I appreciated Lloyd's article, "Stop Blaming 57 Companies...," when it came out. I think that people prefer to blame "corporations" rather than their own decisions and habits.
Speaking of Scope 3 emissions, I wonder if Lloyd tallies up his emissions from flying? He could do this for the past decade and then take a deep look at what to do,…
I appreciated Lloyd's article, "Stop Blaming 57 Companies...," when it came out. I think that people prefer to blame "corporations" rather than their own decisions and habits.
Speaking of Scope 3 emissions, I wonder if Lloyd tallies up his emissions from flying? He could do this for the past decade and then take a deep look at what to do, such as offsetting.
I have a friend who works at a major gov't institution tasked with solving climate problems. They refuse to look at their own Scope 3 emissions, such as from business flying, despite their claims of carbon reduction.
Yes, getting accurate labels on products about emissions, and thus accurate information, is important, but that task will take a lot of change to occur. It's hard to track this in open societies, let alone in places like China where even basic emissions info is suspect, given their system.
I do tally my flying and it is awful, and about to get worse. Some in the building world talk about counting "avoided emissions" or how much carbon they save by not building in concrete. I am thinking of an avoided emissions strategy where I will promise not to eat 760 hamburgers to avoid the emissions of my 3.8 tonne round trip to New Zealand.
Thanks for your reply. There's also the possibility that high-altitude emissions create more heat than ground-level ones (the UK has estimated 2X).
I would be skeptical that it takes 4 tons of carbon to make 760 hamburgers. These figures are still rudimentary. It's conceivable that it would take 1000s of burgers to make up for that, especially if those cows were raised in a low-carbon manner.
I know you're resistant to offsetting, so no point in arguing. But I do think that offsetting could be a form of taking personal responsibility.
One of the numerous problems with offsetting is that people who do that actually think it makes a difference. it doesn't.
I looked into offsetting some time ago and came to the conclusion that 95% of the schemes are scams that simply make no difference to anything. Even the method used to calculate the carbon released per person on a flight is clearly deeply broken.
Offsetting has been an accounting scam to allow companies like Microsoft and Google to sidestep true reduction in their carbon emissions. It's neither honest nor effective.
There are offsets that work well enough--funds that go toward rebuilding ecological systems that also draw down carbon. To give some resources back to nature, such as when flying a lot, is far better than a person "freeloading" on the global atmosphere, especially while constantly wailing about climate change, such as Lloyd.
A tip: learn to distinguish between your personal opinion and real evidence.
I was being facetious about the hamburgers, as I often complain about the silliness of "avoided emissions." If you have recommendations for offsets that really work I would look at them seriously.
You could check out personal offsets that have been verified by a third party--there are lots of these. Just pick ones for which you like the work they do.
Another option is just to "pay back" the costs that your emissions are incurring. Currently, the EPA estimates that a ton of carbon might have total costs of around $100 (this is called the Social Cost of Carbon). So, if your NZ trip takes 3.5 tons, then "pay back" $350 to causes that are healing the environment, to make up for the damages that your carbon might cause.
The important thing is to do something rather than nothing. This could build your integrity and inner strength, and it will become easier over time.
Nope - none - zilch. The evidence shows that there are plenty of feel-good projects that look OK but in fact contribute nothing meaningful to the CO2 issue. The Evidence, for those who chose to see it suggests that the majority are actually investment scams intending to take the gullible for a ride.
In reality people need to travel, the reason why is unimportant, so people will travel. With regards to air travel, it is one of the smaller contributors to carbon emissions (2-3% for unavoidable travel) and in many cases there are no reasonable alternatives.
tip: learn to identify investment scams from real schemes.
