Big oil without emissions: shady greenwashing or a sustainable solution? | Transforming Business
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 16 มิ.ย. 2024
- Carbon offsetting is set to become a $50 billion industry by the year 2030. But it is largely unregulated, and credits that are difficult to verify and quantify are only making the industry shadier. We look at how some of the top purchasers, including oil giant Shell, are investing and why.
0:00 Intro
0:52 What's carbon offsetting?
2:40 The businesses using offsets
5:05 The offsetting downsides
8:13 The murky world of offsetting
11:45 Saving offsets
14:35 A grey market
#carbonoffsets #shell #economy
Subscribe: th-cam.com/users/deutsche...
For more news go to: www.dw.com/en/
Follow DW on social media:
►Facebook: / deutschewellenews
►Twitter: / dwnews
►Instagram: / dwnews
►Twitch: / dwnews_hangout
Für Videos in deutscher Sprache besuchen Sie: / dwdeutsch
![[MPD직캠] 베이비몬스터 치키타 직캠 4K 'LIKE THAT' (BABYMONSTER CHIQUITA FanCam) | @MCOUNTDOWN_2024.6.13](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/h99J4vWm7Ew/mqdefault.jpg)
*shady greenwashing*
It's simply a shell game of optics. Off setting doesn't lessen the net amount of ecological ruin, it shifts it so a company can carry on as usual yet report to the public it's "reducing" omissions by buying a more pristine area's imaginary carbon chits.
A carbon offset or credit is a corporation buying a stove for a family in Zimbabwe.
Ya, we’re screwed.
Chemical engineer here that is participating on research and development of power to X technologies.
The idea is to study and optimize Chemical Reactions that uses CO2/CO/H2 and CO2 capture technology to create a near closed carbon cycle.
This is why research is focusing in Methanol Synthesis, Fischer-Tropsch, etc.
Are we going to last 2035, forget about 2050😂
Yes 2050 but we'll die sooner than 2035 from the climate change from nuclear bombs.
It's Greenwashing, nothing more.
Whenever you see activity that is intended produce carbon offsets - be wary of accounting shell games. These systems are intended to be jackpots for elites
In principle it might help, but in practice there are so much shady practices that it would be better to abolish it
i personally lowered by electrical consumption - which comes from hydroelectric energy mostly, which fortunately can then be sold to the generally dirtier, not necessarily through fault of their own, I think US electric grid - by about 40 to 50% in the last two years... and i know a lot of people who claim to be rather concerned and interested and willing in participating in the environmental / energy crisis... maybe not to the point i am, but i've seen the same kind of people do everything they can to learn about recycling and composting and do their best, and i can't help but wonder despite all of these (including corporate efforts), will it be enough? i am positive and hopeful to my own surprise, but, the doubt remains...
less travel (by car), much less meat, shower only when needed, clean/rinse using cold water as much as possible, lowering by a few degrees my heating in the winter, using less AC in the summer*, only changing my tires when necessary, avoiding technologies that use batteries as much as possible until the technology gets better (i still use a Pixel 2), using the built-in technologies in my computer to lower their power usage without significant returns, fueling up only in times where the stress is lower (not directly related but it helps relieve the higher fuel prices), using mild or sometimes cold showers (i've gotten used to it :D) are some of the ways i've used...
This is something the EU and America would need to regulate. Companies should be limited in how much they are allowed to offset by 2 factors plus there should be a mandatory payment inform of a big percentage of the net worth of what´s being produced with the amount of carbon that´s supposed to be offset for the indigenous people. This would be fair.
I wish we could just have massive financial penalties for not reducing emissions by giant strides, and all fines would go into a slush fund to fund green tech.
Instead of set amounts, it should be a percentage of profits. Reduce emissions by 25% per year or be penalized 25% of profits. No credits.
This would have course generate a huge amount of jobs and economic growth as companies had to pay for retrofitting and green tech to replace outdated infrastructure.
Most of this could easily be done with simple retrofits to stop "leaks". And probably would result in new legislation being fast-tracked to see waste heat from the smelting factory to the office building next door.
