One aspect I've never liked about Carbon Offsets is their similarity to Credit Card debt. The carbon is often emitted immediately, yet the offsets can take years to offset that amount of carbon (if, as was pointed out, they actually work). In theory, this can kind of balance out with a sufficient pipeline of new offsets, but as long as the amount of carbon being offset each year is growing, we'll be in a carbon "debt" that we might not be in if less carbon was emitted due to the lack of offsetting opportunities.
Carbon taxes or cap and trade would work just fine. This is just an accounting problem with offsets, it has nothing to do with markets or otherwise: a government would have the same problem with similar incentives.
@@VineFynn Except carbon tax, just increases the price to consumers. It doesn't really change behaviour. Cap and Trade probably has the best chance, but you just know there will be all sorts of accounting and balancing adjustments to allow 'reasonable' growth associated with consumer demand etc. Definitely less open to the blatant manipulation that goes on with credit schemes.
@@Thermalions Increasing the price to consumers reduces demand. So it does change behavior. That's not a bug, it's a feature. They're meant to disincentivise operations that harm the environment, by pricing in the environmental cost that's otherwise left out. Else why do you think companies hate taxes so much? After all, they can pass the price on to consumers for pretty much any tax.
@@Thermalions Also carbon credits also pass the price onto consumers. Either directly by asking consumers to pay it during check out, or just by purchasing them yourself and trying to market yourself as environmentally conscious (typically with higher price cos you're so 'good'). The difference is that the money spent on it is determined by the agent who has most incentive to use the cheapest option possible, as opposed to a third party that ostensibly has a more genuine interest in doing the most good.
Carbon credit offset programs that are based on protecting existing forests have never made sense to me. They have already (over a hundred years or so) absorbed a majority of their carbon from previous human (and natural) activity. If you’re generating carbon emissions today, then offsets should be based on programs that actually sequester equal amounts of carbon at the same rate and in near real time. Same goes for purchasing offset credits from re-forestry programs that effectively say that a tree over its lifetime will on average sequester the carbon I emit today. If I am going to contribute 1 tonne of carbon into the atmosphere in the next month, then my offset program should absorb 1 tonne of carbon in a month (either shortly before or after I actually generated it) - otherwise we’re not doing anything to tackle raising carbon emissions today.
Exactly. The only way to "offset" carbon emissions is by an equal amount of sequestration. Anything that counts prevented emissions is fundamentally not the same. Tax carbon emissions, ignoring offsets, and return that money to the people as dividends (else, it becomes a regressive tax). Then use other tax dollars to invest in direct carbon sequestration projects. Get companies to stop polluting at the source and to stop trying to fudge the numbers through unverifiable carbon accounting schemes.
Protecting existing forests feels a lot like if you broke into my house, picked up my TV to steal, decided not to, and then expected me to thank you for your decision. Like, you created the issue in the first place! You deciding not to be a problem doesn’t mean that I should reward you! Back to forests, this is why I think the most useful thing anyone can do is advocate for their local government to provide shade trees at a low charge to citizens. You get the carbon capture as the tree grows and a carbon reduction as the tree reduces how much heating/cooling the home needs!
Yeah. That is no real offset. It is an offset if you plant trees that absorb CO². But not when you just preserve. That which is not preserved should be counted an as an emission, however. No wonder, a lot of these companies figured out some creative bookkeeping to greenwash themselves. I mean, that is what they always have done. I like the concept of offsetting carbon emissions. But needs to be done correctly. There need to be a proper system in place which is hard to cheat. This is about actually paying for those externalities normally would not pay for. And therefore I do not like it as some voluntary endeavour that is just about optics.
It's way to make more money clearcutting a field, by first selling a carbon offset credit for not clearcutting waiting 10 years, then clearcutting later when the wood will fetch a higher price...
Do they also assume that along with clearcutting the wood is burned? Couldn't a sustainable amount of harvesting along with replanting actually store more carbon if the wood is used to store carbon?
Eh, I still think it's worth making a video to reiterate the point (which Climate Town already made) that even if carbon offsets were properly implemented and regulated, these programs are, at their very best, a cop-out for individuals (and massively-polluting companies) to not change their behavior or dependence on fossil fuels, and instead shunt that responsibility on to...people in developing countries? How morally bankrupt is it to say, "yeah, I fully understand how environmentally catastrophic my penchant for trans-continental airline flights, dependence on automobiles, undying thirst for fast-fashion, and general inability to stop hauling oil out of the Earth and lighting it on fire might be, but rather than modifying my behavior in any meaningful way, I'm going to pretend that it's actually the responsibility of people living in abject poverty to make up for the pollution that I simply MUST generate".
I did the math one time on how many trees a company claimed to plant, and the space required. It was 3x the size of the U.S. And considering there are literally hundreds of these companies, it's not possible or we'd be building tree houses.
Plant trees doesnt matters , the trees always became co2 , in a fire or in 100 year when they die , yuo can try with long life trees but ,they grow very slow , yuo see , the capture co2 must be get capture ,out of the atmosfer ideally next 10.000 years or forever , anything else is GreenWashing😊😊
@@noway8233 I'm critical of these companies. But I wouldn't underestimate plant life either. They've caused a mass extinction event and an ice age. From making our oxygen levels too high. - although seaweed and algae are probably more to blame for those. And in a fire, only a portion gets burned. Soil is mostly organic matter (can be from animals but is mostly made from dead plants), and it's very rare that a fire affects more than the surface. As oxygen is required for the chemical reaction. I'm well aware of green washing. But plants are the one thing that makes the so-called "environmentalists" wrong and their fear tactics "mental." We are far from critical. Greenhouses still benefit by isolating air from the outside and using co2 generators. - if we were that critical, all plants outside would be boosted. And we'd see a boost in growth far before it became toxic... it's like a buffer zone. (BTW I've read the studies on this where they used farmland, which contradicts this. In the study, they didn't even explain what kind of co2 source they used. Or how they differentiated their study from a control, and it didn't even mention having a control. They could've been using "liquid carbon" *cancerous and kills single celled organisms, including beneficial bacteria* and preventing their roots from breathing for all we know. Or they could've tainted the study some other way.) With just humans, chickens, cattle, and sheep. It would roughly take about 17.5 years to breath the volume of air in the atmosphere. - if we didn't have plants/algae, we'd have unsafe levels within about 840 years. Or enough to breath the volume about 48 times. Much less time if we counted all the wild animals... which there are too many variations to calculate population, breath volume, breaths/min to properly add those in. IE I couldn't even find the lung capacity of a raccoon or their breathing frequency.
Don't fall for the Richest Most Greedy People in the worlds lies. They want people to invest in this so they can walk away with your money. Carbon is the basis of life. The Green agenda is the basis of a WEF conspiracy for more money and power. Don't be a 🐑🐑🐑🐑🐑🐑🐑🐑🐑🐑🐑🐑🐑🐑🐑or the big bad wolf dressed in sheep's clothing will eat you.
Plus planting a bunch of new ones means nothing. The plants need to be at different life stages to have the highest positive effect. So a crap ton of new trees is a "little to no change," which is yet another reason this "new tree every time" plan fails to live up to any expectations.
To summarize, carbon offset is a license to pollute. The licensor is trying to make a quick buck while the licensee pays as little as possible to feel good polluting. Great investigative journalism.
However, as other youtube videos have mentioned, one should aim to reduce their own footprint directly AND then find good ways to offset the rest. Planting trees, investing in carbon capture, investing in green energy, all of these things can be done on an individual and institutional level, alongside proven offsetting methods.
@@DudeWhoSaysDeez I’ve always fund it funny after his presidency Bush became extremely eco considerate, his house in Texas recycles everything waste water to food, yet Al Gore is too busy making bank off carbon offsets living in a huge energy inefficient house.
@@DudeWhoSaysDeez that's delusional. Reducing your footprint does nothing for the gigatons of carbon already in the atmosphere and that will continue to be pumped into the atmosphere to support your delusional ecoSeperate lifestyle. There is no "reducing" the carbon crisis. We either have to solve it collectively, or deal with the consequences in their entirety. Not to say there is no solution. The solution itself is quite simple. We just rebuild all the ecosystems we destroyed over about 40% of global land mass. This preserves our place in natural ecosystems, removes all the carbon we have already released into the atmosphere and even allows China to fully Industrialize without modifying global climate. But it takes millions of people performing unskilled human labor tasks. And you think labor is beneath you. So you won't BE the solution. And you don't actually even want one. You just want a convenient way to stop feeling guilty. Like pretending that separating your trash into recycling is good for the environment so you can use those dirty products free of guilt, only for the garbage company to just bury it anyway, or sell it off to developing SEA countries who then dump it directly into the ocean. You're the real problem. But it has nothing to do with your personal carbon footprint. It's your delusional sense of personal value. Your arrogant belief that you are somehow above the natural order. That's the real issue. And the only actual solution is to tear that delusion out of your brain and become part of a living ecosystem again. Starting with Microbes in the soil, and ending with a complete system that supports not only all local wild life, but YOU entirely. As part of that ecosystem. Rather than your delusional perspective as the "beneficiary" of whatever that system is worth if you burn it down and sell the ash.
@@DudeWhoSaysDeez This is how the system works. Offsetting is usually limited to somethign like 5-10% of allowed emissions reductions where the rest must occur via upgrading technology or other means within an industry supply chain. Being able to sell permits that you were allocated but don't need because you've reduced emissions locally provides an economic incentive to reduce emissions.
Super important and very well done video! I desperately want there to be carbon offsets you can buy that are literally only direct air capture or monitored biochar. Seems entirely doable to me, but only if videos like this educate people on why it is necessary.
@@CaptainAlliance "Super Thanks" has been a thing for a while now, but when they introduced it it was really dumb, you could literally only comment the word "Thanks." Glad to see they've improved it, but it still has that terrible name lol.
You desperately want a convenient solution that requires nothing of you personally but small amounts of money that other people give you. That sounds awful. Just sayin. You are killin me with this. You should know better. Compartmentalized carbon reduction doesn't work, and cannot globally scale in time. Collection however is already being done by every plant on the planet. Super important would be understanding that Life already is our globally scalable Carbon Battery. And that a complete Ecosystem is the only viable means of storing atmospheric carbon long term. We need plants to suck the carbon out of the atmosphere, we need animals and insects consuming those plants, we need rich fertile soils full to bursting with microbial life, and we need hundreds of millions of hectares of land being maintained for maximum proliferation of ALL Life. Everything else is an attempt by us to replace that complete and undeniably perfect system with a bargain brand facsimile that will cost more in energy and carbon emissions as individual elements because synergy between them is no longer possible. A complete ecosystem takes carbon from the atmosphere and converts it into life, and then as that life dies it is converted by microbes in the soil into more microbes that then die and slough off deep in the soil. Trapped carbon indefinitely. And of course, as always, I am just a hobo yelling at garbage cans. So I double dog dare you to prove me wrong.
@Arkenist I came here to make the same comment about being in the same circles but I would bet it’s Hank because Hank never signs his comments but John typically does
Oh wow I didn’t know that. Any chance you remember the agency name or can point me to an article? Would love to read it myself and maybe reference it in a later video.
It's sad that people buy scam tokens because they're made to feel guilty about flying. Technology will solve all problems with climate change but this ain't it.
Odd that preserving lands counts as “carbon offset” as the demands driving such deforestation still need to be met and the loss of forested lands will likely be accounted for elsewhere. The increase in deforestation in area b could be said to be directly resulting from “offsets” in area a, assuming the baseline in area a is valid.
100% you cant change the nature of reality. The further the ball is pushed under the water, the greater the force against it becomes to launch it back upwards. Every action has a reaction. The world is incomprehensibly complicated and we are not gods, we need to stop acting like it.
Plus the fact that he just flat out says other countries are lying to America to get billions from our companies. WIN-WIN right? Our rich stay richer with tax write-offs and their country gets a bail out of sorts.
I would've assumed that the "trees" variety of carbon offset would require fostering new forests instead of merely not chopping down existing ones. That's kinda messed up.
Yes this! Where's the logic? It doesn't mean that amount of deforestation was prevented, it just didn't happen at that particular protected area. It's absurd.
And another thing, timber industry could even sell new tree carbon offset for land they were planning to plant anyway for more timber. Net 0. There has to be certification standards or something.
There are two main type of projects, Afforestation which plants new trees and the REDD+, Reduced Emissions through Deforestation and Degredation. One point is that trees that are 100 years old take in way more CO2 than new trees. Afforestation projects are credited for the CO2 the new trees will take up while deforestation gives an economic value to the tree's activity of absorbing carbon, therefore the tree has some value being alive as opposed to being dead.
