I can see how you arrived at that interpretation, but it wasnt what I meant, but thank you.
I can only agree with you, something is better than nothing. I guess if I could sum up my view, it would be that there are lots of things we can do, costing from nothing to a lot, but we should be selective and make choices, and sometimes some of these schemes are not all that they seem. I think it is well worth while including in the debate that there are lots of ways of carbon offsetting. New Scientist ran this week an article simply pointing out that if we all switched off our monitors when streaming music how signifcant the saving would be, and that this is automatically available to premium users already without having to even think about it. Why not everyone was indeed the question.
Being a little cynical I am sure, but I am always a little sceptical about anything that involves simply writing a cheque, sending it somewhere and hoping that the money is used in all the ways advertised.
Is what I interpreted as “get solar panels” (£10,000, 3 month delivery) order electric car (£30,000 9 month delivery) before putting credit card information into webpage (£500, 3 minutes), thus delaying doing something, and putting off many people who have £500 but not £40,000 from doing anything.
Planting trees is a nice thing to do. It certainly helps restoring mother nature from damage done by humans. But does it offset the carbon footprint caused by your usage of fossil fuel? No, it does not. Every gram of CO2 you create by burning fossil fuel, is another gram brought to the surface, and it will never go away. Not unless you capture it and hide it from the surface again.
You have to replace fossil usage by renewable. There is no other way to reduce carbon footprint.
Solar panels, electric cars etc is what it takes. Now, if the CO2 really is that damaging, is another matter entirely.
But by planting more trees, the CO2 is stored for now in those trees. It is not gone, but it buys us time to reverse the trend maybe and work on this energy transition that is needed.
As LeSving says, it’s a cycle. Eventually the tree will die and rot down, releasing carbon; or be burnt, releasing carbon. Tree planting needs to be net positive, and it is an easy way of delaying the problem. Long term, carbon needs to be locked somehow, and I propose using tarmac: we need more hard runways to be built. Airfields are already green areas with plenty of grass and plants, without chemical fertiliser or pesticides. Create more airfields, and tarmac existing grass runways.
I do find planting trees and watching them grow satisfying on a personal level. My parents have a Horse Chestnut hedge I grew from conkers at a very young age.
I’ve made one choice that I think does an enormous amount for the planet and sustainability in general.
Not having children.
Playing devil’s advocate why would you do this if you havent (already)done done and done.
it’s clear where trees end up: firewoodThat’s why I also invest into renewable power, so the trees get a chance to stay put for a couple hundreds of years.
Not having children.Having fewer kids is the largest impact overall.
I am surprised my fellows from Northern Europe are so inclined to feeling guilty for your carbon emissions. This Mother Nature stuff I don’t like at all : saying mankind should have zero impact on Earth is impossible, it leads to wishing the end of human life.
Every one of you think about the 3 Chinese and 3 Indians that « compensate » all your efforts in terms of pollution.
We in France still enjoy life a bit, and still have kids.
What do I do personally : keep an old car/ share cars in the family/take the train when possible/ take as little CAT as possible (because I prefer GA ).
Common sense was the first that got lost with the “environmental movement”. Today it is pure heaven for charlatans, opportunists without scruples and quasi moralists (persons who have stopped believing in God, but still act as if they were the purest of the purest).
LeSving – very well put, thank you.