Date: 18/08/2023 06:12:03
From: roughbarked
ID: 2066130
Subject: So lt's talk about carbon credit offfsets.
Deep in the Australian outback, there are billions of dollars being made from carbon farming.
Remote stations that used to farm sheep or cattle are now doing nothing on their land — and that’s the intention.
It’s called Human Induced Regeneration (HIR) and while it’s Australia’s most popular method of carbon farming, it’s also controversial.
The premise is simple – encourage Australian forests to regenerate, to help draw down carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.
• Has anyone told the powers that be that mulga and other such marginal lands type forests do not replace themselves at all rapidy. While they may not have sheep and cattle, they still run goats. Give goats a chance and they’ll wipe forest regrowth out.
Date: 18/08/2023 06:12:23
From: roughbarked
ID: 2066131
Subject: re: So lt's talk about carbon credit offfsets.
roughbarked said:
Deep in the Australian outback, there are billions of dollars being made from carbon farming.
Remote stations that used to farm sheep or cattle are now doing nothing on their land — and that’s the intention.
It’s called Human Induced Regeneration (HIR) and while it’s Australia’s most popular method of carbon farming, it’s also controversial.
The premise is simple – encourage Australian forests to regenerate, to help draw down carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.
• Has anyone told the powers that be that mulga and other such marginal lands type forests do not replace themselves at all rapidy. While they may not have sheep and cattle, they still run goats. Give goats a chance and they’ll wipe forest regrowth out.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-08-18/experts-criticise-carbon-offset-scheme-730/102736696
Date: 18/08/2023 07:58:06
From: The Rev Dodgson
ID: 2066148
Subject: re: So lt's talk about carbon credit offfsets.
roughbarked said:
roughbarked said:
Deep in the Australian outback, there are billions of dollars being made from carbon farming.
Remote stations that used to farm sheep or cattle are now doing nothing on their land — and that’s the intention.
It’s called Human Induced Regeneration (HIR) and while it’s Australia’s most popular method of carbon farming, it’s also controversial.
The premise is simple – encourage Australian forests to regenerate, to help draw down carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.
• Has anyone told the powers that be that mulga and other such marginal lands type forests do not replace themselves at all rapidy. While they may not have sheep and cattle, they still run goats. Give goats a chance and they’ll wipe forest regrowth out.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-08-18/experts-criticise-carbon-offset-scheme-730/102736696
From that link:
“She was frustrated by Professor Macintosh’s criticisms.
“The only technology available to tackle climate change is to store carbon in the trees and soil … , in our view, really risks undermining investment in the sector, and delivering those urgent results,” she said.
“This isn’t an either-or question — we need to get on with actually drawing down carbon from the atmosphere.”“
Date: 18/08/2023 08:05:46
From: roughbarked
ID: 2066151
Subject: re: So lt's talk about carbon credit offfsets.
The Rev Dodgson said:
roughbarked said:
roughbarked said:
Deep in the Australian outback, there are billions of dollars being made from carbon farming.
Remote stations that used to farm sheep or cattle are now doing nothing on their land — and that’s the intention.
It’s called Human Induced Regeneration (HIR) and while it’s Australia’s most popular method of carbon farming, it’s also controversial.
The premise is simple – encourage Australian forests to regenerate, to help draw down carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.
• Has anyone told the powers that be that mulga and other such marginal lands type forests do not replace themselves at all rapidy. While they may not have sheep and cattle, they still run goats. Give goats a chance and they’ll wipe forest regrowth out.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-08-18/experts-criticise-carbon-offset-scheme-730/102736696
From that link:
“She was frustrated by Professor Macintosh’s criticisms.
“The only technology available to tackle climate change is to store carbon in the trees and soil … , in our view, really risks undermining investment in the sector, and delivering those urgent results,” she said.
“This isn’t an either-or question — we need to get on with actually drawing down carbon from the atmosphere.”“
Yeah well…
Date: 18/08/2023 08:21:16
From: The Rev Dodgson
ID: 2066153
Subject: re: So lt's talk about carbon credit offfsets.
roughbarked said:
The Rev Dodgson said:
roughbarked said:
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-08-18/experts-criticise-carbon-offset-scheme-730/102736696
From that link:
“She was frustrated by Professor Macintosh’s criticisms.
“The only technology available to tackle climate change is to store carbon in the trees and soil … , in our view, really risks undermining investment in the sector, and delivering those urgent results,” she said.
