this post was submitted on 01 Sep 2023
775 points (99.2% liked)

World News

32531 readers
442 users here now

News from around the world!

Rules:

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Archive: [ https://archive.ph/G0ULZ ]

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Not really, because there are different "scopes" of emissions when declaring offsets:

Scope 1: emissions done directly during normal operations

Scope 2: emissions from the suppliers, transport and resourcing of raw materials etc.

Scope 3: indirect emissions caused by the use of the product and other effects the company is responsible for.

Obviously fossil fuel companies like Shell mostly have Scope 3 emissions. Barely any company that declares offsets even considers Scope 3 emissions though.

So all companies out there that even say they 100% offset, often just mean Scope 1 emissions. That's basically systemic green washing.

Also a lot of the offsets are nearly useless, so even if Scope 1 and 2 are offset you gotta subtract 90% ineffectiveness from the amount.