Yeah, as it was getting described in the video it felt like those groups were holding the land hostage with a gun to its head. Or maybe a mob protection racket. "Gimme your money, or the tree gets it from big evil corpo!" >_>
It's a shell game. Old-school Abrahamic Desert People economics. Just keep switching up the position of the 'bad' under different names and 'credits', and people think the, 'bad' is solved and goes away? lol. No. It's Financial and Political gymnastics at it's worst.
The company I work for offsets carbon on products we import AND the shipping to customers. The "something terrible" is something everyone, everywhere, does on a weekly basis.
@@roymarshall_ i do. I like to eat lots of oatmeal everyday. About 20 stoves worth, but i have more. You can make many different kinds of oatmeal, you know? My favorite, however, is a simple sweet and salty in whole milk. Or maybe I'll make a cheesy bowl for dinner, and chocolate bowl for dessert. There's many variations. If I'm trying to be healthy, i add fruits to my oatmeal. Sometimes I'll be exotic and add something like bacon, which requires more stoves to precook, since 20 are being used for oatmeal.
I’m generally suspicious of anything that relies on “public guilt” to function. The reason markets work is because of the producer/consumer model where each agent can become a producer or consumer. In this market, I don’t see what the delivery is. It’s essentially the sale of indulgences.
Only solution imo is hard regulations on emissions and pollution combined with government agencies that undertake reforestation/remediation/adaptation work
its an attempt to reduce externalities not calculated in market price but more realistically from public realations or "social bottom line" investment budgets of companies at this time
I feel like there's a pretty obvious immediate problem in that preserving a forest isn't really taking carbon out of the air, at least not much, it's rather just preventing more from being emitted. So like they aren't actually offsetting their carbon emissions they're just preventing an equal amount more from being emitted but like that's not how this works, you can't prevent further damage and then claim you're healing the damage that already happened. Actual carbon offset surely should involve buying up former clear cut forest and then replanting a forest there to create new carbon sinks.
Exactly this. The single most carbon negative industry in the world is the lumber industry. They plant trees to cut down to be turned into housing material, and do it again and again. Lumber that is in a house is not putting carbon back into the air and every tree that is grown and replanted pulls thousands of pounds of carbon out of the air.
Correct! This trick is called "avoided emissions" and it isn't recognized by the SBTI (Science-Based Targets Institute) and other standards as a legitimate carbon reduction. Mark Carney and Brookfield got in trouble for doing just that, saying they reduced the company's emissions because they could've invested in more coal companies but chose not to, and therefore reduced their footprint. Capitalists will do anything to not actually have to reduce their production or emissions
@@Kyrinson ya this isn't really true though. Forests are far more than the trees that are logged, and clear-cutting often removes shrubs and other smaller plants that contribute to the carbon sequestration of the forest as a whole. When logging companies replant the trees they cut, they don't restore the rest of the ecosystem, and the 70 year timelines they are working within don't allow for proper forest succession to develop. This is especially problematic with the old growth forests in Canada, the Amazon, etc.
I think that’s factored into the „additionality“, i.e. it has to be a forest that would have been destroyed otherwise. That’s what he means with baseline. Climate models assume some kind of development for their predictions. Cutting fewer trees than assumed in these models means we’re effectively offsetting the negative development predicted by that model.
“Donate $50 and save a life!” “Really, how?” “If you donate, I promise I won’t kill a random person. I wasn’t going to anyway, but you can take credit for saving them if you donate.”
Please don’t become jaded as to the REAL benefits of charity. Please look into the effective altruism movement or the work of Will MacAskill or “The Life You Can Save” by Peter Singer. Not all charities are created equal and you do have the power to improve the world.
Most charities. In the donation business model, people don't care about how efficiently or how effective the charity is. They just care about getting their donation feel good badge. So charities aren't constrained by an incentive to actually do anything well... Just continue existing and maybe even put money into advertising to get more donations. Businesses ARE the best charities. They are constrained by customer wants, which actually puts a good selective pressure on businesses, and then everyone involved, the customer, business coordinator, employees, stockholders all benefit, which then they can go and spend however they ant. That's the best model for charity and doing good.
I've seen a lot of airlines or other very carbon-intensive companies use carbon offset, and I always felt like it is just Greenwashing. Though I never read into it so it remained a hunch...until today. This video was a major eye-opener.
@@ArawnOfAnnwn they have demand from genuine environmentally conscious organisations. It also requires critical thinking on behalf of the consumer, if you're able to 'offset' a long haul flight for under $10 something is off
well, its dumb to give these companies an easy way out with this instead of cracking down on them to lower carbon. if someone had a bad muffler, you wouldnt tell them to just not drive that often, you would want them to replace it.
The Jet Lag videos specifically indicate in the description that the offsets are going through The Gold Standard to replace traditional cookstoves. Clearly their research in figuring out how best to offset the carbon of their travel was what spurred and informed this video, especially considering it's overtly described in the middle bit.
Carbon offsets typically overstate by 3x to 4x so Jet Lag offsets by 10x to make sure that they’re actually making a difference. By saying 10x, they’re not trying to boast, they’re trying to make sure they’re making a difference. they also use gold standard cook stove carbon offsets which are held to much stricter standard than the United Nations one.
I've been highly suspicious of ostensible carbon offsets since they were first brought to public attention. I was concerned with both the sheer difficulty in calculating/tracking them as well as the potential for fraud. This video showed me those concerns were well founded. But then the video took a turn; I was so happy to learn about the cookstove approach! At last, a way to do this right! But alas. I think society needs to completely abandon carbon offsets, now. The approach needs to be to reduce carbon emissions where we are using them. Nuclear, solar, and wind generation need to replace fossil fuels.
You misunderstand. Crude oil will still be extracted as will coal, but not for fuel. There are many things that are made from coal and oil, and sometimes they get burned, releasing the carbon into the atmosphere.
@@hugehappygrin7425 Considering how much easier it is to produce a lot of polymers from oil than natural ressources it almost feels like a waste to burn the oil directly.
I still remember the first time the concept of carbon offset was introduced to me. I immediately dismissed it as equivalent to purchasing an indulgence, this apparently made me a climate change denier. I purchased a modestly sized home within walking distance of work and a grocery store, and buy used things when I can. Other people purchased offsets while purchasing massive amounts of tomorrow's landfill. One of these paths gives someone imagined bragging rights, the other actually accomplishes something.
Well, your reasoning of "dismissed it as purchasing an indulgence" was wrong, so yeah, people criticise wrong reasonings. The problem isn't with the theory, it's with the practice as you could see if you actually listened to the video. Carbon offsets suck, but for entirely different reasons than you propose
@@rojirrim7298 Get off your high horse, I did watch the video to the end, I just take the conclusions farther than they did. Carbon credits are a fundamentally broken concept. Wendover try to put a "ironing the creases out" perspective on this but that severely down plays the problem.
Instead of just blaming the companies who invest in this, focus also on the nature conservancy NGOs that start these proposals too. I have been in the guts of not for profit world to understand how insincere a lot of these programs are and how little oversight is involved in measuring impact.
Good point. I'd say also that, in this video as many others talking about this topic, we find a fast tracked road to blame the poor and needy who are trying to make ends meet and using what they can to feed their families and make an income. We, the rich nations should lead by example and that we fail too it seems.
I have worked as an auditor under the CDM mechanism of the UNFCCC and have audited about 50 projects of various types. You have really done great research for this video. But your conclusion is too carefully phrased. In my experience, all projects overestimate their emission savings. And the main reason often lies in the methodologies that the UNFCCC has come up with. Many of these methodologies contain not only loopholes but outright insanity. I remember a meeting at the secretariat in Bonn, Germany, where people openly questioned whether additionality itself should even be mandatory, as you would be able to register more projects without it and thus "do even more for the environment"... Whenever I tell people of my experience though, the only thing that has changed is that some of them now intentionally buy cook stove credits as those are less shitty than the rest. :-/
Can you tell me, literally anything, about the carbon density of soil in a thriving complete ecosystem as it compares to the depleted soil left behind by Industrial Agriculture? And do have the relevant education or experience required to understand the thousands of inferences I just made in asking this very simple and unassuming question? Because what I can see, among these comments, and within yours as well, is a lack of education and understanding, supported by claims of technical and professional reference. It makes me wonder. You all seem very focused on trees, but the real carbon battery is in the ground. Plants are just the suction device... The leaves, the needles, the temporary bodies these organisms drop year in and year out they just rot in open air and put carbon back into the atmosphere. It's like you're all out here trying to define the value of a solar power generator, but you've based all of your research on the solar panels. What about the inverter and the charger and the batteries and the efficiency of the media to transmit energy to the load? Why are all of you "so called" experts only talking about one isolated part of a system that is VASTLY more complex, and pretending like you have answer?
@@ZennExile not every auditor needs to be an expert in every methodology. It’s well known though that the CDM methodologies are poor though. You’ll find plenty of soil carbon experts working in carbon markets
@@TIMAAYx the problem Tim, is you cannot compartmentalize soil systems from plant and animal systems while maintaining the carbon battery of Life. We have to create a complete ecosystem, a complete model, or none of the carbon will stay in that system and it won't be sustainable. If you focus on any part independently you just release more carbon into the atmosphere. If you're just trying to work with soil microbes, and waste, you're part of the problem. But if you're also working with trees, plants, worms, insects, and grazing mammals in a system designed to support human life through "excess production", you reduce overall atmospheric carbon. And you do it on a large enough scale, then there is no more carbon crisis. Do you understand? Systems Science is what's absolutely required here. No individual part of the whole is beneficial. They have to be combined.
What's your opinion on direct carbon air capture projects like ClimeWorks? Those seem like the gold standard to me. Yes it's expensive, but what do people expect? If climate change were cheap to fix, we'd already have fixed it.
@@ZennExile youre right. This is a complex system that will require many experts to contribute their knowledge in order to create a viable solution. Calling people out on UA-cam isn't helping though. That guy literally was just saying "yeah ive audited 50 projects and they all overestimated how much carbon they would offset" thats it. Yeah it's a complex system, and we need to come up with a solution thats viable. A complex and wholistic solution will take years to impliment and will likely have unintended consequences (like everything else). However, simple steps can over time contribute to a complex solution. Like helping poor people use less fuel to meet their daily needs by giving them an improved wood stove. Sure they'll use multiple stoves to cook faster, and maybe those stoves will break before offsetting the carbon cost to make the stove, but at the end of the day it's a simple step that will go towards fixing the greater problem.
Sam on Jet-Lag: We are using Carbon Offsets to offset all of our flights for this video Sam on Wendover: Carbon offsets are a lie and a scam and are not real
The thesis of the video is that carbon offsets can be effective, but that the market-based system through which they're sold incentivizes ineffective/scam offsets. We offset Jet Lag 10x over to be sure that it can't be made ineffective by offset being overstated (the most we've seen in large cases is 3-4x overstating) and we also use cookstove replacement offsets certified by the Gold Standard (which has stricter requirements for accounting and oversight than the United Nations, for example.)
@@Wendoverproductions Still, your thumbnail writes in the most general of ways “Carbon Offsets are a scam”. As explained by your own comment, this isn’t necessarily always true. Many people will read the thumbnail and simply take your word for it without watching.
This video only served to reinforced what I already thought about carbon offsets. Scammers incentivised to create credits out of dodgy maths, which ultimately causes companies/individuals to create *more* pollution because "we can just offset it later". Rather than trying to buy off their sins with credits, companies/individuals should invest in practices/technologies to *actually* lower their own footprints
@@OGPatriot03 Wendover actually mentions carbon capture in the video. In the long-term, artificial carbon capture is a good idea, as it could help to fix our climate, but if not done in conjunction with actually lowering our carbon footprint, it will just serve the same purpose as carbon credits
Offsetting is limited to something like 5-10% of what industries are allowed to submit for emission reductions. 90% or so of reductions must occur on site or within the supply chains which mean that offsetting is just a small flexibility mechanism to allow emission reductions to occur in the point of least cost within the market mechanism.
Please don’t go there. The people pushing this dribble have an ideological axe to grind with markets in general. The benefits of actual programs are secondary to them. Objectively, this is a good system that has been proven to work. It’s just that it relies on accountability to work. Any other carbon reduction scheme will ultimately have the exact same problem if there isn’t accountability! You want to throw away the baby with the bath water here.
One of the best ways to sequester carbon is to change how we grow food. Monocropped, annual/fallow/bareground, chemical input ag degrades soil and contributes to uncreased CO². Overgrazing and CAFOs are also part of the destructive model. Biome-appropriate, polycultured, alley-cropped perennials, trees, vines and shrubs improve soils, hydrological cycles, provide a lot more feed and food than conventional methods and with more inherent resiliency. It creates better plant, animal, and food diversity; relocalizes resources; adds efficiency, etc. This is the only carbon capture scheme I would invest in...
This video got cited in the latest episode of last week tonight, which is such a great proof for the credibility and the quality this channel insists on for each of its video. Great job, Sam!