“This isn’t an either-or question — we need to get on with actually drawing down carbon from the atmosphere.”“
Yeah well…
Well what?
Date: 18/08/2023 08:27:59
From: roughbarked
ID: 2066154
Subject: re: So lt's talk about carbon credit offfsets.
The Rev Dodgson said:
roughbarked said:
The Rev Dodgson said:
From that link:
“She was frustrated by Professor Macintosh’s criticisms.
“The only technology available to tackle climate change is to store carbon in the trees and soil … , in our view, really risks undermining investment in the sector, and delivering those urgent results,” she said.
“This isn’t an either-or question — we need to get on with actually drawing down carbon from the atmosphere.”“
Yeah well…
Well what?
She’s talking about arid lands. Marginal ecosystems where those bent but small trees take many hundreds of years to attain their skimpy morphology.
Hardly sustains billiion$ of offsets.
Date: 18/08/2023 08:43:10
From: The Rev Dodgson
ID: 2066159
Subject: re: So lt's talk about carbon credit offfsets.
roughbarked said:
The Rev Dodgson said:
roughbarked said:
Yeah well…
Well what?
She’s talking about arid lands. Marginal ecosystems where those bent but small trees take many hundreds of years to attain their skimpy morphology.
Hardly sustains billiion$ of offsets.
If you mean:
if the current system is paying out more money than it should be, using the best possible estimate of increased sequestration for each property, then it should be fixed,
I agree.
It reads more like:
The whole system is a total waste of money and should be done away with.
Date: 18/08/2023 08:47:36
From: roughbarked
ID: 2066160
Subject: re: So lt's talk about carbon credit offfsets.
The Rev Dodgson said:
roughbarked said:
The Rev Dodgson said:
Well what?
She’s talking about arid lands. Marginal ecosystems where those bent but small trees take many hundreds of years to attain their skimpy morphology.
Hardly sustains billiion$ of offsets.
If you mean:
if the current system is paying out more money than it should be, using the best possible estimate of increased sequestration for each property, then it should be fixed,
I agree.
It reads more like:
The whole system is a total waste of money and should be done away with.
I read it as either a mistaken misrepresentation of the facts or a deliberate rort.
I don’t believe it is a waste of money to invest in the environment but I do disagree that unfactual claims of regeneration shouldn’t be called out for what they are.
Date: 18/08/2023 08:52:51
From: The Rev Dodgson
ID: 2066163
Subject: re: So lt's talk about carbon credit offfsets.
roughbarked said:
The Rev Dodgson said:
roughbarked said:
She’s talking about arid lands. Marginal ecosystems where those bent but small trees take many hundreds of years to attain their skimpy morphology.
Hardly sustains billiion$ of offsets.
If you mean:
if the current system is paying out more money than it should be, using the best possible estimate of increased sequestration for each property, then it should be fixed,
I agree.
It reads more like:
The whole system is a total waste of money and should be done away with.
I read it as either a mistaken misrepresentation of the facts or a deliberate rort.
I don’t believe it is a waste of money to invest in the environment but I do disagree that unfactual claims of regeneration shouldn’t be called out for what they are.
Well I just said I agreed with that, didn’t I.
As she said in the quote, it’s not an either-or.
Date: 18/08/2023 08:55:33
From: roughbarked
ID: 2066165
Subject: re: So lt's talk about carbon credit offfsets.
The Rev Dodgson said:
roughbarked said:
The Rev Dodgson said:
If you mean:
if the current system is paying out more money than it should be, using the best possible estimate of increased sequestration for each property, then it should be fixed,
I agree.
It reads more like:
The whole system is a total waste of money and should be done away with.
I read it as either a mistaken misrepresentation of the facts or a deliberate rort.
I don’t believe it is a waste of money to invest in the environment but I do disagree that unfactual claims of regeneration shouldn’t be called out for what they are.
Well I just said I agreed with that, didn’t I.
As she said in the quote, it’s not an either-or.
and this is true. However, claims that are incorrect, should be investigated.
Date: 18/08/2023 09:02:07
From: SCIENCE
ID: 2066174
Subject: re: So lt's talk about carbon credit offfsets.
Wait so if trees aren’t actively planted, they will only slowly grow¿
Date: 18/08/2023 09:04:57
From: roughbarked
ID: 2066175
Subject: re: So lt's talk about carbon credit offfsets.