Heres one example: In his book Regeneration, Paul Hawken gives some good examples of working offsets. For instance: "The Southern Cardamom Forest lies in southwest Cambodia and covers 1.24 million acres of relatively intact tropical forest. Offset payments fund rangers, who confiscate over fifteen hundred chain saws a year from illegal loggers. It is home to more than fifty endangered species, including the Asian forest elephant, clouded leopard, pileated gibbon, Siamese crocodile, and sun bear. Offsets prevent 110 million tones of carbon emissions and support the local communities in tenure registration, scholarship funding for higher education, and ecotourism projects."
Here's another from the same book: "According to Gold Standard, an offset verification nonprofit founded by the World Wildlife Fund and other organizations in 2003, the Sodo/Humbo project will sequester an estimated 1.1 million tons of carbon dioxide. The cost to a buyer? Eighteen dollars per ton."
>>"Offsets prevent 110 million tones of carbon emissions and support the local communities in tenure registration, scholarship funding for higher education, and ecotourism projects."
No they don't—110 million tons of forest are NOT being cut down annually, and none of that other nonsense has **ANY** relevance on addressing (or stopping) climate change. It's nothing more than a scheme to divert money from one intended goal to fund others that wouldn't otherwise receive adequate funding but is done so by way of NGO's and corporate fuzzy accounting via greenwashing.
>>"Well, according to the regulators of these projects, these carbon savings are valid."
I don't believe it. If you're planting a tree, do you count it as the POTENTIAL carbon uptake based on what the mature size will be, or do you base it on CURRENT biomass? Likewise fashion with wetland restoration or any of these other feel-good means of "offsetting" which has been proven to not be accurate. Even WaPo says they're a scam:
Again, learn to recognize when you're just pontificating an opinion. There are third-party offset verification organizations, and major governments have accepted offsetting as well. Just because there might some issues here in the beginning doesn't mean we can't get the science and the practice of carbon drawdown to work, which is what we need to do.
As I mentioned, it's probable (still awaiting the science) that high-altitude emissions have more climate effects. Our World in Data cites a study that plane emissions have accounted for 4% of emissions. Likewise, only 10% of the world's people use planes in any one year. And, because of its carbon intensity, flying is generally a big chunk of an individual's carbon usage.
I agree with you that people will need to travel. Thus, as the globe modernizes, plane emissions will go way up. It seems to me that there is no choice but for us to learn how to draw down carbon emissions, and also agree to pay for our own. The early adopters will help drive the change.
>>"Again, learn to recognize when you're just pontificating an opinion."
... but then you post this in your next paragraph: "it's probable (still awaiting the science) that high-altitude emissions have more climate effects."
You freely acknowledge there's no science, but "you know" what it's doing? I call bullshit—if for no other reasons that above the troposphere-stratosphere pause, CO2 has a net cooling effect, not warming.
... which is why there's no "hot spot" above the tropics as CAGW theory proposes.
The IPCC has estimated that high-carbon emissions cause 3x the climate forcing. The UK still estimates they cause 2X. It's not that there is "no science" on this, but that the science is very complicated. As for your claim about cooling caused by plane emissions--can you provide evidence?
You gave NOTHING to support it. You cited a Our World In Data study that has no citation link and no credible science other than a supposition of "any emission = global warming".
I pointed out that CO2 above the tropopause (stratosphere-troposphere interface) has a net **COOLING** effect, not warming, so high altitude emissions likely are irrelevant to any discussion about climate change.
This is not evidence--it's a PDF without authors or an organization. It also concludes: "We now know that stratospheric cooling and tropospheric warming are intimately connected and that carbon dioxide plays a part in both processes. At present, however, our understanding of stratospheric cooling is not complete and further research has to be done."
You're trying to say that plane emissions don't have a net warming effect. Let's see some evidence, Mr. BS.
>>Again, learn to recognize when you're just pontificating an opinion.
I am an extremely experienced systems engineer; I know what I am talking about in this area. Just like you are, I am giving my opinion on a topic that Lloyd has raised on his blog.
"There are third-party offset ... offsetting as well. "
And they have, without exception, fundamental and structural issues with how they go about doing this. Which is why they lack credibility and nobody (that's the powers that count) now days takes any meaningful notice of them.
