DE version is available. Content is displayed in original English for accuracy.
Advertisement
Advertisement
⚡ Community Insights
Discussion Sentiment
100% Positive
Analyzed from 608 words in the discussion.
Trending Topics
#zero#emissions#net#misleading#carbon#don#going#accounting#world#meat
Discussion (16 Comments)Read Original on HackerNews
Title length limits are tough but this is pretty critical context.
Any company that uses it, is doing nothing other than buying a grant to pollute.
But we don't really have cap-and-trade for carbon, so the next best thing is public pressure to be net-zero rather than literally zero.
Because of the de-industrialization of the West.
- feel free to check my history and join the discussion on it
- do you think we ll cut down emissions by 60%?
Or a giant sun shade.
Or perhaps planetary-scale reforesting. But that's more speculative.
We passed the "we need to reduce emissions" marker at least a decade ago.
Emissions don't just need to be reduced, they need to be objectively greenhouse gas negative for a good long while. Meaning centuries.
If that doesn't happen - and it's looking really unlikely - catastrophic change is locked in.
The result will be population destruction at a scale never seen in all of recorded history. That's going to do more to minimise emissions than veganism will.
I can't speak for everyone but I think its beyond time that 'we the people' become empowered and I think the begins with truthful science.
I read an article recently which I will share here shortly about a woman named Elizabeth Bik who has made it their career chasing after fake or untrue scientific publications.
Ita a wild world we are living in. Good to know people are out there fighting for the rest of us.
98% of all recent environmental claims and commitments from the world’s largest meat and dairy companies can be categorized as “greenwashing”, or intentionally misleading
The claim that "ExampleCo will be net zero by 2028" is intentionally misleading if it's going to be an accounting trick rather than an actual real reduction in emmissions within ExampleCo's footprint.
That's aside from many of the carbon offset schemes being bandied about really don't bear much in the way of close scrutiny. The "all talk and ineffectual action" in carbon offsetting is classic greenwashing though, surely?
It’s no more misleading than “my net income was $X” is misleading because my gross income was $X + $Y.
if it's going to be an accounting trick
My intenty there was to distinguish between "net zero as a matter of legitimate above board easy to follow accounting that can be audited (and pass)" and "net zero via a smoke and mirrors accounting deception with a few divide by zeros and some of the same logic from the proof that 1==2".
> but you're not going to convince the cows to stop burping.
Well, no - but you / we can introduce kangaroo gut biota to cows.