SCIENCE said:
Wait so if trees aren’t actively planted, they will only slowly grow¿
No. Actively planting them will not automatically cause growth by thta fact alone.
Someone or Huey, will have to water them. People seem to make the mistake that nitive plants don’t need water. They are after all only plants. None of which will grow without a source of aqua.
Date: 18/08/2023 09:07:48
From: roughbarked
ID: 2066177
Subject: re: So lt's talk about carbon credit offfsets.
roughbarked said:
SCIENCE said:
Wait so if trees aren’t actively planted, they will only slowly grow¿
No. Actively planting them will not automatically cause growth by thta fact alone.
Someone or Huey, will have to water them. People seem to make the mistake that nitive plants don’t need water. They are after all only plants. None of which will grow without a source of aqua.
They will only grow slowly because that is their nature. They have the ability to survive long periods without water but tthis does not imply that they actively put on growth during such times. It is more likely that they will cast off most of the morphology and appear to be slowly dying. Any farmer will tell you that any setback will cause the plant to go backwards and either die or never really get back to health.
Date: 18/08/2023 09:10:28
From: SCIENCE
ID: 2066179
Subject: re: So lt's talk about carbon credit offfsets.
roughbarked said:
roughbarked said:
SCIENCE said:
Wait so if trees aren’t actively planted, they will only slowly grow¿
No. Actively planting them will not automatically cause growth by thta fact alone.
Someone or Huey, will have to water them. People seem to make the mistake that nitive plants don’t need water. They are after all only plants. None of which will grow without a source of aqua.
They will only grow slowly because that is their nature. They have the ability to survive long periods without water but tthis does not imply that they actively put on growth during such times. It is more likely that they will cast off most of the morphology and appear to be slowly dying. Any farmer will tell you that any setback will cause the plant to go backwards and either die or never really get back to health.
So what we need is plantation forests and moisture farming¿
Date: 18/08/2023 09:11:36
From: roughbarked
ID: 2066180
Subject: re: So lt's talk about carbon credit offfsets.
Date: 18/08/2023 09:18:57
From: captain_spalding
ID: 2066182
Subject: re: So lt's talk about carbon credit offfsets.
The Rev Dodgson said:
roughbarked said:
The Rev Dodgson said:
Well what?
She’s talking about arid lands. Marginal ecosystems where those bent but small trees take many hundreds of years to attain their skimpy morphology.
Hardly sustains billiion$ of offsets.
If you mean:
if the current system is paying out more money than it should be, using the best possible estimate of increased sequestration for each property, then it should be fixed,
I agree.
It reads more like:
The whole system is a total waste of money and should be done away with.
Because it’s a boondoggle, to give a little bit of money to some people for doing nothing (as in, nothing useful) other than to help generate some ‘feel-good’ publicity for polluting companies?
Date: 18/08/2023 09:28:04
From: roughbarked
ID: 2066190
Subject: re: So lt's talk about carbon credit offfsets.
SCIENCE said:
roughbarked said:
roughbarked said:
No. Actively planting them will not automatically cause growth by thta fact alone.
Someone or Huey, will have to water them. People seem to make the mistake that nitive plants don’t need water. They are after all only plants. None of which will grow without a source of aqua.
They will only grow slowly because that is their nature. They have the ability to survive long periods without water but tthis does not imply that they actively put on growth during such times. It is more likely that they will cast off most of the morphology and appear to be slowly dying. Any farmer will tell you that any setback will cause the plant to go backwards and either die or never really get back to health.
So what we need is plantation forests and moisture farming¿
We need to put back the forests where the cities farms and factories are. These are generally in the higher raibfall areas where the forest will sequester carbon more efficiently.
Sure we need to take the bovines and ovis off the marginal lands but we also need to remove the weeds and the goats.
Date: 18/08/2023 09:28:32
From: roughbarked
ID: 2066191
Subject: re: So lt's talk about carbon credit offfsets.
captain_spalding said:
The Rev Dodgson said:
roughbarked said:
She’s talking about arid lands. Marginal ecosystems where those bent but small trees take many hundreds of years to attain their skimpy morphology.
Hardly sustains billiion$ of offsets.
If you mean:
if the current system is paying out more money than it should be, using the best possible estimate of increased sequestration for each property, then it should be fixed,
I agree.
It reads more like:
The whole system is a total waste of money and should be done away with.