"Just because there might some issues here in the beginning doesn't ... we need to do."
Well actually yes it does. Here you are demonstrating your lack of understanding of complex systems. If you have fundamental structural faults with your system when you start in almost all cases, you will carry those faults forward and will never be able to overcome them.
"Our World in Data cites a study that plane emissions have accounted for 4% of emissions." As an aggregate number it's not particularly useful. You need to differentiate between a short distance flight that has alternatives and a long distance one that does not.
"Likewise, only 10% of the world's people use planes in any one year." A particularly useless number. It neither references that it's not the same 10% every year or that you need to reference a lifetime rather than a year.
"The early adopters will help drive the change." No, they won't.
They have been pushing offsets for over 20 years with no meaningful results. They early adopters have tried and failed to move it into the mainstream. At some point you have to say "it's not working"
You write, 'They have been pushing offsets for over 20 years with no meaningful results. They early adopters have tried and failed to move it into the mainstream. At some point you have to say "it's not working".'
You misunderstand the issue. Only a small fraction of carbon emissions get offset, and only a smaller fraction of people understand what an offset is. So, these haven't been "pushed" for 20 years; they've been scarcely used, and there hasn't been much research allocated to understanding drawdown either.
So, you admit complete failure - right we are making progress.
"Only a small fraction of ...what an offset is" That's an admission of failure. After 20+ years of heavy pushing you fall back on "a small fraction". If offsets
were ever going to have any meaningful effect that would be happening by now.
"hey've been scarcely used" - that is because they have been completely and comprehensibly rejected.
You are faced with the fact that offsets are an ignominious failure. yet your response to this being pointed out is "we will get it right next time". Talk about sticking your head in the sand!
There haven't been "20 years of heavy pushing." In regards to carbon offsets, there has mainly been whining and misinformation such as you're pushing, despite some promising and successful examples and agreements. Again, you sound like a person who uses lots of carbon but likes to keep your pollution free. Is this true?
The IPCC notes that to reach climate goals, we will need negative-emissions techniques. Ecological rebuilding will have to be in the mix. And, ways to finance these will be needed. Thus, the hope for offsetting, where the polluter helps to pay.
Check out the book Drawdown by Paul Hawken et al. Take a reading break from your ignorant trolling.
You strike me as someone who uses a lot of carbon, and doesn't want to pay for it. Just like Lloyd.
You can't do basic reading comprehension, let alone systems thinking, it seems. When I write, "Just because there might some issues here in the beginning doesn't mean we can't get the science and the practice of carbon drawdown to work, which is what we need to do"--I'm saying that we need to get these things fixed to proceed, which, I and others believe, is possible.
>>"You can't do basic reading comprehension, let alone systems thinking, it seems."
Don't make me laugh—projection, gaslighting, and ad hominem attacks do not make for strong argumentation skills. Bob Baal has pointed out your nescience, and so have I. You just don't like being outed as being the failure you are so you project your failings onto others.
Educated people can see who's incapable of reading comprehension, and it's neither Bob nor myself.
>>"There are offsets that work well enough--funds that go toward rebuilding ecological systems that also draw down carbon."
The problem is that if I plant an oak or redwood to do long-term carbon capture, it won't be doing a meaningful reduction for decades to centuries. So while noble in itself to spend money towards rebuilding ecological systems, the idea that they will replace the carbon lost due to human disruption on an immediate or even decadal time frame is misguided at best. The accounting portion would be a nightmare; do you base offsets on the type of tree. or its current mass, or *potential* mass? How would you account for loss in a wildfire or other natural disaster?
Personally I don't think the government should be involved in trying to fix anything about the carbon issue when it's so bad at appropriating tax monies now. It's only going to get worse over time, not better.
We're already able to measure the amount of carbon stored in land and ocean systems, apparently. So, it would seem that, putting much attention into it, we could make this more granular.