It's more insidious than that....At root, this is companies trying to game their ESG score (social credit score), to attract investors, who happen to be big pension funds. So, the companies with high ESG scores, get to manage all the world assets, and thus have all the power in the world, yet they are unaccountable, unelected, self defined elite.
Corporations pretending to have moral values, pretending to have advocacies, pretending to care about the people; this problem is as old as I can remember. The sad thing is some people actually believes these PR statements.
that is all it accomplishes. which does nothing to actually fix the problem. making people feel better without making the problem better is eally bad totally useless and most definitely a scam.
@@scottmcshannon6821 it's been that way since the beginning, and goes mich further back than energy efficient appliances, carbon credits, or saving trees. The recylcing industry for plastic and e-waste was never profitable enough for industries to be serious about it. Some plastics can't be recycled, and many electronics are too cumbersome to dispose of properly. Recycling now is basically industries blaming consumers for buying their trash.
@@HH-ru4bj Seconded. And trying to explain to one's friends that most 'recycling' is nothing more than alternative disposal - often at a greater environmental and financial cost than traditional disposal - seems to fall on deaf ears.
Good video. I do think anyone that has looked at carbon credits have already realized the hoax and understand how it is not reducing net emissions or climate change. Carbon credits should only be allowed for NEW green energy (nuclear, wind, solar, hydro) or electric solutions (products or processes that would have otherwise been carbon driven) and governments should be seeking to prevent deforestation and nature preservation outside of carbon credits, like for recreational and public use. Edit: Should add carbon capture to the list for carbon credits, but only processes that activity capture and store carbon. Not those akin to the videos subject; nature preservation, etc.
@@TheEventHorizon909 That refers to a different phenomenon: moving pollution heavy factories/processes to, typically poor, countries with weak environmental protections.
@@christianhumer3084 I forgot that in my original comment. Add carbon capture (actual carbon capture through processes and not nature because then we’re back to the video) to the list above for carbon credits. Through green energy and electrification, we can curb the production of green house gases. Through carbon capture, we can bring us back to a normal CO2 PPM.
Its almost like the only thing you control is your own life and your own day to day decisions. Its as if you can’t just donate away the world’s problems. SHOCKING!
We have plenty of woodlands that actually need protecting, they could do it right if they wanted. I see local woodlands cleared all the time for new developments, it saddens me to see once large swaths of green space flattened and paved over. They could protect this space but instead focus on areas that were never under threat anyway.
Well, they would be more expensive, since they have an use case for economic application. These already protected forests have economically speaking little value, just some running cost. So lower investment needed.
I agree. I used to live mostly in the woods…until almost all of it disappeared. To solve my personal problem, I acquired 20 acres of woods in the mountains near the National Forrest. Not going to lose my woodland retreat again.
Part of the problem is poor land allocation (particularly in North America), we gotta stop building suburbs, or at least tighten those suburbs up so that we can fit more houses per acre. Building more medium and high density housing is also going to be important. My old city has a population of over 100,000 and yet 90% of the housing is all suburbs. The remaining 10% is medium density apartment complexes (often labeled high density even though its no where near as dense as other places) and as a result the city sprawls in every direction requiring forest and farmland to be turned into housing. Unfortunately, since a lot of the land has already been allocated and is being inhabited, you can't undo the single-family zoning, all you can do is push to make the zoning code more flexible and make all new allocated areas denser.
"they could do it right if they wanted" this is true but very difficult to implement in places like Brazil, Cambodia, or Indonesia. Offsetting is a way to make a tree worth valuable alive than dead.
Love to see all the support for this video and to see it quoted on Last Week Tonight! Amazing to think how television is using UA-cam as one of their sources, and with the quality of these videos it was only about time
Please. Please raise Awareness: i am baffled by how little Shout-Outs Climate-Change-Covering UA-camrs give each Other! And thats not even mentioning extending this to Channels like 'Some More News' who do great work in adressing Issues, including but not limited to Water-Shortages and Droughts and what the normal peopel can do about it.
From an article at The Globe and Mail featuring Sam Denby (Wendover): "He researched various options and settled on Gold Standard, a platform co-founded by the World Wildlife Fund. Any programs it features conform to standards higher than those set by the United Nations, and to ensure margin for error, “we offset 10 times more carbon than we were estimated to emit,” Denby said."
I’ve always seen carbon offsets as nothing more than a way for corporations to say “hey, yeah, sure, we’re doing a really bad thing pumping all these toxic fumes everywhere, but look, we paid someone to plant a bunch of trees in a south american jungle that already exists, so it’s fiiiiiiine; it *totally* balances out.” It’s been b.s. from the beginning - humanity’s damage is too extensive to ever be able to be truly offset.
Impressed with the investigation and how logical the arguments are. Reminds me of the old adage "Keep it simple Bob" which we used to bandy around the studio at architectural school many years ago. A carbon offset is just giving industry an excuse to continue polluting. Industry's track record regarding environmental concerns in the 20th century is really bad. To acknowledge a real commitment to resolving global warming and the climate crisis and how quickly things are getting worse, industries such as those involved with extracting or distributing fossil fuels, tobacco, logging, and industrialized farming should be making major visible contributions to decrease greenhouse gas emissions without the convenience of a "tax receipt".
Ayyy one of my favorite UA-camrs doing a video on my area of work. Sweet. I develop carbon sequestrating soil amendments, and I end up having to explain to at least one person a day that carbon markets are a scam.
@@dann5480 improving a soils ability to drawdown carbon, and boost the soil webs ability to flourish for wildlife is not a scam. The measurement and credit system of carbon is a scam.
I’m involved in some development of a market for offshore carbon sequestration. So this was really insightful and I will definitely be urging caution to my higher-ups.
the companies selling carbon credits have higher ups are doing this on purpose. If you think anyone with 50 acres of trees and wouldn't try to get away with taking money for "conservation" you're crazy. after watching this video im going to look into what it takes to sell them myself to not run my lawn mower.😂
You're already wasting money if you are researching offshore carbon sequestration. LIFE is already the Carbon Battery. Microbes in the soil, plants, animals, birds, and bees. Even your literal ass is made of mostly Carbon. The solution to the problem is too vast for artificial sequestration. It would take too long and require too much effort to sequester the gigatons of excess carbon we put into the atmosphere. The scale problem is insurmountable within the time frame. If we had started working on this technology a century ago it would still be too late. However, Life is infinitely scalable. With limited technological requirements and unskilled human labor, Living Ecosystems can form a global network of Carbon Storage. And bonus, we actually have enough time use this method to avoid hitting 1.5C We don't have to let humanity pay the price for JP Morgan, the Rockefeller family, and the various other psychopathic wealth consolidator's greed. We can immediately erase their poisoned legacy from human history and in doing so create an entirely new future. One built on a foundation of Life. But you're not interested in real solutions are you? Otherwise, you'd bother asking what this solution is and how it works. You won't. It's not convenient to have to ask a question and it's a threat to your ego to admit you are wrong, so, you'll just pretend you never read this.
@@JMCLoader I'm talking permanent geologic storage of carbon dioxide which is a much more tangible carbon sink than "preserving" forests. I'm mostly worried about accidentally creating a market which incentivizes more carbon emissions if we don't balance this right. I'm also confident my higher-ups are acting in good faith, fortunately. But my higher-ups have higher-ups who I'm certain are not... Congress.
I’ve always had a problem with carbon offsetting ever since I heard of it. The way it was described to me seemed like an excuse to produce more carbon emissions by big corporations. I feel like we should demand that they stop treating our planet like trash so they can live in absurd luxury. It’s ridiculous to me. Thanks for this extensive video about the project and truth of carbon offsetting.
@@seinarukishi9228 that is a really stupid argument to make for being pro mega cooperations. Lets assume your statement is even correct why does it even matter? And you can't even live without devices like that in todays world
@@divat10 You very well could live without them. You wouldn’t be as successful without them though. It matters because you don’t practice what you preach.
@@LSDOvideos Do you have any brain cells left in there? The businesses that provide those cause plenty of emissions. The batteries for his phone, the precious metals, the factories, the transportation, and the list goes on.
I always thought carbon offsetting was a scam, but I gave it the benefit of assuming it was planting new trees. The trees they are protecting have already absorbed carbon, you need to add more trees to remove *new* carbon, i.e. actually offset them. Or companies could actually, you know, reduce their emissions
I'm sitting here, watching at the 14:00 mark and I just cannot bear the dread of the impending "but there is a problem with funding improved cook tops". I want this to be a worthwhile charity so much, please! I dread pushing the play button again.
then you are creating an illusion that you are doing yourself no good by continuing to uphold. you are contributing to your own misinformation by lying to yourself in this way. you will push that play button and face the harsh reality, remove the wool from your eyes and see how truly awful and unforgiving this cruel world is. if you don't, you are lying to yourself to keep yourself happy. do not do this. push that play button NOW.
Well, it IS a worthwhile humanitarian charity. The positive effects for the people who receive a cooktop is undeniable, and these benefits do spread to the environment around them, BUT it is no environmental silver bullet. The biggest issue is that people who buy the shares are more willing to emit carbon even beyond what this charity can truly offset.
I'm a big fan of _actual_ carbon offsets that do precisely that: offset carbon For instance, planting a thousand acres of trees where almost no trees are. Even if it's a lumber company that's doing the planting ... as long as the trees remain for 30-50 years (or longer), it's a net benefit to the environment. Especially if the trees harvested in 30-50 years will be replanted. But paying to _not cut_ trees that aren't going to be cut anyway? That shouldn't even be allowed. It does nothing positive for the environment. It's pointless.
there are areas with no trees and it is a good thing - a special biotope for some species that can´t exist anywhere else. you plant trees over them, you destroy the biotope, the species go extinct, the diversity goes down. planting trees looks good, but it's nowhere near the solution of our current problems.
@@dos.2168 Exactly. People are not considering the water those trees use, and what they may drown out. My thought on this is don't plant trees for carbon capture, plant them because that area used to have them, or it will look good, or erosion or whatever for good landscaping. Then we will be thinking about if trees should go there or not. Then the resources to make them grow can be discussed, and carbon retention will be so low on the impact they make, that its a side effect. Just take care of the land, whatever the CO2 cost as we won't do better by playing these fake carbon credit games that fool people. Classic example is this anti-gas stove movement. Pure Tom foolery.
@@michelelindseth8250 Its not that simple. Hard problems are that way. Just planting trees anywhere you want is not appropriate as they take resources too.
From a carbon standpoint, it would seem as though clearing forests for development is a much bigger problem than clearing forests for logging. In the case of logging, so long as the wood goes into buildings, the carbon is still sequestered. The wood can also replace steel, which is very carbon-intensive to make. Plus, after the logging is done, new trees start growing, so the land continues to suck more carbon out of the atmosphere. Logging for development is different. The wood is thrown away or burned, since it's not cost effective to take logs to a lumber mill if they're the wrong kind of tree or not big enough. And, once the land is paved over, it will never be used as a carbon sink again. So, the value of a carbon offset on a patch of forest depends on only on assumptions as to whether or not the forest would have been logged. It also depends on assumptions about what would have replaced the land if it did get logged - whether the answer is houses, parking lots, farmland, or a new forest, makes a big difference.
In Canada, all logged areas are immediately replanted. The number of trees the government said they were going to plant over 5 years was less than logging companies already plant every year.
@@ab-tf5fl I don't think they were referring to forest fires, but the trees that are being chopped for housing being burned because its not cost effective to take them to a lumber mill. I guess it would be like paying someone to go to the effort of taking it to a lumber mill to be used instead of discarded.
While getting safer and more efficient cooking stoves into the homes of families in impoverished or underdeveloped areas might not be the most effective or efficient climate activism initiative, it is still a brilliant humanitarian initiative, so that's still at least a partial win.
So important! While individually focusing on reducing carbon emissions is admirable, the real change should come from holding big corporations accountable, and not letting ourselves soak up the blame and keep enabling them to destroy our world right under our noses…
I never actually spent time thinking about carbon offset on whether it works or not until i watched this video i thank this channel for giving me a reason to learn more bout it and debate with myself
I understand that the cookstove replacement offsets can be good but I find it pretty hypocritical that we, as 1st world country citizens who demand high carbon lifestyles as a basic necessity are not necessary demanding, but expecting some of the poorest people with the least amount of infrastructure, opportunities and smallest carbon footprint to cover our carbon footprint. I feel like we just expect that people who live in 3rd world countries are just content with their lifestyle and don't want to constantly have a better quality of life unlike us who demand a higher quality of life and expect things to only get better and not stop getting better. Some like to point the finger at rich people for our problems but to people in poor countries we are the rich people and we are doing exactly the same thing as the rich people in 1st world countries do to us.
exactly! i live in india and here the average person 1st world country is automatically as rich as an elite here. so i don't know why we are supposed to offset our carbon when a person from a rich country is emitting 10x more co2.