Because it’s a boondoggle, to give a little bit of money to some people for doing nothing (as in, nothing useful) other than to help generate some ‘feel-good’ publicity for polluting companies?
This.
Date: 18/08/2023 09:42:33
From: The Rev Dodgson
ID: 2066204
Subject: re: So lt's talk about carbon credit offfsets.
roughbarked said:
captain_spalding said:
The Rev Dodgson said:
If you mean:
if the current system is paying out more money than it should be, using the best possible estimate of increased sequestration for each property, then it should be fixed,
I agree.
It reads more like:
The whole system is a total waste of money and should be done away with.
Because it’s a boondoggle, to give a little bit of money to some people for doing nothing (as in, nothing useful) other than to help generate some ‘feel-good’ publicity for polluting companies?
This.
Sigh.
Date: 18/08/2023 09:45:09
From: roughbarked
ID: 2066206
Subject: re: So lt's talk about carbon credit offfsets.
The Rev Dodgson said:
roughbarked said:
captain_spalding said:
Because it’s a boondoggle, to give a little bit of money to some people for doing nothing (as in, nothing useful) other than to help generate some ‘feel-good’ publicity for polluting companies?
This.
Sigh.
Knew that would get you back in the discussion.
Date: 18/08/2023 09:46:01
From: roughbarked
ID: 2066208
Subject: re: So lt's talk about carbon credit offfsets.
roughbarked said:
The Rev Dodgson said:
roughbarked said:
This.
Sigh.
Knew that would get you back in the discussion.
We’d like them to be honest.
Date: 18/08/2023 09:47:12
From: captain_spalding
ID: 2066209
Subject: re: So lt's talk about carbon credit offfsets.
The Rev Dodgson said:
roughbarked said:
captain_spalding said:
Because it’s a boondoggle, to give a little bit of money to some people for doing nothing (as in, nothing useful) other than to help generate some ‘feel-good’ publicity for polluting companies?
This.
Sigh.
No, i just meant the paying of small amounts for the naturally-very-slow regeneration of semi-arid landscapes which has no hope of having any discernible impact on carbon/pollution levels.
I’m sure there’s better and more effective programmes that might be subsidised, but i wager that companies aren’t keen on them because they’d cost rather more.
Date: 18/08/2023 09:49:21
From: The Rev Dodgson
ID: 2066211
Subject: re: So lt's talk about carbon credit offfsets.
roughbarked said:
The Rev Dodgson said:
roughbarked said:
This.
Sigh.
Knew that would get you back in the discussion.
No, I’m off to work now, sighing as I go.
Date: 18/08/2023 09:50:31
From: roughbarked
ID: 2066214
Subject: re: So lt's talk about carbon credit offfsets.
The Rev Dodgson said:
roughbarked said:
The Rev Dodgson said:
Sigh.
Knew that would get you back in the discussion.
No, I’m off to work now, sighing as I go.
You are supposed to whistle. ;)
Date: 18/08/2023 09:51:30
From: buffy
ID: 2066215
Subject: re: So lt's talk about carbon credit offfsets.
captain_spalding said:
The Rev Dodgson said:
roughbarked said:
This.
Sigh.
No, i just meant the paying of small amounts for the naturally-very-slow regeneration of semi-arid landscapes which has no hope of having any discernible impact on carbon/pollution levels.
I’m sure there’s better and more effective programmes that might be subsidised, but i wager that companies aren’t keen on them because they’d cost rather more.
We locked up our 133 acre bush covenant but as far as I know can’t claim any carbon credits on those trees doing their thing. They also act as a barrier between the farming (presently pines, previously bluegums and previous to that sheep) and the State Forest. And, of course, they are for my own mental health.
Date: 18/08/2023 09:51:49
From: The Rev Dodgson
ID: 2066216
Subject: re: So lt's talk about carbon credit offfsets.
roughbarked said:
The Rev Dodgson said:
roughbarked said:
Knew that would get you back in the discussion.
No, I’m off to work now, sighing as I go.
You are supposed to whistle. ;)
At least we can disagree with a smile :)
Date: 18/08/2023 09:53:27
From: roughbarked
ID: 2066220
Subject: re: So lt's talk about carbon credit offfsets.
buffy said:
captain_spalding said:
The Rev Dodgson said:
Sigh.
No, i just meant the paying of small amounts for the naturally-very-slow regeneration of semi-arid landscapes which has no hope of having any discernible impact on carbon/pollution levels.