Carbon is well mixed in the atmosphere but less so in the oceans due to stratifying effects of temperature and depth; are you implying that we could somehow calculate a specific tonnage of offset via tree planting based on growth rates and species for **every single tree planted**?
Genuine question to answer—if an airline tallies Scope 1 emissions on the production of the aircraft they fly, then where would their purchase of fuel fall under? It would, and should, be Scope 1, right?
So why then, as a flyer, would I need to qualify *MY* flights as Scope 3? That would be double-counting the same fuel emissions that the airline itself is burning.
No wonder there are such problems with Scope 3 emissions—it lends itself to double counting and confusing total carbon emissions rather than the consumption of energy itself.
Good question. I suspect the answer is that it does not matter where it is accounted for, either stage 1 or stage 3, just as long as it is accounted for just once at some point.
Of course, this again leaves a major problem in that it allows the stage 1 people to say it should be accounted for at stage 3 and vice a versa.
They don't currently pay for scope 3 emissions. No company or gov't does that I'm aware of. Thus, to get ahead of the game, buy your own personal offsets till the world catches up in ethics. It's the only option right now, if you're a heavy carbon user.
They don't currently pay for scope 3 emissions. No company or gov't does. Thus, to get ahead of the game, buy your own personal offsets till the world catches up.
I appreciated Lloyd's article, "Stop Blaming 57 Companies...," when it came out. I think that people prefer to blame "corporations" rather than their own decisions and habits.
Speaking of Scope 3 emissions, I wonder if Lloyd tallies up his emissions from flying? He could do this for the past decade and then take a deep look at what to do, such as offsetting.
I have a friend who works at a major gov't institution tasked with solving climate problems. They refuse to look at their own Scope 3 emissions, such as from business flying, despite their claims of carbon reduction.
Yes, getting accurate labels on products about emissions, and thus accurate information, is important, but that task will take a lot of change to occur. It's hard to track this in open societies, let alone in places like China where even basic emissions info is suspect, given their system.
I do tally my flying and it is awful, and about to get worse. Some in the building world talk about counting "avoided emissions" or how much carbon they save by not building in concrete. I am thinking of an avoided emissions strategy where I will promise not to eat 760 hamburgers to avoid the emissions of my 3.8 tonne round trip to New Zealand.
Hi Lloyd - are you coming to my country!
Depends, I have never known what your country is! but if it is New Zealand or Australia, yes I am coming in September and would love to meet.
yes of course you are in Aukland I will be there.
Oh, I thought you knew I was in NZ from the TreeHugger days, if you are in Auckland first beer is on me then!
Are you coming to a conference or something?
passive house conference in Wellington and then touring around the branches including Auckland. I forget a lot these days
Cool - which conference is it open to the likes of me?
Regards
Thanks for your reply. There's also the possibility that high-altitude emissions create more heat than ground-level ones (the UK has estimated 2X).
I would be skeptical that it takes 4 tons of carbon to make 760 hamburgers. These figures are still rudimentary. It's conceivable that it would take 1000s of burgers to make up for that, especially if those cows were raised in a low-carbon manner.
I know you're resistant to offsetting, so no point in arguing. But I do think that offsetting could be a form of taking personal responsibility.
One of the numerous problems with offsetting is that people who do that actually think it makes a difference. it doesn't.
I looked into offsetting some time ago and came to the conclusion that 95% of the schemes are scams that simply make no difference to anything. Even the method used to calculate the carbon released per person on a flight is clearly deeply broken.
Offsetting has been an accounting scam to allow companies like Microsoft and Google to sidestep true reduction in their carbon emissions. It's neither honest nor effective.
There are offsets that work well enough--funds that go toward rebuilding ecological systems that also draw down carbon. To give some resources back to nature, such as when flying a lot, is far better than a person "freeloading" on the global atmosphere, especially while constantly wailing about climate change, such as Lloyd.
A tip: learn to distinguish between your personal opinion and real evidence.