That's what I thought. One downside they name is that the more efficient cook stoves are used to cook more. While that doesn't help the environment, it certainly sounds good for the people there. "Oh no they use our carbon system to have a better life."
Because as this video points out, the whole thing is a giant scam to make people feel better, while some people profit from the better feelings. Any net benefit that results is mearly a side effect.
This is the fundamental problem with carbon credits. The richest nations, who have emitted the most and will suffer the least, are asking the poorest nations to bear the consequences now and later, all while further enriching a few. It’s a symptom of delusion..
John Oliver quoted you on his last episode (i thought you liked to know we noticed ;)). Then you know you are ahead of the curve and doing great research and presenting it nicely. Great job all these years and i am glad you are growing in subs and content quality :)
Yep, it was great to see a clip of this video being used on Last Week Tonight's video covering carbon offsets. As soon as the clip started playing, I was like "I know that voice..."
I find John Oliver intensely irritating, because ALL his videos always quickly boil down to: socialism&liberalism good, WASP & capitalism/conservatism bad.
The carbon credit system reminded me a lot from the beginning of the system of indulgences that allowed wealthy (Roman Catholic) believers to buy off their sins.
Excellent, thank you. "Ethical" consumption is a matter of trust for almost everybody. You can´t actually research everything you buy and even for the things you can; you have to, for the most part, trust the research, that exists. Can´t exactly peer review it, unless you´re one of a very few of the field and have the time and resources. So; Forget it. Rather; Consider what you actually, really, need. Give yourself a fun and luxury budget. Save the rest, invest it safely. Bonus: Could make you happier, too.
i have been hiking around hawk mountain for 40 years and on one side of the mountain they went in and just picked out some trees to trim from the forest they took them to make lumber, but the forest was barely touched it just thinned out old trees, so the young trees grew faster
LOL I'm honestly surprised this needed to have a video - anyone above the midwit level should have worked this out almost immediately. So bravo on taking the time to do so.
The cookstove part had lots of interesting information that I didn't know about. The carbon offset part I just had never thought about too much. But as you said: anybody interested would have reasoned that (those conclusions) out.
I actually looked up the jet lag carbon offset org. And they do it by decreasing emissions in developing countries, by tech upgrades, thereby preventing an equivalent carbon output. (In theory).
This is probably the reason for the 10x: as long as the actual offset is more than 10% of what was promised, they will actually have offset more than they emitted
@@NGCAnderopolis goldstandard, the certification company jetlag uses, was also mentioned in this video as requiring more stringent standards for cook stove programs.
I have to wonder how many of the companies are actually trying to offset their carbon vs just boosting their public image. This also would lead to more scam types since the buyer wouldn't even care if the offset that they purchased is actually doing what it claims to do
I also wonder how common a "sincere altruist-to-corrupted moneygrabber" pipeline is among those groups. I know I've heard stories about that, whether from news articles or full fledged documentaries, but I wonder what that looks like taken as a whole.
Burning wood isn't necessarily bad for the atmosphere - Forests store carbon only to a certain point. Once they have maximum foilage the emissions from the rotting biomass equal the carbon stored in new plants. So burning wood out of fully utilized forests is effectively carbon neutral, as new carbon can now be stored in the woods place.
Therefore, clear-cutting actually is carbon negative since you remove the solid lumber and store it in construction, building, etc. Then the new forest grows and reaches maximum foliage again.
I travel a lot for my work and am deeply frustrated by carbon offsets. Many of my clients will gladly pay a carbon offset for flying me out to them, and only one in the past 5 years has told me about carefully researching which one they purchased. I live in the US, which has few good alternatives to air travel. I can take our national train, which has a bunch of problems, the biggest being that it only reaches a fraction of the country. My current plan is to push clients for virtual work, but only some of them will accept this, even with steep price discounts.
You are my hero. The methods for reducing CO2 emissions from random sources, for decades at time, and selling the credits, are mostly a scam. There are too many optimistic assumptions. Just build some moodern nuclear power plants, and you can generate great certifiable amounts of carbon credits. Thank you for this video! Regards, Anthony
As someone from Mexico bigger lane highways can actually help traffic, on teh city i live we have 2 4 lane highways that wroked really well, until the goverment changed how the traffic moved between the highways and the it became a mess, how it worked is that you have this 2 highways separated from a river and they were 2 directional 4 lane highways , and the highways have conections between them with bridges so you could freely move between them and unless there was something like a traffic accident there wasn't any traffic jams, but them the goverment got the idea to make that both highwyas can only move in one direction so now you practically have a two 8 lane highways with a lot of traffic, people has been begging to return to how it was in the past, but the goverment already spent money on infrastructure to connect the 2 highways because obviously a lot of the old bridges and crosses became useless when they did that sonthey needed to make new ones,and all of that money wasted to have worse traffic, no is not the number of lanes, is how you implement them, in the past the highways in my city were really well impemented and worked perfecly then they fucked it over.
@@BB_Sebring so what should dictate decision making? The government? The NGO's that are responsible for the failed experiments in this video? Y'all always have so much to say, but not a single feasable solution.
Aren't you currently doing a carbon offset with Jet Lag? Lol. Maybe this is a good joke and I'll watch the video. BRB. Edit: watched the video. A brief mention that there are some good ones. I'm going to assume that Jet Lag the Game is using a good one
Yup, and that's a lot of the reason I made this video. You couldn't have watched it all yet so I know you don't know this yet (and that's fine,) but the thesis of the video is that carbon offsets can be effective, but that the market-based system through which they're sold incentivizes ineffective/scam offsets. We offset Jet Lag 10x over to be sure that it can't be made ineffective by offset being overstated (the most we've seen in large cases is 3-4x overstating) and we also use cookstove replacement offsets certified by the Gold Standard (which has stricter requirements for accounting and oversight than the United Nations, for example.)
The Nature Conservancy is an excellent organization that has done much to preserve forest lands, which are important carbon sinks. Studies have determined that it takes at least 20yrs for a freshly planted forest to actually take up more carbon that it emits. Any effort to preserve existing old forests needs to be incentivized. I will continue to give money to Nature Conservancy, not for the carbon offsets, but just because I think they do good things.
That was my thought as well. At least the Nature Conservancy selling credits on already conserved land is raising money for even more land purchases (their entire purpose for existing). So that one isn't a scam necessarily, just not as effective as stated.
@@graham1034 I think you might want to watch the video again. Carbon offsets via Nature Conservancy can be wholly ineffective, or worse, have a net negative impact.
@@mechanomics2649 I meant it's better than the outright for profit scams. The overall point of the video is fully valid. Even for the Nature Conservancy example. For people looking to donate to a good cause I'd recommend them though.
One aspect I've never liked about Carbon Offsets is their similarity to Credit Card debt. The carbon is often emitted immediately, yet the offsets can take years to offset that amount of carbon (if, as was pointed out, they actually work). In theory, this can kind of balance out with a sufficient pipeline of new offsets, but as long as the amount of carbon being offset each year is growing, we'll be in a carbon "debt" that we might not be in if less carbon was emitted due to the lack of offsetting opportunities.
Insisting on addressing existential problems like climate change with market mechanisms will be the end of our present society.
Carbon taxes or cap and trade would work just fine. This is just an accounting problem with offsets, it has nothing to do with markets or otherwise: a government would have the same problem with similar incentives.
@@VineFynn Except carbon tax, just increases the price to consumers. It doesn't really change behaviour. Cap and Trade probably has the best chance, but you just know there will be all sorts of accounting and balancing adjustments to allow 'reasonable' growth associated with consumer demand etc. Definitely less open to the blatant manipulation that goes on with credit schemes.
@@Thermalions Increasing the price to consumers reduces demand. So it does change behavior. That's not a bug, it's a feature. They're meant to disincentivise operations that harm the environment, by pricing in the environmental cost that's otherwise left out. Else why do you think companies hate taxes so much? After all, they can pass the price on to consumers for pretty much any tax.
@@Thermalions Also carbon credits also pass the price onto consumers. Either directly by asking consumers to pay it during check out, or just by purchasing them yourself and trying to market yourself as environmentally conscious (typically with higher price cos you're so 'good'). The difference is that the money spent on it is determined by the agent who has most incentive to use the cheapest option possible, as opposed to a third party that ostensibly has a more genuine interest in doing the most good.
Carbon credit offset programs that are based on protecting existing forests have never made sense to me. They have already (over a hundred years or so) absorbed a majority of their carbon from previous human (and natural) activity. If you’re generating carbon emissions today, then offsets should be based on programs that actually sequester equal amounts of carbon at the same rate and in near real time. Same goes for purchasing offset credits from re-forestry programs that effectively say that a tree over its lifetime will on average sequester the carbon I emit today. If I am going to contribute 1 tonne of carbon into the atmosphere in the next month, then my offset program should absorb 1 tonne of carbon in a month (either shortly before or after I actually generated it) - otherwise we’re not doing anything to tackle raising carbon emissions today.
Exactly. The only way to "offset" carbon emissions is by an equal amount of sequestration. Anything that counts prevented emissions is fundamentally not the same. Tax carbon emissions, ignoring offsets, and return that money to the people as dividends (else, it becomes a regressive tax). Then use other tax dollars to invest in direct carbon sequestration projects. Get companies to stop polluting at the source and to stop trying to fudge the numbers through unverifiable carbon accounting schemes.
Protecting existing forests feels a lot like if you broke into my house, picked up my TV to steal, decided not to, and then expected me to thank you for your decision.
Like, you created the issue in the first place! You deciding not to be a problem doesn’t mean that I should reward you!
Back to forests, this is why I think the most useful thing anyone can do is advocate for their local government to provide shade trees at a low charge to citizens. You get the carbon capture as the tree grows and a carbon reduction as the tree reduces how much heating/cooling the home needs!
Yeah. That is no real offset. It is an offset if you plant trees that absorb CO². But not when you just preserve. That which is not preserved should be counted an as an emission, however. No wonder, a lot of these companies figured out some creative bookkeeping to greenwash themselves. I mean, that is what they always have done.
I like the concept of offsetting carbon emissions. But needs to be done correctly. There need to be a proper system in place which is hard to cheat. This is about actually paying for those externalities normally would not pay for. And therefore I do not like it as some voluntary endeavour that is just about optics.
It's way to make more money clearcutting a field, by first selling a carbon offset credit for not clearcutting waiting 10 years, then clearcutting later when the wood will fetch a higher price...
Do they also assume that along with clearcutting the wood is burned? Couldn't a sustainable amount of harvesting along with replanting actually store more carbon if the wood is used to store carbon?
Lol we were just writing a video with this same title and thesis. I think you said it all though! Nice job Sam and team.
i totally need your opinion on this, like fr what would i do without it
“The agonies of parallel creation” - CGP Grey
it's the man himself
We need as much on this topic as we can get! So keep writing!
Eh, I still think it's worth making a video to reiterate the point (which Climate Town already made) that even if carbon offsets were properly implemented and regulated, these programs are, at their very best, a cop-out for individuals (and massively-polluting companies) to not change their behavior or dependence on fossil fuels, and instead shunt that responsibility on to...people in developing countries? How morally bankrupt is it to say, "yeah, I fully understand how environmentally catastrophic my penchant for trans-continental airline flights, dependence on automobiles, undying thirst for fast-fashion, and general inability to stop hauling oil out of the Earth and lighting it on fire might be, but rather than modifying my behavior in any meaningful way, I'm going to pretend that it's actually the responsibility of people living in abject poverty to make up for the pollution that I simply MUST generate".
I did the math one time on how many trees a company claimed to plant, and the space required. It was 3x the size of the U.S.
And considering there are literally hundreds of these companies, it's not possible or we'd be building tree houses.
Plant trees doesnt matters , the trees always became co2 , in a fire or in 100 year when they die , yuo can try with long life trees but ,they grow very slow , yuo see , the capture co2 must be get capture ,out of the atmosfer ideally next 10.000 years or forever , anything else is GreenWashing😊😊
@@noway8233 I'm critical of these companies. But I wouldn't underestimate plant life either. They've caused a mass extinction event and an ice age. From making our oxygen levels too high. - although seaweed and algae are probably more to blame for those.
And in a fire, only a portion gets burned. Soil is mostly organic matter (can be from animals but is mostly made from dead plants), and it's very rare that a fire affects more than the surface. As oxygen is required for the chemical reaction.
I'm well aware of green washing. But plants are the one thing that makes the so-called "environmentalists" wrong and their fear tactics "mental."
We are far from critical. Greenhouses still benefit by isolating air from the outside and using co2 generators. - if we were that critical, all plants outside would be boosted. And we'd see a boost in growth far before it became toxic... it's like a buffer zone. (BTW I've read the studies on this where they used farmland, which contradicts this. In the study, they didn't even explain what kind of co2 source they used. Or how they differentiated their study from a control, and it didn't even mention having a control. They could've been using "liquid carbon" *cancerous and kills single celled organisms, including beneficial bacteria* and preventing their roots from breathing for all we know. Or they could've tainted the study some other way.)
