deforestation, for example, while good for the environment, do not provide a measured reduction to carbon in the atmosphere. Those estimates are not recognized as legitimate offsets by the scientific community, but are widely used in business due to lower cost of implementation.
They had good salesmen at the start, and not enough market data to show they were bullshit, person in charge of paying wasn’t hired as an environmental officer but is just the niece back from cocaine rehab
They ~~had good salesmen at the start~~ have lobbyists and donate to both parties
Fixed that for you
But part of the problem is Republican voters believe anything their politicians say and never hold them accountable, and too many Dem voters have been acting that way too.
If there's no pressure to do the right thing, politicians will do what gets them the most money.
When voters of neither party has any standards, the corpos will do whatever they want.
A cynic would say that happened decades ago.
I know it's been over a decade that I've been accused of all sorts of stuff for having more standards than the letter D next to someone's name.
I know tons of clowns on Lemmy that will downvote you the second you mention you cant capitalism your way out of climate change. The same fucks shopping for EVs and refusing to go vegan, probably.
Why the hostility towards common folk buying EVs? I know EVs aren't actually very green, but if you have the choice and ability to choose between an ICE or EV, I'd rather they do the latter. Of course, I think many Hybrids have proven to be more carbon efficient over the lifetime of the vehicle than both ICE and EVs, but that's another discussion. And if you live in a situation where you don't actually need a car, that's also the most ideal.
Also, vegan isn't a viable option for many people. Hell, half the world doesn't even have access to reliable grocers or live in climates that aren't very capable of growing enough plants to live off of alone without supplementing with eggs or milk or some other animal product. A lot of people that have severe diet restrictions (e.g. Low FODMAP) are allergic to a shit ton of plants and fruits (I personally think some of the chemicals and/or GMOs used on/in our crops are what's triggering the sudden rise in people who are becoming gluten and/or FODMAP sensitive, but again, another discussion).
The hostility should be directed towards these corporations and those who are actively or aggressively working against solutions for climate change.
The hostility towards EVs is misplaced, likely due to both musk being a shithead and tons of misleading articles about how terrible they are. Over their lifetime, EVs have far less emissions than any other vehicle. It's not even close. Certainly there are better alternatives like public transport (which isn't available everywhere) or cycling (which isn't doable by everyone). However, in a car society, EVs are just about the best we can do.
As for the food restrictions, they are just not that common. Most people have access to and can tolerate rice and beans which are a complete protein set. As for vitamins the vast majority are found in high quantities in common plants (such as spinach). About the only thing to watch out for is B12 deficiency. Combatting that, however, does not require meat with every meal.
Certainly it'd be better if more variety and tasty plants were available. However, because plants are a staple to cuisine they are everywhere. If you look at the actual meat in your diet you'll find it's almost always served with a load of plant based food surrounding it.
I'm sympathetic with the difficulties going full vegan and am open to the notion that it's not possible for everybody. However, that does not mean that it's not an achievable diet for most people.
As for the food restrictions, they are just not that common
Heh
Reduction of consumption is our only answer. Your car didn't magically become eco friendly because ford said they would plant a couple tress after you bought it.
In other news, water is wet. More at 5.
Throwing money into the fire to escape responsibility does not work? No way!
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.