I was being facetious about the hamburgers, as I often complain about the silliness of "avoided emissions." If you have recommendations for offsets that really work I would look at them seriously.
You could check out personal offsets that have been verified by a third party--there are lots of these. Just pick ones for which you like the work they do.
Another option is just to "pay back" the costs that your emissions are incurring. Currently, the EPA estimates that a ton of carbon might have total costs of around $100 (this is called the Social Cost of Carbon). So, if your NZ trip takes 3.5 tons, then "pay back" $350 to causes that are healing the environment, to make up for the damages that your carbon might cause.
The important thing is to do something rather than nothing. This could build your integrity and inner strength, and it will become easier over time.
"There are offsets that work well enough"
Nope - none - zilch. The evidence shows that there are plenty of feel-good projects that look OK but in fact contribute nothing meaningful to the CO2 issue. The Evidence, for those who chose to see it suggests that the majority are actually investment scams intending to take the gullible for a ride.
In reality people need to travel, the reason why is unimportant, so people will travel. With regards to air travel, it is one of the smaller contributors to carbon emissions (2-3% for unavoidable travel) and in many cases there are no reasonable alternatives.
tip: learn to identify investment scams from real schemes.
Heres one example: In his book Regeneration, Paul Hawken gives some good examples of working offsets. For instance: "The Southern Cardamom Forest lies in southwest Cambodia and covers 1.24 million acres of relatively intact tropical forest. Offset payments fund rangers, who confiscate over fifteen hundred chain saws a year from illegal loggers. It is home to more than fifty endangered species, including the Asian forest elephant, clouded leopard, pileated gibbon, Siamese crocodile, and sun bear. Offsets prevent 110 million tones of carbon emissions and support the local communities in tenure registration, scholarship funding for higher education, and ecotourism projects."
Here's another from the same book: "According to Gold Standard, an offset verification nonprofit founded by the World Wildlife Fund and other organizations in 2003, the Sodo/Humbo project will sequester an estimated 1.1 million tons of carbon dioxide. The cost to a buyer? Eighteen dollars per ton."
>>"Offsets prevent 110 million tones of carbon emissions and support the local communities in tenure registration, scholarship funding for higher education, and ecotourism projects."
No they don't—110 million tons of forest are NOT being cut down annually, and none of that other nonsense has **ANY** relevance on addressing (or stopping) climate change. It's nothing more than a scheme to divert money from one intended goal to fund others that wouldn't otherwise receive adequate funding but is done so by way of NGO's and corporate fuzzy accounting via greenwashing.
Well, according to the regulators of these projects, these carbon savings are valid.
>>"Well, according to the regulators of these projects, these carbon savings are valid."
I don't believe it. If you're planting a tree, do you count it as the POTENTIAL carbon uptake based on what the mature size will be, or do you base it on CURRENT biomass? Likewise fashion with wetland restoration or any of these other feel-good means of "offsetting" which has been proven to not be accurate. Even WaPo says they're a scam:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/travel/2023/04/17/carbon-offsets-flights-airlines/
Again, learn to recognize when you're just pontificating an opinion. There are third-party offset verification organizations, and major governments have accepted offsetting as well. Just because there might some issues here in the beginning doesn't mean we can't get the science and the practice of carbon drawdown to work, which is what we need to do.
As I mentioned, it's probable (still awaiting the science) that high-altitude emissions have more climate effects. Our World in Data cites a study that plane emissions have accounted for 4% of emissions. Likewise, only 10% of the world's people use planes in any one year. And, because of its carbon intensity, flying is generally a big chunk of an individual's carbon usage.
I agree with you that people will need to travel. Thus, as the globe modernizes, plane emissions will go way up. It seems to me that there is no choice but for us to learn how to draw down carbon emissions, and also agree to pay for our own. The early adopters will help drive the change.
>>"Again, learn to recognize when you're just pontificating an opinion."
