Most experts point to the quality and integrity challenges of many carbon offset projects, but I believe the problem with most offsets goes much deeper.
I must confess that I find some flaws in the article too.
1. You say that that renewable energy project are not designed to address the long-term challenge of getting to (and staying at) net zero. That is probably the biggest flaw. 55% of global emission are energy related. Switching to renewable energy is the most effective long term solution to Decarbonize our economies. At the same time forests, if properly managed are the best way to store carbon long term in the soil.
2. Comparing carbon offsetting with removal is like comparing a kWh of electricity and a kWh of heat. They are simply incomparable.
3. Road transport (passenger and commercial) make up for about 70% of transport emissions. Saying that we need to focus on air and shipping rather than road transport is a huge flaw.
I absolutely agree that offsetting sucks and it’s just greenwashing 2.0 on a certain extent. Though the biggest problems are, as you pointed out, in the quality and credibility and not in the type of offset. Reforestation is absolutely needed, renewable energy even more and they are long term solutions. If you think about it for a moment, if we are really able to reduce emissions in first place and restore natural carbon storage, we would not need anthropogenic removal and storage in the long term (I know this one it’s a bit naive)
The article mentions direct air capture, which companies like Carbon Engineering and Climeworks are doing. This must be coupled with deep geologic storage, which Climeworks is doing at their Orca plant in Iceland. Other permanent solutions include carbon capture and storage from the smokestacks of existing fossil fuel plants or on new bioenergy facilities, and enhanced weathering. The latter tries to accelerate the conversion of CO2 to carbonate minerals by crushing carbon-absorbing rocks like limestone and olivine. Check out Project Vesta.
It blows my mind away to think that 3 billion people are still cooking like in the stone age - yes, using 3 stones to cook their daily meals - and while we cannot fund existing successful projects to upscale and move them up the energy ladder while avoiding over 50% of those CO2 emissions, we are discussing sucking CO2 from the atmosphere. Something is really not ok here.
People usually misunderstand that if you are in favor of CDR, you are not against reducing CO2 emissions. We will need both, asap. If we start arguing about what is better, we will only lose time and reduce the likelihood that climate change will be solved.
I must confess that I find some flaws in the article too.
1. You say that that renewable energy project are not designed to address the long-term challenge of getting to (and staying at) net zero. That is probably the biggest flaw. 55% of global emission are energy related. Switching to renewable energy is the most effective long term solution to Decarbonize our economies. At the same time forests, if properly managed are the best way to store carbon long term in the soil.
2. Comparing carbon offsetting with removal is like comparing a kWh of electricity and a kWh of heat. They are simply incomparable.
3. Road transport (passenger and commercial) make up for about 70% of transport emissions. Saying that we need to focus on air and shipping rather than road transport is a huge flaw.
I absolutely agree that offsetting sucks and it’s just greenwashing 2.0 on a certain extent. Though the biggest problems are, as you pointed out, in the quality and credibility and not in the type of offset. Reforestation is absolutely needed, renewable energy even more and they are long term solutions. If you think about it for a moment, if we are really able to reduce emissions in first place and restore natural carbon storage, we would not need anthropogenic removal and storage in the long term (I know this one it’s a bit naive)
Thought provoking article. Can you please help with few real life examples of permanent carbon removal and storage solutions
The article mentions direct air capture, which companies like Carbon Engineering and Climeworks are doing. This must be coupled with deep geologic storage, which Climeworks is doing at their Orca plant in Iceland. Other permanent solutions include carbon capture and storage from the smokestacks of existing fossil fuel plants or on new bioenergy facilities, and enhanced weathering. The latter tries to accelerate the conversion of CO2 to carbonate minerals by crushing carbon-absorbing rocks like limestone and olivine. Check out Project Vesta.
It blows my mind away to think that 3 billion people are still cooking like in the stone age - yes, using 3 stones to cook their daily meals - and while we cannot fund existing successful projects to upscale and move them up the energy ladder while avoiding over 50% of those CO2 emissions, we are discussing sucking CO2 from the atmosphere. Something is really not ok here.
People usually misunderstand that if you are in favor of CDR, you are not against reducing CO2 emissions. We will need both, asap. If we start arguing about what is better, we will only lose time and reduce the likelihood that climate change will be solved.