With just humans, chickens, cattle, and sheep. It would roughly take about 17.5 years to breath the volume of air in the atmosphere. - if we didn't have plants/algae, we'd have unsafe levels within about 840 years. Or enough to breath the volume about 48 times. Much less time if we counted all the wild animals... which there are too many variations to calculate population, breath volume, breaths/min to properly add those in.
IE I couldn't even find the lung capacity of a raccoon or their breathing frequency.
Don't fall for the Richest Most Greedy People in the worlds lies. They want people to invest in this so they can walk away with your money. Carbon is the basis of life. The Green agenda is the basis of a WEF conspiracy for more money and power. Don't be a 🐑🐑🐑🐑🐑🐑🐑🐑🐑🐑🐑🐑🐑🐑🐑or the big bad wolf dressed in sheep's clothing will eat you.
Plus planting a bunch of new ones means nothing. The plants need to be at different life stages to have the highest positive effect. So a crap ton of new trees is a "little to no change," which is yet another reason this "new tree every time" plan fails to live up to any expectations.
Yeah and like as if the 1cm diameter tree saplings do the same as 100ft wide ones which we’ve made go extinct
To summarize, carbon offset is a license to pollute. The licensor is trying to make a quick buck while the licensee pays as little as possible to feel good polluting. Great investigative journalism.
However, as other youtube videos have mentioned, one should aim to reduce their own footprint directly AND then find good ways to offset the rest. Planting trees, investing in carbon capture, investing in green energy, all of these things can be done on an individual and institutional level, alongside proven offsetting methods.
It is the very definition of virtue signaling.
@@DudeWhoSaysDeez I’ve always fund it funny after his presidency Bush became extremely eco considerate, his house in Texas recycles everything waste water to food, yet Al Gore is too busy making bank off carbon offsets living in a huge energy inefficient house.
@@DudeWhoSaysDeez that's delusional. Reducing your footprint does nothing for the gigatons of carbon already in the atmosphere and that will continue to be pumped into the atmosphere to support your delusional ecoSeperate lifestyle. There is no "reducing" the carbon crisis. We either have to solve it collectively, or deal with the consequences in their entirety.
Not to say there is no solution. The solution itself is quite simple. We just rebuild all the ecosystems we destroyed over about 40% of global land mass. This preserves our place in natural ecosystems, removes all the carbon we have already released into the atmosphere and even allows China to fully Industrialize without modifying global climate.
But it takes millions of people performing unskilled human labor tasks. And you think labor is beneath you. So you won't BE the solution. And you don't actually even want one. You just want a convenient way to stop feeling guilty. Like pretending that separating your trash into recycling is good for the environment so you can use those dirty products free of guilt, only for the garbage company to just bury it anyway, or sell it off to developing SEA countries who then dump it directly into the ocean.
You're the real problem. But it has nothing to do with your personal carbon footprint. It's your delusional sense of personal value. Your arrogant belief that you are somehow above the natural order. That's the real issue. And the only actual solution is to tear that delusion out of your brain and become part of a living ecosystem again. Starting with Microbes in the soil, and ending with a complete system that supports not only all local wild life, but YOU entirely. As part of that ecosystem. Rather than your delusional perspective as the "beneficiary" of whatever that system is worth if you burn it down and sell the ash.
@@DudeWhoSaysDeez This is how the system works. Offsetting is usually limited to somethign like 5-10% of allowed emissions reductions where the rest must occur via upgrading technology or other means within an industry supply chain. Being able to sell permits that you were allocated but don't need because you've reduced emissions locally provides an economic incentive to reduce emissions.
Super important and very well done video! I desperately want there to be carbon offsets you can buy that are literally only direct air capture or monitored biochar. Seems entirely doable to me, but only if videos like this educate people on why it is necessary.
Well said!
Holy crap, you can buy highlighted posts now?
@@CaptainAlliance "Super Thanks" has been a thing for a while now, but when they introduced it it was really dumb, you could literally only comment the word "Thanks." Glad to see they've improved it, but it still has that terrible name lol.
You desperately want a convenient solution that requires nothing of you personally but small amounts of money that other people give you. That sounds awful. Just sayin.
You are killin me with this. You should know better. Compartmentalized carbon reduction doesn't work, and cannot globally scale in time. Collection however is already being done by every plant on the planet.
Super important would be understanding that Life already is our globally scalable Carbon Battery. And that a complete Ecosystem is the only viable means of storing atmospheric carbon long term.
We need plants to suck the carbon out of the atmosphere, we need animals and insects consuming those plants, we need rich fertile soils full to bursting with microbial life, and we need hundreds of millions of hectares of land being maintained for maximum proliferation of ALL Life.
Everything else is an attempt by us to replace that complete and undeniably perfect system with a bargain brand facsimile that will cost more in energy and carbon emissions as individual elements because synergy between them is no longer possible.
A complete ecosystem takes carbon from the atmosphere and converts it into life, and then as that life dies it is converted by microbes in the soil into more microbes that then die and slough off deep in the soil. Trapped carbon indefinitely.
And of course, as always, I am just a hobo yelling at garbage cans. So I double dog dare you to prove me wrong.
@Arkenist I came here to make the same comment about being in the same circles but I would bet it’s Hank because Hank never signs his comments but John typically does
The very first travel agency to offer carbon offsets (Responsible Travel) actually stopped offering them for this very reason
Oh wow I didn’t know that. Any chance you remember the agency name or can point me to an article? Would love to read it myself and maybe reference it in a later video.
Source: “my source is that I made it the FK UP”
Not sure if I worked for the same travel agent in question, but I will say that we made A TON of money selling them to guilty people and corporations.
@@Mgunner7623 Guillible
It's sad that people buy scam tokens because they're made to feel guilty about flying. Technology will solve all problems with climate change but this ain't it.
Odd that preserving lands counts as “carbon offset” as the demands driving such deforestation still need to be met and the loss of forested lands will likely be accounted for elsewhere. The increase in deforestation in area b could be said to be directly resulting from “offsets” in area a, assuming the baseline in area a is valid.
100% you cant change the nature of reality. The further the ball is pushed under the water, the greater the force against it becomes to launch it back upwards. Every action has a reaction. The world is incomprehensibly complicated and we are not gods, we need to stop acting like it.
I won't switch to a car with worse mileage. Do I get to sell carbon credits now?
Plus the fact that he just flat out says other countries are lying to America to get billions from our companies. WIN-WIN right? Our rich stay richer with tax write-offs and their country gets a bail out of sorts.
I would've assumed that the "trees" variety of carbon offset would require fostering new forests instead of merely not chopping down existing ones. That's kinda messed up.
Yes this! Where's the logic? It doesn't mean that amount of deforestation was prevented, it just didn't happen at that particular protected area. It's absurd.
How can we profit by doing something we were already going to do?
[Snaps fingers]
Carbon offsets!
And another thing, timber industry could even sell new tree carbon offset for land they were planning to plant anyway for more timber. Net 0. There has to be certification standards or something.
There are two main type of projects, Afforestation which plants new trees and the REDD+, Reduced Emissions through Deforestation and Degredation. One point is that trees that are 100 years old take in way more CO2 than new trees. Afforestation projects are credited for the CO2 the new trees will take up while deforestation gives an economic value to the tree's activity of absorbing carbon, therefore the tree has some value being alive as opposed to being dead.
Yeah, as it was getting described in the video it felt like those groups were holding the land hostage with a gun to its head. Or maybe a mob protection racket.
"Gimme your money, or the tree gets it from big evil corpo!" >_>
Hell yeah, Wendover Productions. You guys absolutely crushed this.
Dude, love your channel. Your carbon offset video was amazing
Missed opportunity to talk about javon's paradox
@@ameuphonium1 Climate-Anxiety; do you suffer from it?
It's a shell game. Old-school Abrahamic Desert People economics. Just keep switching up the position of the 'bad' under different names and 'credits', and people think the, 'bad' is solved and goes away? lol. No. It's Financial and Political gymnastics at it's worst.
@@derrickmcadoo3804 Dunno if this is meant to be anti-semitic or just atheistic and disappointed in the spread of Christianity...
I've always felt carbon offsets are like saying sorry before you do something terrible. I guess this stands confirmed.
Just goes to show that the greenies are full of bullshit
Carbon offset is a Scam to reduce something that doesn't need reducing.
The company I work for offsets carbon on products we import AND the shipping to customers.
The "something terrible" is something everyone, everywhere, does on a weekly basis.
carbon credits were always a scam.
i mean most things related to carbon on a green way are a scam: green coal, carbon capture, carbon offset.
@@moisesrosario9716 I actually believe most people know it is a scam, but don't think they have a voice.
sounds like a protection racket. “Nice forest you got there. would be a shame if it (cough) got cut down”
"Stove stacking" is just another example of Javon's paradox. If you make something more efficient, demand just increases rather than decreasing.
That clearly has a limit, though, correct? We in the first world have highly efficient stoves and we don't use 20 at a time.
@@roymarshall_ i do. I like to eat lots of oatmeal everyday. About 20 stoves worth, but i have more. You can make many different kinds of oatmeal, you know? My favorite, however, is a simple sweet and salty in whole milk. Or maybe I'll make a cheesy bowl for dinner, and chocolate bowl for dessert. There's many variations. If I'm trying to be healthy, i add fruits to my oatmeal. Sometimes I'll be exotic and add something like bacon, which requires more stoves to precook, since 20 are being used for oatmeal.
@@roymarshall_ Actually we do. Think of any restaurant in a first world country and you've got 20 stoves going all at once.
@@roymarshall_ It's a logarithmic curve going to infinity since we don't know how efficient a stove can get.
@@luka3532 those stoves are not all for one person to eat a meal.
I’m generally suspicious of anything that relies on “public guilt” to function. The reason markets work is because of the producer/consumer model where each agent can become a producer or consumer. In this market, I don’t see what the delivery is. It’s essentially the sale of indulgences.
i mean it’s essentially just a donation. you don’t get anything out of it except for good feelings.
Only solution imo is hard regulations on emissions and pollution combined with government agencies that undertake reforestation/remediation/adaptation work
didn't indulgences sell very well?
Paying for good pr
its an attempt to reduce externalities not calculated in market price but more realistically from public realations or "social bottom line" investment budgets of companies at this time
I feel like there's a pretty obvious immediate problem in that preserving a forest isn't really taking carbon out of the air, at least not much, it's rather just preventing more from being emitted. So like they aren't actually offsetting their carbon emissions they're just preventing an equal amount more from being emitted but like that's not how this works, you can't prevent further damage and then claim you're healing the damage that already happened. Actual carbon offset surely should involve buying up former clear cut forest and then replanting a forest there to create new carbon sinks.
Exactly this. The single most carbon negative industry in the world is the lumber industry. They plant trees to cut down to be turned into housing material, and do it again and again. Lumber that is in a house is not putting carbon back into the air and every tree that is grown and replanted pulls thousands of pounds of carbon out of the air.
@@zoator1910 You might have misread what they wrote, since both of you agree.
Correct! This trick is called "avoided emissions" and it isn't recognized by the SBTI (Science-Based Targets Institute) and other standards as a legitimate carbon reduction. Mark Carney and Brookfield got in trouble for doing just that, saying they reduced the company's emissions because they could've invested in more coal companies but chose not to, and therefore reduced their footprint. Capitalists will do anything to not actually have to reduce their production or emissions
@@Kyrinson ya this isn't really true though. Forests are far more than the trees that are logged, and clear-cutting often removes shrubs and other smaller plants that contribute to the carbon sequestration of the forest as a whole. When logging companies replant the trees they cut, they don't restore the rest of the ecosystem, and the 70 year timelines they are working within don't allow for proper forest succession to develop. This is especially problematic with the old growth forests in Canada, the Amazon, etc.
I think that’s factored into the „additionality“, i.e. it has to be a forest that would have been destroyed otherwise. That’s what he means with baseline. Climate models assume some kind of development for their predictions. Cutting fewer trees than assumed in these models means we’re effectively offsetting the negative development predicted by that model.
Already watched the video once, but just saw you cited on Last Week Tonight. Glad to see more people exposed to the channel. Great Work!
“Donate $50 and save a life!”
“Really, how?”
“If you donate, I promise I won’t kill a random person. I wasn’t going to anyway, but you can take credit for saving them if you donate.”
Please don’t become jaded as to the REAL benefits of charity. Please look into the effective altruism movement or the work of Will MacAskill or “The Life You Can Save” by Peter Singer. Not all charities are created equal and you do have the power to improve the world.
It's literally that Family Guy clip in the toy store. "If we buy it they'll save a real gorilla in the wild. If we don't they'll kill one."
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
This reminds me of that Key and Peele skit.
Most charities.