... but then you post this in your next paragraph: "it's probable (still awaiting the science) that high-altitude emissions have more climate effects."
You freely acknowledge there's no science, but "you know" what it's doing? I call bullshit—if for no other reasons that above the troposphere-stratosphere pause, CO2 has a net cooling effect, not warming.
... which is why there's no "hot spot" above the tropics as CAGW theory proposes.
The IPCC has estimated that high-carbon emissions cause 3x the climate forcing. The UK still estimates they cause 2X. It's not that there is "no science" on this, but that the science is very complicated. As for your claim about cooling caused by plane emissions--can you provide evidence?
I gave support for that claim, above. Read closely.
You gave NOTHING to support it. You cited a Our World In Data study that has no citation link and no credible science other than a supposition of "any emission = global warming".
I pointed out that CO2 above the tropopause (stratosphere-troposphere interface) has a net **COOLING** effect, not warming, so high altitude emissions likely are irrelevant to any discussion about climate change.
https://courses.seas.harvard.edu/climate/eli/Courses/global-change-debates/Sources/Stratospheric-cooling/stratospheric-cooling-ESPHERE-encyclopedia.pdf
Try again, but this time without relying on your Dunning-Kruger toy action figure.
This is not evidence--it's a PDF without authors or an organization. It also concludes: "We now know that stratospheric cooling and tropospheric warming are intimately connected and that carbon dioxide plays a part in both processes. At present, however, our understanding of stratospheric cooling is not complete and further research has to be done."
You're trying to say that plane emissions don't have a net warming effect. Let's see some evidence, Mr. BS.
>>Again, learn to recognize when you're just pontificating an opinion.
I am an extremely experienced systems engineer; I know what I am talking about in this area. Just like you are, I am giving my opinion on a topic that Lloyd has raised on his blog.
"There are third-party offset ... offsetting as well. "
And they have, without exception, fundamental and structural issues with how they go about doing this. Which is why they lack credibility and nobody (that's the powers that count) now days takes any meaningful notice of them.
"Just because there might some issues here in the beginning doesn't ... we need to do."
Well actually yes it does. Here you are demonstrating your lack of understanding of complex systems. If you have fundamental structural faults with your system when you start in almost all cases, you will carry those faults forward and will never be able to overcome them.
"Our World in Data cites a study that plane emissions have accounted for 4% of emissions." As an aggregate number it's not particularly useful. You need to differentiate between a short distance flight that has alternatives and a long distance one that does not.
"Likewise, only 10% of the world's people use planes in any one year." A particularly useless number. It neither references that it's not the same 10% every year or that you need to reference a lifetime rather than a year.
"The early adopters will help drive the change." No, they won't.
They have been pushing offsets for over 20 years with no meaningful results. They early adopters have tried and failed to move it into the mainstream. At some point you have to say "it's not working"
You write, 'They have been pushing offsets for over 20 years with no meaningful results. They early adopters have tried and failed to move it into the mainstream. At some point you have to say "it's not working".'
You misunderstand the issue. Only a small fraction of carbon emissions get offset, and only a smaller fraction of people understand what an offset is. So, these haven't been "pushed" for 20 years; they've been scarcely used, and there hasn't been much research allocated to understanding drawdown either.
So, you admit complete failure - right we are making progress.
"Only a small fraction of ...what an offset is" That's an admission of failure. After 20+ years of heavy pushing you fall back on "a small fraction". If offsets
were ever going to have any meaningful effect that would be happening by now.
"hey've been scarcely used" - that is because they have been completely and comprehensibly rejected.
You are faced with the fact that offsets are an ignominious failure. yet your response to this being pointed out is "we will get it right next time". Talk about sticking your head in the sand!
There haven't been "20 years of heavy pushing." In regards to carbon offsets, there has mainly been whining and misinformation such as you're pushing, despite some promising and successful examples and agreements. Again, you sound like a person who uses lots of carbon but likes to keep your pollution free. Is this true?