We should do carbon offsetting without giving any means to make any more emissions in existing firms. We have to go to TRUE zero by 2040. And even that will rise our temperature over 2C. Large part of the temperature rise is due to aerosol masking effect that adds more clouds to the skies and stops when carbon emissions stops. It is studied that the masking effect is 0,6C-1,4C over current temperatures and those will lead us to 1,75C - 2,55C world.
And we are still emitting more ghg's so temperature rise is going even higher every day.
Is there a law in Europe to support financially forest owners?
I am a forest owner and I don't get any cent for the oxygen produced by my oks. I don't even get a "thank you" from my government.
Until humans cease adding to greenhouse gas emissions beyond those of us whose natural digestion generates methane, mechanisms are needed to transition. Offsets can be one of those mechanisms…IF they can be scored genuinely. Therein lies the rub.
As someone who has dedicated my life’s work to mitigating environmental damage I see the potential of offsets, and have not spent a penny on any available to date. I hope someday reliably scored, globally applicable, and regulated offsets are available…and then I might put my money into them to even further accelerate our coming into balance with our planet.
Pretty poor in respect of Shell turning down an interview, particularly when this programme's appraisal was fair?
So much greenwashing in the industry it is rife! It will take plenty of regulation to make this a thing of the past.
In 2023, arguing over the definition and merits of different carbon offsetting schemes is tantamount to rearranging deckchairs on the Titanic. The remaining carbon budget compatible with +1.5Celsius of global heating is estimated to be a few hundred Gigatonnes. This equates to 5 or 6 years of BAU global carbon emissions. Given that global carbon budgets are subject to large uncertainties and ignore accelerating climate feedbacks, the concept of an offset is already defunct. Humanity faces a stark choice - cut emissions to zero quickly, or accept inexorable collapse of global food and water supplies.
This is what happened when corporation and their supporters thinking about real issues, its just another pr campaign.
Everyone who buys things from them supports them. if you have a car/cell phone/air conditioner, etc, etc, etc, then you are a corporate supporter.
administrators have successfully deflected the problem to consumers and not corporations. the big fish polluting corporations uses pr. folks who preach flew in hundreds of private jets to discuss objective to reduce emission
@@patrickgz agree. 👍
I emit in one place and claim to absorb in another, letting jurisdiction throw wrench in the audit.
We should end all big oil companies in next 10 years.
The voice of the speaker is nerve-wrecking. 😮😢
When our children ask who burned the world. We should just point.
Comparing the pre-industrial era with the present , it is thought that it can be seen the importance of greening by planting trees .
However , it is thought that careless planting trees would create new other problems .
when u let the criminals to write their own "punishment"
So help my American mind understand the global south and north what is that
"Putting it very simply, carbon offsetting is based on a maths equation".
That is not very simple.
Carbon offsetting is bollocks, that's much easier to understand.
The best way to avoid greenwashing is to buy the offsets yourself as a consumer and only go for the real quality.
Whenever ppl talked about this yall collectively shut their mouth and said they're stupid
It's just a tradition stage. We ultimately need to eliminate all the GHG emissions.
Everything is flawed. Come up with a solution/business that solves the problem. It can be somewhat effective AS A PART of a larger basket of strategies.
A large basket of greenwashing strategies only serves to distract and delay the enforcement of regulations and more expensive investment into actual solutions.
The powers to be fear the youth today like they feared me in the 1970s. Can anyone tell me when climate change was first talked about?
50s or 60s
@@nenasiek no sir earlier.
SPACE WARSHIPS:
Since the EU shows no interest in building these, while we already have the technology, I told America I will become American, when allowed to work on these projects, and I will not share progress with Europe.
Source: trust me bro!
2030 ??
You won't see 🙈 2030,.. not in these flesh bodies.
See : Revelations Chapter 11 ( February 24, 2914)
Shepherds Chapel 💒 Bible Studies
Don't be Biblically Illiterate.
Fentanyl is bad for you. It makes you believe the answers are in a fairytale book written by stone age shepperds.