In the donation business model, people don't care about how efficiently or how effective the charity is.
They just care about getting their donation feel good badge.
So charities aren't constrained by an incentive to actually do anything well... Just continue existing and maybe even put money into advertising to get more donations.
Businesses ARE the best charities. They are constrained by customer wants, which actually puts a good selective pressure on businesses, and then everyone involved, the customer, business coordinator, employees, stockholders all benefit, which then they can go and spend however they ant. That's the best model for charity and doing good.
I've seen a lot of airlines or other very carbon-intensive companies use carbon offset, and I always felt like it is just Greenwashing. Though I never read into it so it remained a hunch...until today. This video was a major eye-opener.
It's not always a green wash, it depends on the type of credit and related project. These preservation type are a complete con that's for sure
@@freetimefoster The good ones also tend to be the most expensive ones, which results in them having almost no demand.
@@ArawnOfAnnwn the rich get to travel, the poor get special stoves.
@@ArawnOfAnnwn they have demand from genuine environmentally conscious organisations. It also requires critical thinking on behalf of the consumer, if you're able to 'offset' a long haul flight for under $10 something is off
well, its dumb to give these companies an easy way out with this instead of cracking down on them to lower carbon. if someone had a bad muffler, you wouldnt tell them to just not drive that often, you would want them to replace it.
This is a bold video to release after the Jet Lag game said it offset the carbon cost of its travel by 10x. The obvious question is: did it actually?
99% sure this video stems from research involved in buying those carbon offsets...
This was my first thought
The idea is by going to 10x even if the credits are garbage you should still be net negative.
The Jet Lag videos specifically indicate in the description that the offsets are going through The Gold Standard to replace traditional cookstoves.
Clearly their research in figuring out how best to offset the carbon of their travel was what spurred and informed this video, especially considering it's overtly described in the middle bit.
Carbon offsets typically overstate by 3x to 4x so Jet Lag offsets by 10x to make sure that they’re actually making a difference. By saying 10x, they’re not trying to boast, they’re trying to make sure they’re making a difference. they also use gold standard cook stove carbon offsets which are held to much stricter standard than the United Nations one.
Fuck yeah bro.
You can now add 'As seen on 'Last week tonight with John Oliver'' to this channel's banner.
I've been highly suspicious of ostensible carbon offsets since they were first brought to public attention. I was concerned with both the sheer difficulty in calculating/tracking them as well as the potential for fraud. This video showed me those concerns were well founded. But then the video took a turn; I was so happy to learn about the cookstove approach! At last, a way to do this right! But alas. I think society needs to completely abandon carbon offsets, now. The approach needs to be to reduce carbon emissions where we are using them. Nuclear, solar, and wind generation need to replace fossil fuels.
You misunderstand. Crude oil will still be extracted as will coal, but not for fuel. There are many things that are made from coal and oil, and sometimes they get burned, releasing the carbon into the atmosphere.
@@hugehappygrin7425 It would cut a huge part of carbon emissions though, and we already have the technology to do it...
@@hugehappygrin7425
Considering how much easier it is to produce a lot of polymers from oil than natural ressources it almost feels like a waste to burn the oil directly.
Also public transit like electric trains 🚊
@@JoeyLindsay Sure, where it's practical. But millions of us live out in rural areas, where that just isn't practical.
I still remember the first time the concept of carbon offset was introduced to me. I immediately dismissed it as equivalent to purchasing an indulgence, this apparently made me a climate change denier. I purchased a modestly sized home within walking distance of work and a grocery store, and buy used things when I can. Other people purchased offsets while purchasing massive amounts of tomorrow's landfill. One of these paths gives someone imagined bragging rights, the other actually accomplishes something.
Well, your reasoning of "dismissed it as purchasing an indulgence" was wrong, so yeah, people criticise wrong reasonings. The problem isn't with the theory, it's with the practice as you could see if you actually listened to the video. Carbon offsets suck, but for entirely different reasons than you propose
@@rojirrim7298 Get off your high horse, I did watch the video to the end, I just take the conclusions farther than they did. Carbon credits are a fundamentally broken concept. Wendover try to put a "ironing the creases out" perspective on this but that severely down plays the problem.
If carbon offsets can work in theory, why not indulgences? (inb4 some enlightened atheist missing the overarching point)
Im in the same boat as you (and it's always great when trying to solve a problem gets you labled as not beliving it) but you do sound a tad preachy.
Because climate change is a religion and at the heart of it likes socialism. It has little to do with saving the plant.
Instead of just blaming the companies who invest in this, focus also on the nature conservancy NGOs that start these proposals too. I have been in the guts of not for profit world to understand how insincere a lot of these programs are and how little oversight is involved in measuring impact.
Thank you. I don't think people understand how much influence NGOs have over these things.
Good point. I'd say also that, in this video as many others talking about this topic, we find a fast tracked road to blame the poor and needy who are trying to make ends meet and using what they can to feed their families and make an income.
We, the rich nations should lead by example and that we fail too it seems.
I was having trouble sleeping. Switch to 0.75x , turned on loop and slowly dozed off.
Typing this message after 4 hours of peaceful sleep.
I have worked as an auditor under the CDM mechanism of the UNFCCC and have audited about 50 projects of various types.
You have really done great research for this video. But your conclusion is too carefully phrased.
In my experience, all projects overestimate their emission savings. And the main reason often lies in the methodologies that the UNFCCC has come up with. Many of these methodologies contain not only loopholes but outright insanity.
I remember a meeting at the secretariat in Bonn, Germany, where people openly questioned whether additionality itself should even be mandatory, as you would be able to register more projects without it and thus "do even more for the environment"...
Whenever I tell people of my experience though, the only thing that has changed is that some of them now intentionally buy cook stove credits as those are less shitty than the rest. :-/
Can you tell me, literally anything, about the carbon density of soil in a thriving complete ecosystem as it compares to the depleted soil left behind by Industrial Agriculture? And do have the relevant education or experience required to understand the thousands of inferences I just made in asking this very simple and unassuming question?
Because what I can see, among these comments, and within yours as well, is a lack of education and understanding, supported by claims of technical and professional reference. It makes me wonder. You all seem very focused on trees, but the real carbon battery is in the ground. Plants are just the suction device... The leaves, the needles, the temporary bodies these organisms drop year in and year out they just rot in open air and put carbon back into the atmosphere.
It's like you're all out here trying to define the value of a solar power generator, but you've based all of your research on the solar panels. What about the inverter and the charger and the batteries and the efficiency of the media to transmit energy to the load?
Why are all of you "so called" experts only talking about one isolated part of a system that is VASTLY more complex, and pretending like you have answer?
@@ZennExile not every auditor needs to be an expert in every methodology. It’s well known though that the CDM methodologies are poor though. You’ll find plenty of soil carbon experts working in carbon markets
@@TIMAAYx the problem Tim, is you cannot compartmentalize soil systems from plant and animal systems while maintaining the carbon battery of Life. We have to create a complete ecosystem, a complete model, or none of the carbon will stay in that system and it won't be sustainable.
If you focus on any part independently you just release more carbon into the atmosphere. If you're just trying to work with soil microbes, and waste, you're part of the problem. But if you're also working with trees, plants, worms, insects, and grazing mammals in a system designed to support human life through "excess production", you reduce overall atmospheric carbon.
And you do it on a large enough scale, then there is no more carbon crisis.
Do you understand? Systems Science is what's absolutely required here. No individual part of the whole is beneficial. They have to be combined.
What's your opinion on direct carbon air capture projects like ClimeWorks? Those seem like the gold standard to me. Yes it's expensive, but what do people expect? If climate change were cheap to fix, we'd already have fixed it.
@@ZennExile youre right. This is a complex system that will require many experts to contribute their knowledge in order to create a viable solution. Calling people out on UA-cam isn't helping though. That guy literally was just saying "yeah ive audited 50 projects and they all overestimated how much carbon they would offset" thats it. Yeah it's a complex system, and we need to come up with a solution thats viable. A complex and wholistic solution will take years to impliment and will likely have unintended consequences (like everything else). However, simple steps can over time contribute to a complex solution. Like helping poor people use less fuel to meet their daily needs by giving them an improved wood stove. Sure they'll use multiple stoves to cook faster, and maybe those stoves will break before offsetting the carbon cost to make the stove, but at the end of the day it's a simple step that will go towards fixing the greater problem.
Sam on Jet-Lag: We are using Carbon Offsets to offset all of our flights for this video
Sam on Wendover: Carbon offsets are a lie and a scam and are not real
was about to write the same
Check the first comment, they make damn sure it's done right
Watch the video, this video is exactly for that reason, there are good offset projects!!!!
The thesis of the video is that carbon offsets can be effective, but that the market-based system through which they're sold incentivizes ineffective/scam offsets.
We offset Jet Lag 10x over to be sure that it can't be made ineffective by offset being overstated (the most we've seen in large cases is 3-4x overstating) and we also use cookstove replacement offsets certified by the Gold Standard (which has stricter requirements for accounting and oversight than the United Nations, for example.)
@@Wendoverproductions Still, your thumbnail writes in the most general of ways “Carbon Offsets are a scam”. As explained by your own comment, this isn’t necessarily always true. Many people will read the thumbnail and simply take your word for it without watching.
This video only served to reinforced what I already thought about carbon offsets. Scammers incentivised to create credits out of dodgy maths, which ultimately causes companies/individuals to create *more* pollution because "we can just offset it later". Rather than trying to buy off their sins with credits, companies/individuals should invest in practices/technologies to *actually* lower their own footprints
The whole thing is driven by guilt and PR lol. The whole green movement is a giant scam.
How about more proactive steps to capture carbon? Trees do this very well but we've got to cut them down and replant to capture more.
@@OGPatriot03 Wendover actually mentions carbon capture in the video. In the long-term, artificial carbon capture is a good idea, as it could help to fix our climate, but if not done in conjunction with actually lowering our carbon footprint, it will just serve the same purpose as carbon credits
Offsetting is limited to something like 5-10% of what industries are allowed to submit for emission reductions. 90% or so of reductions must occur on site or within the supply chains which mean that offsetting is just a small flexibility mechanism to allow emission reductions to occur in the point of least cost within the market mechanism.
Please don’t go there. The people pushing this dribble have an ideological axe to grind with markets in general. The benefits of actual programs are secondary to them.
Objectively, this is a good system that has been proven to work. It’s just that it relies on accountability to work. Any other carbon reduction scheme will ultimately have the exact same problem if there isn’t accountability! You want to throw away the baby with the bath water here.
One of the best ways to sequester carbon is to change how we grow food. Monocropped, annual/fallow/bareground, chemical input ag degrades soil and contributes to uncreased CO². Overgrazing and CAFOs are also part of the destructive model.
Biome-appropriate, polycultured, alley-cropped perennials, trees, vines and shrubs improve soils, hydrological cycles, provide a lot more feed and food than conventional methods and with more inherent resiliency.
It creates better plant, animal, and food diversity; relocalizes resources; adds efficiency, etc.
This is the only carbon capture scheme I would invest in...
This video got cited in the latest episode of last week tonight, which is such a great proof for the credibility and the quality this channel insists on for each of its video. Great job, Sam!
I have it on now and when John went to the clip I was like "I know that voice!".
I knew it as soon as I heard Hawk Mountain Preserve.
Yeah, it's incredible, but I'm glad to see it.
@@Brando56894 Same!
Great job Sam! I was watching John Oliver and instantly recognized your voice!
The true benefit of carbon offsets is to make people feel less guilty. And it works.
It's more insidious than that....At root, this is companies trying to game their ESG score (social credit score), to attract investors, who happen to be big pension funds. So, the companies with high ESG scores, get to manage all the world assets, and thus have all the power in the world, yet they are unaccountable, unelected, self defined elite.
Corporations pretending to have moral values, pretending to have advocacies, pretending to care about the people; this problem is as old as I can remember. The sad thing is some people actually believes these PR statements.
that is all it accomplishes. which does nothing to actually fix the problem. making people feel better without making the problem better is eally bad totally useless and most definitely a scam.
@@scottmcshannon6821 it's been that way since the beginning, and goes mich further back than energy efficient appliances, carbon credits, or saving trees. The recylcing industry for plastic and e-waste was never profitable enough for industries to be serious about it. Some plastics can't be recycled, and many electronics are too cumbersome to dispose of properly. Recycling now is basically industries blaming consumers for buying their trash.
@@HH-ru4bj Seconded. And trying to explain to one's friends that most 'recycling' is nothing more than alternative disposal - often at a greater environmental and financial cost than traditional disposal - seems to fall on deaf ears.
Good video. I do think anyone that has looked at carbon credits have already realized the hoax and understand how it is not reducing net emissions or climate change. Carbon credits should only be allowed for NEW green energy (nuclear, wind, solar, hydro) or electric solutions (products or processes that would have otherwise been carbon driven) and governments should be seeking to prevent deforestation and nature preservation outside of carbon credits, like for recreational and public use.