I’m sure there’s better and more effective programmes that might be subsidised, but i wager that companies aren’t keen on them because they’d cost rather more.
We locked up our 133 acre bush covenant but as far as I know can’t claim any carbon credits on those trees doing their thing. They also act as a barrier between the farming (presently pines, previously bluegums and previous to that sheep) and the State Forest. And, of course, they are for my own mental health.
and that’s a good thing. You have preserved what is there.
Date: 18/08/2023 14:09:05
From: PermeateFree
ID: 2066326
Subject: re: So lt's talk about carbon credit offfsets.
I find it ironical that to permit greenhouse gas emitters to continue emitting, all they need to do is plant trees. This is ignoring the fact that their emissions increase climate temperatures that in turn increase the risk of fire that tend to burn down their trees to release their sequestered co2.
Date: 18/08/2023 14:13:58
From: Cymek
ID: 2066328
Subject: re: So lt's talk about carbon credit offfsets.
PermeateFree said:
I find it ironical that to permit greenhouse gas emitters to continue emitting, all they need to do is plant trees. This is ignoring the fact that their emissions increase climate temperatures that in turn increase the risk of fire that tend to burn down their trees to release their sequestered co2.
Yes it’s a cop out assuming that it’s not an outright scam or done half arsed with most trees dying
Date: 18/08/2023 14:16:42
From: roughbarked
ID: 2066330
Subject: re: So lt's talk about carbon credit offfsets.
PermeateFree said:
I find it ironical that to permit greenhouse gas emitters to continue emitting, all they need to do is plant trees. This is ignoring the fact that their emissions increase climate temperatures that in turn increase the risk of fire that tend to burn down their trees to release their sequestered co2.
Yes. None of it makes any sense.
Date: 18/08/2023 14:18:26
From: Cymek
ID: 2066332
Subject: re: So lt's talk about carbon credit offfsets.
roughbarked said:
PermeateFree said:
I find it ironical that to permit greenhouse gas emitters to continue emitting, all they need to do is plant trees. This is ignoring the fact that their emissions increase climate temperatures that in turn increase the risk of fire that tend to burn down their trees to release their sequestered co2.
Yes. None of it makes any sense.
It does if they can’t be bothered doing anything concrete
Date: 18/08/2023 14:20:34
From: roughbarked
ID: 2066334
Subject: re: So lt's talk about carbon credit offfsets.
Cymek said:
roughbarked said:
PermeateFree said:
I find it ironical that to permit greenhouse gas emitters to continue emitting, all they need to do is plant trees. This is ignoring the fact that their emissions increase climate temperatures that in turn increase the risk of fire that tend to burn down their trees to release their sequestered co2.
Yes. None of it makes any sense.
It does if they can’t be bothered doing anything concrete
Concrete. Isn’t that the RevD’s realm?
Date: 18/08/2023 14:21:13
From: Witty Rejoinder
ID: 2066337
Subject: re: So lt's talk about carbon credit offfsets.
Cymek said:
roughbarked said:
PermeateFree said:
I find it ironical that to permit greenhouse gas emitters to continue emitting, all they need to do is plant trees. This is ignoring the fact that their emissions increase climate temperatures that in turn increase the risk of fire that tend to burn down their trees to release their sequestered co2.
Yes. None of it makes any sense.
It does if they can’t be bothered doing anything concrete
One problem at a time mate…
:-)
FYI setting concrete is a big contributor to CO2
Date: 18/08/2023 14:22:27
From: roughbarked
ID: 2066339
Subject: re: So lt's talk about carbon credit offfsets.
Witty Rejoinder said:
Cymek said:
roughbarked said:
Yes. None of it makes any sense.
It does if they can’t be bothered doing anything concrete
One problem at a time mate…
:-)
FYI setting concrete is a big contributor to CO2
and uses up all the sandwhiches there.
Date: 18/08/2023 14:40:45
From: The Rev Dodgson
ID: 2066345
Subject: re: So lt's talk about carbon credit offfsets.
Cymek said:
PermeateFree said:
I find it ironical that to permit greenhouse gas emitters to continue emitting, all they need to do is plant trees. This is ignoring the fact that their emissions increase climate temperatures that in turn increase the risk of fire that tend to burn down their trees to release their sequestered co2.
Yes it’s a cop out assuming that it’s not an outright scam or done half arsed with most trees dying
This place is pretty thick with the either/orism today.
