Hacker News Reader

Comment by zug_zug | Hacker News Reader

I think this is important because I think it's more economically productive to give 1% to offsets that are supporting the correct technologies than it is to give 100% that are just bullshitting (claiming trees that were already growing).

View on HN

PSE (Puget Sound Energy) has an offset program that includes paying for delaying the harvesting of trees[0]. That's kind of paying for already growing trees but research has found increased carbon capture as trees age [1] so it might be an effective choice regardless. This will, of course, not counter actually fraudulent cases.

[0] https://www.pse.com/en/green-options/Renewable-Energy-Progra... [1] https://www.pacificforest.org/ee-old-trees-store-more-carbon...

>I think this is important because I think it's more economically productive to give 1% to offsets that are supporting the correct technologie

I don't think anyone disagrees with the general sentiment. The problem is that it isn't clear what the 'correct technologies' are. For example, you don't want carbon offset money going to 'bullshit' initiatives like funding already growing trees - but I've seen compelling arguments that even planting new trees is generally a colossal waste of time.

Well ideally I'd like to purchase carbon-neutral gasoline, even at $8 a gallon or whatever. It would be a large offset, and it would go to a technology that could scale.

>Well ideally I'd like to purchase carbon-neutral gasoline, even at $8 a gallon or whatever.

Wouldn't we all.

>It would be a large offset, and it would go to a technology that could scale.

Hope is not a policy. We can't replace carbon today. We can't even replace fossil fuels today. There is no technology coming that is able to do that.

So ... what now?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com