Edit: Should add carbon capture to the list for carbon credits, but only processes that activity capture and store carbon. Not those akin to the videos subject; nature preservation, etc.
Carbon Credits should only be allowed for projects that put carbon back into earth in a safe way
I love the nickname for this of “Carbon Colonialism”
@@TheEventHorizon909 That refers to a different phenomenon: moving pollution heavy factories/processes to, typically poor, countries with weak environmental protections.
@@christianhumer3084 I forgot that in my original comment. Add carbon capture (actual carbon capture through processes and not nature because then we’re back to the video) to the list above for carbon credits. Through green energy and electrification, we can curb the production of green house gases. Through carbon capture, we can bring us back to a normal CO2 PPM.
Carbon credit simply shouldn't be part of the equation.
Thank you for presenting this scope and severity of this problem in such a clear and concise way. We need to hear it.
A system that can be rorted for profit, was rorted for profit, I'm SHOCKED.
thanks for teaching me a new word
rort: verb, Australian English informal
to take unfair advantage of a public service
Its almost like the only thing you control is your own life and your own day to day decisions. Its as if you can’t just donate away the world’s problems. SHOCKING!
For profit is how capitalism works. It's how we're talking on the internet. You're an ignoramus.
Functioning as intended.
Love the vids Dave!
We have plenty of woodlands that actually need protecting, they could do it right if they wanted.
I see local woodlands cleared all the time for new developments, it saddens me to see once large swaths of green space flattened and paved over. They could protect this space but instead focus on areas that were never under threat anyway.
Well, they would be more expensive, since they have an use case for economic application.
These already protected forests have economically speaking little value, just some running cost.
So lower investment needed.
yup. Woods and farmland I used to explore just 2 years ago is now apartment buildings. It makes me sick.
I agree. I used to live mostly in the woods…until almost all of it disappeared. To solve my personal problem, I acquired 20 acres of woods in the mountains near the National Forrest. Not going to lose my woodland retreat again.
Part of the problem is poor land allocation (particularly in North America), we gotta stop building suburbs, or at least tighten those suburbs up so that we can fit more houses per acre. Building more medium and high density housing is also going to be important. My old city has a population of over 100,000 and yet 90% of the housing is all suburbs. The remaining 10% is medium density apartment complexes (often labeled high density even though its no where near as dense as other places) and as a result the city sprawls in every direction requiring forest and farmland to be turned into housing.
Unfortunately, since a lot of the land has already been allocated and is being inhabited, you can't undo the single-family zoning, all you can do is push to make the zoning code more flexible and make all new allocated areas denser.
"they could do it right if they wanted" this is true but very difficult to implement in places like Brazil, Cambodia, or Indonesia. Offsetting is a way to make a tree worth valuable alive than dead.
Love to see all the support for this video and to see it quoted on Last Week Tonight! Amazing to think how television is using UA-cam as one of their sources, and with the quality of these videos it was only about time
This is amazing. Nuanced, well researched, and clearly presented reporting on a crucial issue. You've taken your work to a whole new level, Sam.
Please. Please raise Awareness: i am baffled by how little Shout-Outs
Climate-Change-Covering UA-camrs give each Other!
And thats not even mentioning extending this to Channels like
'Some More News' who do great work in adressing Issues, including but not limited to
Water-Shortages and Droughts and what the normal peopel can do about it.
Just saw this on Last week Tonight, recognized your voice immediately. Congrats.
Being raised catholic, I have mixed feelings about seeing that selling indulgence and squishy promises to guilt-ridden people is still a thing.
It's a burgeoning market...
Haha this is a perfect analogy. Who’s going to be the climates Martin Luther?
Lol being the same, this has been my thought process on climate change from the get-go
Thats not how indulgences work anymore.
Not by the Catholic church
John Oliver made a episode with the same title and concerns. At least he mentioned your great channel!
Wendover: “Carbon Offsets are a Scam”
JetLag: “We offset our carbon! Yay!”
I was thinking that throughout the video…
🤔
From an article at The Globe and Mail featuring Sam Denby (Wendover):
"He researched various options and settled on Gold Standard, a platform co-founded by the World Wildlife Fund. Any programs it features conform to standards higher than those set by the United Nations, and to ensure margin for error, “we offset 10 times more carbon than we were estimated to emit,” Denby said."
Pope is Catholic
looks like someone didn't actually listen to the whole story.
r u a socialist
I'd love to see more auditing of offsets. I'll look for Gold Standard offsets in the future.
computer waste recycling NEW installations.
Auditing also produces CO2.
@@narancs5 Yes, but with the issues present we need to weed out the bad programs.
Why would you look for offsets at all? It's a scam with no purpose.
Unfortunately gold standard aren't exactly better. Plenty of dodgy projects there.
I’ve always seen carbon offsets as nothing more than a way for corporations to say “hey, yeah, sure, we’re doing a really bad thing pumping all these toxic fumes everywhere, but look, we paid someone to plant a bunch of trees in a south american jungle that already exists, so it’s fiiiiiiine; it *totally* balances out.” It’s been b.s. from the beginning - humanity’s damage is too extensive to ever be able to be truly offset.
Impressed with the investigation and how logical the arguments are. Reminds me of the old adage "Keep it simple Bob" which we used to bandy around the studio at architectural school many years ago. A carbon offset is just giving industry an excuse to continue polluting. Industry's track record regarding environmental concerns in the 20th century is really bad. To acknowledge a real commitment to resolving global warming and the climate crisis and how quickly things are getting worse, industries such as those involved with extracting or distributing fossil fuels, tobacco, logging, and industrialized farming should be making major visible contributions to decrease greenhouse gas emissions without the convenience of a "tax receipt".
Ayyy one of my favorite UA-camrs doing a video on my area of work. Sweet.
I develop carbon sequestrating soil amendments, and I end up having to explain to at least one person a day that carbon markets are a scam.
Then you're a scammer
@@dann5480 improving a soils ability to drawdown carbon, and boost the soil webs ability to flourish for wildlife is not a scam. The measurement and credit system of carbon is a scam.
@@bobbyaxelrod5959 I hope all your projects fail. All hail mighty carbon, lord of the universe.
I’m involved in some development of a market for offshore carbon sequestration. So this was really insightful and I will definitely be urging caution to my higher-ups.
You are participating in a scam.
If your higher-ups don't already know this, they don't care about this
the companies selling carbon credits have higher ups are doing this on purpose. If you think anyone with 50 acres of trees and wouldn't try to get away with taking money for "conservation" you're crazy. after watching this video im going to look into what it takes to sell them myself to not run my lawn mower.😂
You're already wasting money if you are researching offshore carbon sequestration. LIFE is already the Carbon Battery. Microbes in the soil, plants, animals, birds, and bees. Even your literal ass is made of mostly Carbon. The solution to the problem is too vast for artificial sequestration. It would take too long and require too much effort to sequester the gigatons of excess carbon we put into the atmosphere. The scale problem is insurmountable within the time frame. If we had started working on this technology a century ago it would still be too late.
However, Life is infinitely scalable. With limited technological requirements and unskilled human labor, Living Ecosystems can form a global network of Carbon Storage. And bonus, we actually have enough time use this method to avoid hitting 1.5C We don't have to let humanity pay the price for JP Morgan, the Rockefeller family, and the various other psychopathic wealth consolidator's greed. We can immediately erase their poisoned legacy from human history and in doing so create an entirely new future. One built on a foundation of Life.
But you're not interested in real solutions are you? Otherwise, you'd bother asking what this solution is and how it works. You won't. It's not convenient to have to ask a question and it's a threat to your ego to admit you are wrong, so, you'll just pretend you never read this.
@@JMCLoader I'm talking permanent geologic storage of carbon dioxide which is a much more tangible carbon sink than "preserving" forests. I'm mostly worried about accidentally creating a market which incentivizes more carbon emissions if we don't balance this right. I'm also confident my higher-ups are acting in good faith, fortunately. But my higher-ups have higher-ups who I'm certain are not... Congress.
thank you for bringing these issues to light
I’ve always had a problem with carbon offsetting ever since I heard of it. The way it was described to me seemed like an excuse to produce more carbon emissions by big corporations. I feel like we should demand that they stop treating our planet like trash so they can live in absurd luxury. It’s ridiculous to me. Thanks for this extensive video about the project and truth of carbon offsetting.
Mathew you would not have the device or internet that you are whining on without those big scary evil corpos.
@@seinarukishi9228 that is a really stupid argument to make for being pro mega cooperations.
Lets assume your statement is even correct why does it even matter? And you can't even live without devices like that in todays world
@@divat10 You very well could live without them. You wouldn’t be as successful without them though. It matters because you don’t practice what you preach.
You think cell phones and the internet is what causes most pollution?
@@LSDOvideos Do you have any brain cells left in there? The businesses that provide those cause plenty of emissions. The batteries for his phone, the precious metals, the factories, the transportation, and the list goes on.
1:50 Cheers for getting featured on Last Week Tonight, Wendover!
Sooo, this video made it to Last Week Tonight. Damn, watched this channel grow for years and you guys earned it! Great job.
This video is in the most recent episode of Last Week Tonight with John Oliver!! 🤭
Good job Sam
I always thought carbon offsetting was a scam, but I gave it the benefit of assuming it was planting new trees. The trees they are protecting have already absorbed carbon, you need to add more trees to remove *new* carbon, i.e. actually offset them. Or companies could actually, you know, reduce their emissions
Dude! Just saw a clip from this on Last Week Tonight! Congrats!
When I was taught this concept as a child I thought it was a fraud. Haven’t thought about this in a while. Great video!
I'm sitting here, watching at the 14:00 mark and I just cannot bear the dread of the impending "but there is a problem with funding improved cook tops". I want this to be a worthwhile charity so much, please! I dread pushing the play button again.
then you are creating an illusion that you are doing yourself no good by continuing to uphold. you are contributing to your own misinformation by lying to yourself in this way. you will push that play button and face the harsh reality, remove the wool from your eyes and see how truly awful and unforgiving this cruel world is. if you don't, you are lying to yourself to keep yourself happy. do not do this. push that play button NOW.
@@howdoipickaname9815 staying ignorant for comfort was never an option
Well, it IS a worthwhile humanitarian charity. The positive effects for the people who receive a cooktop is undeniable, and these benefits do spread to the environment around them, BUT it is no environmental silver bullet. The biggest issue is that people who buy the shares are more willing to emit carbon even beyond what this charity can truly offset.
I'm a big fan of _actual_ carbon offsets that do precisely that: offset carbon
For instance, planting a thousand acres of trees where almost no trees are. Even if it's a lumber company that's doing the planting ... as long as the trees remain for 30-50 years (or longer), it's a net benefit to the environment. Especially if the trees harvested in 30-50 years will be replanted.
But paying to _not cut_ trees that aren't going to be cut anyway? That shouldn't even be allowed. It does nothing positive for the environment. It's pointless.
there are areas with no trees and it is a good thing - a special biotope for some species that can´t exist anywhere else. you plant trees over them, you destroy the biotope, the species go extinct, the diversity goes down. planting trees looks good, but it's nowhere near the solution of our current problems.
@@dos.2168 Exactly. People are not considering the water those trees use, and what they may drown out. My thought on this is don't plant trees for carbon capture, plant them because that area used to have them, or it will look good, or erosion or whatever for good landscaping. Then we will be thinking about if trees should go there or not. Then the resources to make them grow can be discussed, and carbon retention will be so low on the impact they make, that its a side effect. Just take care of the land, whatever the CO2 cost as we won't do better by playing these fake carbon credit games that fool people. Classic example is this anti-gas stove movement. Pure Tom foolery.
I have said over and over, stop cutting and start growing trees and replace defrosted rain forests.
Glad to see l am not the only one who understands.
Plant trees that intake carbon dioxide and emit oxygen the best.
@@michelelindseth8250 Its not that simple. Hard problems are that way. Just planting trees anywhere you want is not appropriate as they take resources too.
From a carbon standpoint, it would seem as though clearing forests for development is a much bigger problem than clearing forests for logging. In the case of logging, so long as the wood goes into buildings, the carbon is still sequestered. The wood can also replace steel, which is very carbon-intensive to make. Plus, after the logging is done, new trees start growing, so the land continues to suck more carbon out of the atmosphere. Logging for development is different. The wood is thrown away or burned, since it's not cost effective to take logs to a lumber mill if they're the wrong kind of tree or not big enough. And, once the land is paved over, it will never be used as a carbon sink again.
So, the value of a carbon offset on a patch of forest depends on only on assumptions as to whether or not the forest would have been logged. It also depends on assumptions about what would have replaced the land if it did get logged - whether the answer is houses, parking lots, farmland, or a new forest, makes a big difference.