The IPCC notes that to reach climate goals, we will need negative-emissions techniques. Ecological rebuilding will have to be in the mix. And, ways to finance these will be needed. Thus, the hope for offsetting, where the polluter helps to pay.
Check out the book Drawdown by Paul Hawken et al. Take a reading break from your ignorant trolling.
You strike me as someone who uses a lot of carbon, and doesn't want to pay for it. Just like Lloyd.
You can't do basic reading comprehension, let alone systems thinking, it seems. When I write, "Just because there might some issues here in the beginning doesn't mean we can't get the science and the practice of carbon drawdown to work, which is what we need to do"--I'm saying that we need to get these things fixed to proceed, which, I and others believe, is possible.
>>"You can't do basic reading comprehension, let alone systems thinking, it seems."
Don't make me laugh—projection, gaslighting, and ad hominem attacks do not make for strong argumentation skills. Bob Baal has pointed out your nescience, and so have I. You just don't like being outed as being the failure you are so you project your failings onto others.
Educated people can see who's incapable of reading comprehension, and it's neither Bob nor myself.
I was hoping that after Lloyd left Treehugger, you'd crawl back under rock and go away. I'm sorry.
You don't know anything about me. I suspect that I was involved in environmental "stuff" while you were still a twinkle in your father's eye.
You have no idea of my carbon footprint.
All I am doing is calling you out for your BS about carbon offsets.
"I'm saying that we need to get these things fixed to proceed, which, I and others believe, is possible."
And yet you don't - you have failed over and over again and you continue to fail without any recognition that your whole philosophy is flawed.
no fighting in comments!
>>"There are offsets that work well enough--funds that go toward rebuilding ecological systems that also draw down carbon."
The problem is that if I plant an oak or redwood to do long-term carbon capture, it won't be doing a meaningful reduction for decades to centuries. So while noble in itself to spend money towards rebuilding ecological systems, the idea that they will replace the carbon lost due to human disruption on an immediate or even decadal time frame is misguided at best. The accounting portion would be a nightmare; do you base offsets on the type of tree. or its current mass, or *potential* mass? How would you account for loss in a wildfire or other natural disaster?
Personally I don't think the government should be involved in trying to fix anything about the carbon issue when it's so bad at appropriating tax monies now. It's only going to get worse over time, not better.
We're already able to measure the amount of carbon stored in land and ocean systems, apparently. So, it would seem that, putting much attention into it, we could make this more granular.
Carbon is well mixed in the atmosphere but less so in the oceans due to stratifying effects of temperature and depth; are you implying that we could somehow calculate a specific tonnage of offset via tree planting based on growth rates and species for **every single tree planted**?
It's very complex science. Currently, there are attempts at this with varying accuracy.
But, the principle holds: biodiverse and intact ecosystems sequester carbon and increase resiliency to climate change. This is a strong truth.
Genuine question to answer—if an airline tallies Scope 1 emissions on the production of the aircraft they fly, then where would their purchase of fuel fall under? It would, and should, be Scope 1, right?
So why then, as a flyer, would I need to qualify *MY* flights as Scope 3? That would be double-counting the same fuel emissions that the airline itself is burning.
No wonder there are such problems with Scope 3 emissions—it lends itself to double counting and confusing total carbon emissions rather than the consumption of energy itself.
Good question. I suspect the answer is that it does not matter where it is accounted for, either stage 1 or stage 3, just as long as it is accounted for just once at some point.
Of course, this again leaves a major problem in that it allows the stage 1 people to say it should be accounted for at stage 3 and vice a versa.
They don't currently pay for scope 3 emissions. No company or gov't does that I'm aware of. Thus, to get ahead of the game, buy your own personal offsets till the world catches up in ethics. It's the only option right now, if you're a heavy carbon user.
They don't currently pay for scope 3 emissions. No company or gov't does. Thus, to get ahead of the game, buy your own personal offsets till the world catches up.