I think Lloyd employs confirmation bias when discussing offsets. He also conflates offsetting with industrial carbon capture projects, which may be too blunt of a categorization.
The journalism article from three obscure people from the UK’s Exeter University doesn’t seem to me to be a strong source—it’s opinion-laden and doesn’t link to …
I think Lloyd employs confirmation bias when discussing offsets. He also conflates offsetting with industrial carbon capture projects, which may be too blunt of a categorization.
The journalism article from three obscure people from the UK’s Exeter University doesn’t seem to me to be a strong source—it’s opinion-laden and doesn’t link to higher-credibility studies. The three authors are a climate-modeling mathematician, a climate journalist, and a machine-learning specialist—none of them seem to have expertise in offsetting and carbon credits. Lloyd’s title is biased—about “studies” that show offsetting doesn’t work. Where, exactly, is this “study” from Exeter so that we may assess it? It’s basically an op-ed article from the internet.
The most credible article cited here is from Nature Communications. Although Lloyd cherry-picks a quote to support his position, this article claims that: “Carbon markets play an important role in firms’ and governments’ climate strategies.” And, contrary to abandoning them, the article states that “Carbon crediting mechanisms need to be reformed fundamentally to meaningfully contribute to climate change mitigation.” This study only looks at 14 offsetting studies, estimating effectiveness of only a fraction (1/5) of carbon credits. This is a more complex issue than Lloyd’s black-and-white approach here.
I agree that we should try to reduce emissions as much as possible, and we shouldn’t let promises of net zero distract us of this. However, I’m a realist in that I see that zero emissions, right now or in the foreseeable future, are elusive. Thus, offsetting plays a role, especially those projects that draw down carbon by rebuilding natural systems. Lloyd’s own behavior shows this—he is unable to model the zero-emissions lifestyle he advocates. I also agree that we need to build the science of carbon sequestration and accounting and weed out the bad offsetting actors and projects.
Thank you for your note, but I feel the attention paid to offsetting is misplaced. Look at my recent post on Apple; they do an absolutely amazing job of reducing the carbon emissions from making a computer and then make a big deal of being “carbon neutral”, which anyone can if they buy enough offsets, instead of touting the real work of reducing emissions. We have to focus on what we can do to reduce our own “now” emissions, rather than purchasing offsets that deal with “later” emissions. That is what the Exeter scientists proposed.
What I would say is that it is your own "attention paid to offsetting" that is "misplaced"--you're going in the exactly wrong direction about this. For one thing, offsetting is a very, very small percentage of carbon emissions--very few people or companies offset. We want more of these, not less!
Your article on Apple doesn't make sense to me. For one, how does the behavior of one Verra board member suffice to discredit the whole offsetting system? This is a logical fallacy in your argument--a red herring. A tool of the propagandist.
Second, your claim that we need to "focus on our 'now' emissions rather than our 'later' ones" also makes no sense to me--our "now" emissions stay in the atmosphere for many years. We need to do both. Again, you can't even do this (eliminate emissions) yourself, and you seem to think the whole economy can.
Apple did the right thing--using ecological restoration to drawdown carbon, and closely monitoring that. As to you--you're making the same mistake over and over. Maybe consider taking a break from this issue and writing on other topics?
I think Lloyd employs confirmation bias when discussing offsets. He also conflates offsetting with industrial carbon capture projects, which may be too blunt of a categorization.
The journalism article from three obscure people from the UK’s Exeter University doesn’t seem to me to be a strong source—it’s opinion-laden and doesn’t link to higher-credibility studies. The three authors are a climate-modeling mathematician, a climate journalist, and a machine-learning specialist—none of them seem to have expertise in offsetting and carbon credits. Lloyd’s title is biased—about “studies” that show offsetting doesn’t work. Where, exactly, is this “study” from Exeter so that we may assess it? It’s basically an op-ed article from the internet.
The most credible article cited here is from Nature Communications. Although Lloyd cherry-picks a quote to support his position, this article claims that: “Carbon markets play an important role in firms’ and governments’ climate strategies.” And, contrary to abandoning them, the article states that “Carbon crediting mechanisms need to be reformed fundamentally to meaningfully contribute to climate change mitigation.” This study only looks at 14 offsetting studies, estimating effectiveness of only a fraction (1/5) of carbon credits. This is a more complex issue than Lloyd’s black-and-white approach here.
I agree that we should try to reduce emissions as much as possible, and we shouldn’t let promises of net zero distract us of this. However, I’m a realist in that I see that zero emissions, right now or in the foreseeable future, are elusive. Thus, offsetting plays a role, especially those projects that draw down carbon by rebuilding natural systems. Lloyd’s own behavior shows this—he is unable to model the zero-emissions lifestyle he advocates. I also agree that we need to build the science of carbon sequestration and accounting and weed out the bad offsetting actors and projects.
Thank you for your note, but I feel the attention paid to offsetting is misplaced. Look at my recent post on Apple; they do an absolutely amazing job of reducing the carbon emissions from making a computer and then make a big deal of being “carbon neutral”, which anyone can if they buy enough offsets, instead of touting the real work of reducing emissions. We have to focus on what we can do to reduce our own “now” emissions, rather than purchasing offsets that deal with “later” emissions. That is what the Exeter scientists proposed.
What I would say is that it is your own "attention paid to offsetting" that is "misplaced"--you're going in the exactly wrong direction about this. For one thing, offsetting is a very, very small percentage of carbon emissions--very few people or companies offset. We want more of these, not less!
Your article on Apple doesn't make sense to me. For one, how does the behavior of one Verra board member suffice to discredit the whole offsetting system? This is a logical fallacy in your argument--a red herring. A tool of the propagandist.
Second, your claim that we need to "focus on our 'now' emissions rather than our 'later' ones" also makes no sense to me--our "now" emissions stay in the atmosphere for many years. We need to do both. Again, you can't even do this (eliminate emissions) yourself, and you seem to think the whole economy can.
Apple did the right thing--using ecological restoration to drawdown carbon, and closely monitoring that. As to you--you're making the same mistake over and over. Maybe consider taking a break from this issue and writing on other topics?
Well, writing about this topic certainly generated discussion!