200
Corporations invested in carbon offsets that were ‘likely junk’, analysis says
(www.theguardian.com)
this post was submitted on 30 May 2024
200 points (100.0% liked)
News
23284 readers
3668 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
We knew that when they were buying them. Carbon offsets are just another way to kick the can down the road past the point of no return.
they knew it too. it is called Greenwashing
Worse, they were pure PR. A way for a company to say "look how green we are, we are offsetting all our emissions!". Which, of course, they did by finding a shady company that "offset" the most for the least amount of money.
I wonder how many times the same tree was paid for by companies to "offset" their CO2.
It doesn't even kick any can down the road. It's throwing cash at a tree while rolling coal.
company. the biggest buyer of credits was the us military. look how green we are by our reports /s.
How many trees were planted based on (O|E)PRs?
ill add the /s for the last line. though it might be complicated since the military being the biggest user is not the sarcasm but the followup line is.
When I was in there was always talk about how if you added up all the "saved $XX million by doing Y" it would come out to multiple times the military's budget. I figured this was the same principle.