>>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. "
>>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 feel the love, man.
Also, don't care HOW you feel—it's my right to visit whatever websites I choose, and to offer my opinions and insight on whatever topics or comments I am inclined to deem worth my time.
>>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.
There is only one troll in this thread and it's not me.
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.
>>"I was hoping that after Lloyd left Treehugger, you'd crawl back under rock and go away." I feel the love, man.
Also, don't care HOW you feel—it's my right to visit whatever websites I choose, and to offer my opinions and insight on whatever topics or comments I am inclined to deem worth my time.
Translation: YOU have the problem, not me.
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!
It can be hard Lloyd. Very hard when the other is trying to provoke. I will try though.