Date: 18/08/2023 14:44:16
From: Witty Rejoinder
ID: 2066349
Subject: re: So lt's talk about carbon credit offfsets.
The Rev Dodgson said:
Cymek said:
PermeateFree said:
I find it ironical that to permit greenhouse gas emitters to continue emitting, all they need to do is plant trees. This is ignoring the fact that their emissions increase climate temperatures that in turn increase the risk of fire that tend to burn down their trees to release their sequestered co2.
Yes it’s a cop out assuming that it’s not an outright scam or done half arsed with most trees dying
This place is pretty thick with the either/orism today.
Cymek is the biggest cynic since Diogenes…
Date: 18/08/2023 14:45:29
From: Bogsnorkler
ID: 2066351
Subject: re: So lt's talk about carbon credit offfsets.
Witty Rejoinder said:
The Rev Dodgson said:
Cymek said:
Yes it’s a cop out assuming that it’s not an outright scam or done half arsed with most trees dying
This place is pretty thick with the either/orism today.
Cymek is the biggest cynic since Diogenes…
that’s what I have, dodgy knees.
Date: 18/08/2023 14:46:54
From: roughbarked
ID: 2066353
Subject: re: So lt's talk about carbon credit offfsets.
The Rev Dodgson said:
Cymek said:
PermeateFree said:
I find it ironical that to permit greenhouse gas emitters to continue emitting, all they need to do is plant trees. This is ignoring the fact that their emissions increase climate temperatures that in turn increase the risk of fire that tend to burn down their trees to release their sequestered co2.
Yes it’s a cop out assuming that it’s not an outright scam or done half arsed with most trees dying
This place is pretty thick with the either/orism today.
If my advice is required, how come I don’t get paid millions?
Date: 18/08/2023 14:52:24
From: Michael V
ID: 2066355
Subject: re: So lt's talk about carbon credit offfsets.
Witty Rejoinder said:
Cymek said:
roughbarked said:
Yes. None of it makes any sense.
It does if they can’t be bothered doing anything concrete
One problem at a time mate…
:-)
FYI setting concrete is a big contributor to CO2
Really?
I thought it was the calcining of limestone that contributed to atmospheric CO2.
Date: 18/08/2023 14:53:56
From: Witty Rejoinder
ID: 2066356
Subject: re: So lt's talk about carbon credit offfsets.
Michael V said:
Witty Rejoinder said:
Cymek said:
It does if they can’t be bothered doing anything concrete
One problem at a time mate…
:-)
FYI setting concrete is a big contributor to CO2
Really?
I thought it was the calcining of limestone that contributed to atmospheric CO2.
You’re probably right. I don’t know the ins and outs…
Date: 18/08/2023 14:59:22
From: The Rev Dodgson
ID: 2066359
Subject: re: So lt's talk about carbon credit offfsets.
Michael V said:
Witty Rejoinder said:
Cymek said:
It does if they can’t be bothered doing anything concrete
One problem at a time mate…
:-)
FYI setting concrete is a big contributor to CO2
Really?
I thought it was the calcining of limestone that contributed to atmospheric CO2.
Quite right.
Concrete actually absorbs CO2.
Not as much as is currently emitted by the cement manufacture, but with capture of the CO2 from that stage, and minimisation of cement content, it makes it possible to have concrete with nett sequestration over the life cycle.
Date: 18/08/2023 15:02:48
From: Michael V
ID: 2066363
Subject: re: So lt's talk about carbon credit offfsets.
Witty Rejoinder said:
Michael V said:
Witty Rejoinder said:
One problem at a time mate…
:-)
FYI setting concrete is a big contributor to CO2
Really?
I thought it was the calcining of limestone that contributed to atmospheric CO2.
You’re probably right. I don’t know the ins and outs…
The root of the word calcination refers to its most prominent use, which is to remove carbon from limestone (calcium carbonate) through combustion to yield calcium oxide (quicklime). This calcination reaction is CaCO3(s) → CaO(s) + CO2. Calcium oxide is a crucial ingredient in modern cement, and is also used as a chemical flux in smelting. Industrial calcination generally emits carbon dioxide (CO2), making it a major contributor to climate change.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calcination
Date: 18/08/2023 15:13:48
From: Cymek
ID: 2066371
Subject: re: So lt's talk about carbon credit offfsets.