Sounds like there could be an opportunity to sell carbon offsets to buy wood that would otherwise have just been burnt
@@calvin7330
But, how would you know? You can't predict when and where a forest fire is going to happen in advance.
@@calvin7330 and then what do you do with the wood
In Canada, all logged areas are immediately replanted. The number of trees the government said they were going to plant over 5 years was less than logging companies already plant every year.
@@ab-tf5fl I don't think they were referring to forest fires, but the trees that are being chopped for housing being burned because its not cost effective to take them to a lumber mill.
I guess it would be like paying someone to go to the effort of taking it to a lumber mill to be used instead of discarded.
While getting safer and more efficient cooking stoves into the homes of families in impoverished or underdeveloped areas might not be the most effective or efficient climate activism initiative, it is still a brilliant humanitarian initiative, so that's still at least a partial win.
So important! While individually focusing on reducing carbon emissions is admirable, the real change should come from holding big corporations accountable, and not letting ourselves soak up the blame and keep enabling them to destroy our world right under our noses…
I never actually spent time thinking about carbon offset on whether it works or not until i watched this video
i thank this channel for giving me a reason to learn more bout it and debate with myself
As someone who took environmental science I can assure you that man made climate change is a scam, as is CO2 causing global warming.
there's no need for debate, it's a scam that does nothing but move money.
This video just got used as a source on Last Week Tonight with John Oliver! Awesome!
I understand that the cookstove replacement offsets can be good but I find it pretty hypocritical that we, as 1st world country citizens who demand high carbon lifestyles as a basic necessity are not necessary demanding, but expecting some of the poorest people with the least amount of infrastructure, opportunities and smallest carbon footprint to cover our carbon footprint. I feel like we just expect that people who live in 3rd world countries are just content with their lifestyle and don't want to constantly have a better quality of life unlike us who demand a higher quality of life and expect things to only get better and not stop getting better. Some like to point the finger at rich people for our problems but to people in poor countries we are the rich people and we are doing exactly the same thing as the rich people in 1st world countries do to us.
exactly! i live in india and here the average person 1st world country is automatically as rich as an elite here. so i don't know why we are supposed to offset our carbon when a person from a rich country is emitting 10x more co2.
That's what I thought. One downside they name is that the more efficient cook stoves are used to cook more. While that doesn't help the environment, it certainly sounds good for the people there. "Oh no they use our carbon system to have a better life."
Because as this video points out, the whole thing is a giant scam to make people feel better, while some people profit from the better feelings. Any net benefit that results is mearly a side effect.
@Possum Hollow Isn't that because China emits carbon to manufacture products that are used by the rich Western nations?
This is the fundamental problem with carbon credits. The richest nations, who have emitted the most and will suffer the least, are asking the poorest nations to bear the consequences now and later, all while further enriching a few. It’s a symptom of delusion..
Featured in Last Week Tonight! Making the big time!
John Oliver quoted you on his last episode (i thought you liked to know we noticed ;)). Then you know you are ahead of the curve and doing great research and presenting it nicely. Great job all these years and i am glad you are growing in subs and content quality :)
Yep, it was great to see a clip of this video being used on Last Week Tonight's video covering carbon offsets. As soon as the clip started playing, I was like "I know that voice..."
@@marsilies yeah me to
I knew this years ago
I find John Oliver intensely irritating, because ALL his videos always quickly boil down to: socialism&liberalism good, WASP & capitalism/conservatism bad.
@@petop3 Well, that is very accurate.
The carbon credit system reminded me a lot from the beginning of the system of indulgences that allowed wealthy (Roman Catholic) believers to buy off their sins.
well, at least carbon offsets have SOME tangible benefit and effect.
@@bipolarminddroppings as did indulgences. They financed not only church building but a lot of the social activities of the Roman Catholic Church.
Excellent, thank you.
"Ethical" consumption is a matter of trust for almost everybody. You can´t actually research everything you buy and even for the things you can; you have to, for the most part, trust the research, that exists. Can´t exactly peer review it, unless you´re one of a very few of the field and have the time and resources. So; Forget it. Rather; Consider what you actually, really, need. Give yourself a fun and luxury budget. Save the rest, invest it safely. Bonus: Could make you happier, too.
Lol i was watching an episode from Last Week Tonight and they put a part of your video in there
i have been hiking around hawk mountain for 40 years and on one side of the mountain they went in and just picked out some trees to trim from the forest they took them to make lumber, but the forest was barely touched it just thinned out old trees, so the young trees grew faster
That's a good way to capture more carbon.
10:07 I was caught off guard by you saying “us” to refer to all the world. I love it a lot. It shows unity and humanity. Thank you for that.
Just saw this video used in a Last Week Tonight with John Oliver! Great job.
You were "quoted" on John Oliver. Yay awareness! Wendover X Last Week Tonight.
LOL I'm honestly surprised this needed to have a video - anyone above the midwit level should have worked this out almost immediately. So bravo on taking the time to do so.
The cookstove part had lots of interesting information that I didn't know about.
The carbon offset part I just had never thought about too much. But as you said: anybody interested would have reasoned that (those conclusions) out.
Some little televised production, Last Week Tonight, picked up on this. ❤️🔥
Sam on Jet lag's Channel: We are offsetting our carbon by 10x
Sam on Wendover: Carbon offset is a scam
probably how he found out its a scam. he probably went “let me do some research on all these carbon credits im buying… oh shit its a scam!”
@@TheWaynester101 I'd imagine he is using on of the more expensive ones that actually work propelt
I actually looked up the jet lag carbon offset org. And they do it by decreasing emissions in developing countries, by tech upgrades, thereby preventing an equivalent carbon output. (In theory).
This is probably the reason for the 10x: as long as the actual offset is more than 10% of what was promised, they will actually have offset more than they emitted
@@NGCAnderopolis goldstandard, the certification company jetlag uses, was also mentioned in this video as requiring more stringent standards for cook stove programs.
Congrats on making it on Last Week Tonight!!
Holy crap You were featured on last week tonight! 😄
I have to wonder how many of the companies are actually trying to offset their carbon vs just boosting their public image. This also would lead to more scam types since the buyer wouldn't even care if the offset that they purchased is actually doing what it claims to do
I also wonder how common a "sincere altruist-to-corrupted moneygrabber" pipeline is among those groups.
I know I've heard stories about that, whether from news articles or full fledged documentaries, but I wonder what that looks like taken as a whole.
There are people in charge of making sure that doesn't happen, third parties and such, and for the most part a lot of projects are verifiable.
Uhhh, Sam, you made it into John Olivers show.
Congrats my dude, 100% deserved.
Gib link
Late night talk shows are NOT the pinnacle of knowledge and credibility. That’s not something to brag about.
It's probably not true but I feel like more people watch these videos than John Oliver's show x:
John Oliver is straight up trash
@@orppranator5230 when a talk show uses reliable sources, that's something to be proud of
Yet again another insightful and revealing video by @Wendover Productions.
Damn, I have a whole warehouse full of carbon offsets! I was planning my retirement around selling them at giant profit!
Where should I send my bitcoin to acquire your carbon offset ? (at June 2022 bitcoin price)
Maybe someone can trade their NFTs for your carbon offsets. 🤣
monaros are going up in price
You're on "Last week tonight"!
Burning wood isn't necessarily bad for the atmosphere - Forests store carbon only to a certain point. Once they have maximum foilage the emissions from the rotting biomass equal the carbon stored in new plants. So burning wood out of fully utilized forests is effectively carbon neutral, as new carbon can now be stored in the woods place.
Therefore, clear-cutting actually is carbon negative since you remove the solid lumber and store it in construction, building, etc. Then the new forest grows and reaches maximum foliage again.
@@walkerw3091 harvesting wood is very beneficial! However clear cutting has negative effects for the local ecology.
Wow a clip from this was used on Jon Oliver last night!
They were very obviously a scam, but thanks for making it clear
They are selling PR
He totally researched this on accident while trying to figure out how to offset his emissions during jetlag
I've actually camped in Hawk Mountain with my BSA troop. Lovely place
Did you light a campfire?
I travel a lot for my work and am deeply frustrated by carbon offsets. Many of my clients will gladly pay a carbon offset for flying me out to them, and only one in the past 5 years has told me about carefully researching which one they purchased.
I live in the US, which has few good alternatives to air travel. I can take our national train, which has a bunch of problems, the biggest being that it only reaches a fraction of the country.
My current plan is to push clients for virtual work, but only some of them will accept this, even with steep price discounts.
They were very obviously a scam, but thanks for making that clear!
You are my hero.
The methods for reducing CO2 emissions from random sources, for decades at time, and selling the credits, are mostly a scam. There are too many optimistic assumptions.
Just build some moodern nuclear power plants, and you can generate great certifiable amounts of carbon credits.
Thank you for this video!
Regards,
Anthony
This reminds me of the cholesterol hysteria based on a faulty unreviewed research paper used by sugar companies to deflect blame from their product
Same with steel companies spreading the lie that aluminum causes Alzheimer's back in 1919, to this day there's people who still believe it.
Alright plankton we get it you're trying to get the formula.
This video was extremely well put together and educational. Thank you ❤
Just saw you guys on John Oliver... cool. I was like, I know that voice.
So selling carbon offsets to reduce emissions is essentially the same as making highways wider to reduce traffic, who woulda thunk
Laughs in one lane each way Canadian highways. Ill take double wide for 500 Trebek.
That wasn't the point of the video at all.
@@zachsuarez1830 what do you think capitalism is?
As someone from Mexico bigger lane highways can actually help traffic, on teh city i live we have 2 4 lane highways that wroked really well, until the goverment changed how the traffic moved between the highways and the it became a mess, how it worked is that you have this 2 highways separated from a river and they were 2 directional 4 lane highways , and the highways have conections between them with bridges so you could freely move between them and unless there was something like a traffic accident there wasn't any traffic jams, but them the goverment got the idea to make that both highwyas can only move in one direction so now you practically have a two 8 lane highways with a lot of traffic, people has been begging to return to how it was in the past, but the goverment already spent money on infrastructure to connect the 2 highways because obviously a lot of the old bridges and crosses became useless when they did that sonthey needed to make new ones,and all of that money wasted to have worse traffic, no is not the number of lanes, is how you implement them, in the past the highways in my city were really well impemented and worked perfecly then they fucked it over.
@@BB_Sebring so what should dictate decision making? The government? The NGO's that are responsible for the failed experiments in this video? Y'all always have so much to say, but not a single feasable solution.
Yo Sam this video mentioned on Last Week Tonight with John Oliver! Congratulations man! Continue to good work.
A well researched and produced video on an important topic. Thank you making this.
Weird to be watching Last Week Tonight and suddenly hear Sam’s voice. My UA-cam is leaking.
Are we expecting wendover to precursor any last week tonight topic now？
This is such a big topic, I wish some major show would tackle it.
Wish granted!
@@sawmeap Sarcasm failed ;)
I was watching LWT when suddenly I heard a voice that I'm very familiar with!
Aren't you currently doing a carbon offset with Jet Lag? Lol. Maybe this is a good joke and I'll watch the video. BRB.
Edit: watched the video. A brief mention that there are some good ones. I'm going to assume that Jet Lag the Game is using a good one
The first thing i thought when i saw the notification
Yup, and that's a lot of the reason I made this video. You couldn't have watched it all yet so I know you don't know this yet (and that's fine,) but the thesis of the video is that carbon offsets can be effective, but that the market-based system through which they're sold incentivizes ineffective/scam offsets.
We offset Jet Lag 10x over to be sure that it can't be made ineffective by offset being overstated (the most we've seen in large cases is 3-4x overstating) and we also use cookstove replacement offsets certified by the Gold Standard (which has stricter requirements for accounting and oversight than the United Nations, for example.)
He said there are good offset groups
@@Wendoverproductions Gotta love comments made before watching lol
@@Wendoverproductions "You couldn't have watched it all"
me: laughs in 2x speed
The Nature Conservancy is an excellent organization that has done much to preserve forest lands, which are important carbon sinks. Studies have determined that it takes at least 20yrs for a freshly planted forest to actually take up more carbon that it emits. Any effort to preserve existing old forests needs to be incentivized. I will continue to give money to Nature Conservancy, not for the carbon offsets, but just because I think they do good things.
That was my thought as well. At least the Nature Conservancy selling credits on already conserved land is raising money for even more land purchases (their entire purpose for existing). So that one isn't a scam necessarily, just not as effective as stated.
@@graham1034 I think you might want to watch the video again.
Carbon offsets via Nature Conservancy can be wholly ineffective, or worse, have a net negative impact.
The video isn't talking about the Nature Conservancy in and of itself. It's talking about carbon offsets they've sold.
@@mechanomics2649 I meant it's better than the outright for profit scams. The overall point of the video is fully valid. Even for the Nature Conservancy example.
For people looking to donate to a good cause I'd recommend them though.