It really gets me that all those big companies claim to be carbon neutral but meanwhile they keep on fueling consumerism which causes huge amounts of emissions through the sales of their products and services.
Put it differently, these companies simply ignore the externalities resulting from their existence and their drive to maximise revenue.
Also, that carbon neutrality is mostly achieved by buying carbon offsets which is at best a very limited resource and at worst a total scam:
* Even if it would work as well as possible, the earth’s land ecosystems can only hold enough additional vegetation to absorb 40 - 100 GtCO₂e from the atmosphere.
* Once this additional growth is achieved (and that takes decades), there is no capacity for additional carbon storage on land.
* The world emits 55 GtCO₂e into the atmosphere per year. So all we can offset is 2 year’s emissions at most.
So even if it would work (but zero evidence so far), offsetting is not a sustainable solution: it is too little and too late because we need to cut emissions dramatically (by 40 GtCO₂e per year) in the next 20 years.
@wim_v12e Yes. That way it doesn't rot, which would release methane. You get syngas as a byproduct, which can be converted to oil via the Fischer-Tropsch method.
Whether charring or burying the biomass as-is is better in terms of CO2 equivalents is something I don't fully know yet. Main point is that we perform arboriculture to do this, not treating forests as static things but a slower form of agriculture.
Other things to do include rationing meat, rationing fuel, expanding public transport etc..
@sa2tms That is interesting, I didn't know about syngas etc.
I agree with all the rest, and in fact I also think a global planned economy would be ideal.
the mastodon instance at cybre.space is retiring
see the end-of-life plan for details: https://cybre.space/~chr/cybre-space-eol