Witty Rejoinder said:
The Rev Dodgson said:
Cymek said:
Yes it’s a cop out assuming that it’s not an outright scam or done half arsed with most trees dying
This place is pretty thick with the either/orism today.
Cymek is the biggest cynic since Diogenes…
D
It is ripe for dishonesty though, trees aren’t just plant them and bobs your uncle you’ve got a new forest in a few decades.
They do need looking after until established and afterwards
Having a quick look it does seem the survival rate is poor
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2022/11/221114095347.htm
https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2022/10/why-ambitious-tree-planting-and-carbon-offset-projects-are-failing/
It seems to be a feel good exercise more than useful.
Date: 18/08/2023 21:52:18
From: dv
ID: 2066552
Subject: re: So lt's talk about carbon credit offfsets.
Date: 18/08/2023 22:59:17
From: SCIENCE
ID: 2066562
Subject: re: So lt's talk about carbon credit offfsets.
Date: 18/08/2023 23:07:08
From: Bogsnorkler
ID: 2066564
Subject: re: So lt's talk about carbon credit offfsets.
SCIENCE said:
aether ore
don’t you start! a much over used expression imo.
Date: 18/08/2023 23:07:48
From: Bogsnorkler
ID: 2066565
Subject: re: So lt's talk about carbon credit offfsets.
SCIENCE said:
aether ore
ether or…
Date: 18/08/2023 23:09:42
From: sarahs mum
ID: 2066566
Subject: re: So lt's talk about carbon credit offfsets.
Bogsnorkler said:
SCIENCE said:
aether ore
ether or…
aw.
Date: 18/08/2023 23:10:40
From: dv
ID: 2066567
Subject: re: So lt's talk about carbon credit offfsets.
Date: 19/08/2023 08:13:32
From: roughbarked
ID: 2066597
Subject: re: So lt's talk about carbon credit offfsets.
There isn’t an either or. I agree with that statement and I am at a loss as to why it keeps appearing in the thread.
All attempts at solving the climate issue are worthy of attempt to prove themselves.
Date: 19/08/2023 08:20:09
From: The Rev Dodgson
ID: 2066598
Subject: re: So lt's talk about carbon credit offfsets.
roughbarked said:
There isn’t an either or. I agree with that statement and I am at a loss as to why it keeps appearing in the thread.
All attempts at solving the climate issue are worthy of attempt to prove themselves.
“and I am at a loss as to why it keeps appearing in the thread”
Seriously?
You really need to apply some critical thinking.
Date: 19/08/2023 08:21:36
From: roughbarked
ID: 2066599
Subject: re: So lt's talk about carbon credit offfsets.
The Rev Dodgson said:
roughbarked said:
There isn’t an either or. I agree with that statement and I am at a loss as to why it keeps appearing in the thread.
All attempts at solving the climate issue are worthy of attempt to prove themselves.
“and I am at a loss as to why it keeps appearing in the thread”
Seriously?
You really need to apply some critical thinking.
:)
Date: 19/08/2023 08:22:45
From: roughbarked
ID: 2066600
Subject: re: So lt's talk about carbon credit offfsets.
roughbarked said:
The Rev Dodgson said:
roughbarked said:
There isn’t an either or. I agree with that statement and I am at a loss as to why it keeps appearing in the thread.
All attempts at solving the climate issue are worthy of attempt to prove themselves.
“and I am at a loss as to why it keeps appearing in the thread”
Seriously?
You really need to apply some critical thinking.
:)
Really, it doesn’t bear thinking about.
Date: 19/08/2023 08:28:30
From: SCIENCE
ID: 2066602
Subject: re: So lt's talk about carbon credit offfsets.
Date: 25/08/2023 14:35:29
From: PermeateFree
ID: 2068583
Subject: re: So lt's talk about carbon credit offfsets.
Researchers looked at projects run by the largest forestry certification program in the world
The majority of projects analysed stored no additional carbon, despite generating millions of carbon credits
The offsets which were all issued by Verra are used by some Australian companies to achieve carbon neutral certification
https://www.abc.net.au/news/science/2023-08-25/forest-conservation-carbon-offsets-overestimated/102755212
Date: 25/08/2023 15:10:52
From: mollwollfumble
ID: 2068601
Subject: re: So lt's talk about carbon credit offfsets.
> It’s called Human Induced Regeneration (HIR)
Forestry by another name is still forestry.
