this post was submitted on 02 Apr 2024
24 points (90.0% liked)

Green - An environmentalist community

5354 readers
1 users here now

This is the place to discuss environmentalism, preservation, direct action and anything related to it!


RULES:

1- Remember the human

2- Link posts should come from a reputable source

3- All opinions are allowed but discussion must be in good faith


Related communities:


Unofficial Chat rooms:

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 

General rule of thumb: Low gross emissions are better than net zero or net negative emissions.

Especially when those low gross emissions are across scope one (on premises), two (off-site energy), and three (supply chain).

Doubly so if those net zero/negative emissions are due to carbon offsets.

#ClimateChange #Climate #Environment @green #GlobalWarming #CarbonEsmissions #NetZero

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 3 points 8 months ago

I agree and I didn't think you did mean at the global level but I think its important to be clear because a lot of comms is (deliberately?) vague on which scale and who is being talked about. I think a lot of people do get confused about it and I think its used a lot to bamboozle and greenwash.

I'm not sure of the solution but I do think more needs to be done at the GHG protocol level to stop accepting fixes (like buying up some land that's a net negative) that don't actually shift the global picture. Sadly, I've seen some well meaning people and organisations do just that and its hard to blame them. If someone is offering you an option that minimises the disruption and you don't know the detail of why its problematic you will take it. We need a way of going back down from to global level pathways to more local organisations so we can see clearly they aren't just buying up more than their fair share of mitigating options.