Analysis of the carbon offset projects used by top corporations including Delta, Gucci and ExxonMobil raises concerns around their emission cuts claims

Some of the world’s most profitable – and most polluting corporations – have invested in carbon offset projects that have fundamental failings and are “probably junk”, suggesting industry claims about greenhouse gas reductions were likely overblown, according to new analysis.

Delta, Gucci, Volkswagen, ExxonMobil, Disney, easyJet, and Nestlé are among the major corporations to have purchased millions of carbon credits from climate friendly projects that are “likely junk” or worthless when it comes to offsetting their greenhouse gas emissions, according to a classification system developed by Corporate Accountability, a non-profit, transnational corporate watchdog

Some of these companies no longer use CO2 offsets amid mounting evidence that carbon trading do not lead to the claimed emissions cuts – and in some cases may even cause environmental and social harms.

  • ThrowawayOnLemmy@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    25
    ·
    7 months ago

    We knew that when they were buying them. Carbon offsets are just another way to kick the can down the road past the point of no return.

    • cogman@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      22
      ·
      7 months ago

      Worse, they were pure PR. A way for a company to say “look how green we are, we are offsetting all our emissions!”. Which, of course, they did by finding a shady company that “offset” the most for the least amount of money.

      I wonder how many times the same tree was paid for by companies to “offset” their CO2.

      It doesn’t even kick any can down the road. It’s throwing cash at a tree while rolling coal.

  • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    23
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    7 months ago

    Carbon offsets have always been bullshit.

    I don’t know how anyone is still falling for them

    • disguy_ovahea@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      edit-2
      7 months ago

      That’s incorrect. There are legitimate offsets, and bullshit ones. Let’s say you have an online business. You can’t control the energy consumption from leased servers, or tell UPS to use electric vehicles for delivery. The only way you can reduce your business’s footprint is by offsetting. By funding alternative energy harnessing devices like solar or wind, even devices that do not directly power your business, there is a measured carbon reduction by the production of those devices that can be subtracted from your business’s footprint. Offsetting like this is recognized by climate scientists as legitimate.

      The bullshit ones have estimated offsets based on experimental averages. Planting trees to combat deforestation, for example, while good for the environment, do not provide a measured reduction to carbon in the atmosphere. Those estimates are not recognized as legitimate offsets by the scientific community, but are widely used in business due to lower cost of implementation.

    • Aniki 🌱🌿@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      11
      ·
      edit-2
      7 months ago

      I know tons of clowns on Lemmy that will downvote you the second you mention you cant capitalism your way out of climate change. The same fucks shopping for EVs and refusing to go vegan, probably.

      • bassomitron@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        13
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        7 months ago

        Why the hostility towards common folk buying EVs? I know EVs aren’t actually very green, but if you have the choice and ability to choose between an ICE or EV, I’d rather they do the latter. Of course, I think many Hybrids have proven to be more carbon efficient over the lifetime of the vehicle than both ICE and EVs, but that’s another discussion. And if you live in a situation where you don’t actually need a car, that’s also the most ideal.

        Also, vegan isn’t a viable option for many people. Hell, half the world doesn’t even have access to reliable grocers or live in climates that aren’t very capable of growing enough plants to live off of alone without supplementing with eggs or milk or some other animal product. A lot of people that have severe diet restrictions (e.g. Low FODMAP) are allergic to a shit ton of plants and fruits (I personally think some of the chemicals and/or GMOs used on/in our crops are what’s triggering the sudden rise in people who are becoming gluten and/or FODMAP sensitive, but again, another discussion).

        The hostility should be directed towards these corporations and those who are actively or aggressively working against solutions for climate change.

        • cogman@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          7 months ago

          The hostility towards EVs is misplaced, likely due to both musk being a shithead and tons of misleading articles about how terrible they are. Over their lifetime, EVs have far less emissions than any other vehicle. It’s not even close. Certainly there are better alternatives like public transport (which isn’t available everywhere) or cycling (which isn’t doable by everyone). However, in a car society, EVs are just about the best we can do.

          As for the food restrictions, they are just not that common. Most people have access to and can tolerate rice and beans which are a complete protein set. As for vitamins the vast majority are found in high quantities in common plants (such as spinach). About the only thing to watch out for is B12 deficiency. Combatting that, however, does not require meat with every meal.

          Certainly it’d be better if more variety and tasty plants were available. However, because plants are a staple to cuisine they are everywhere. If you look at the actual meat in your diet you’ll find it’s almost always served with a load of plant based food surrounding it.

          I’m sympathetic with the difficulties going full vegan and am open to the notion that it’s not possible for everybody. However, that does not mean that it’s not an achievable diet for most people.

      • FireRetardant@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        7 months ago

        Reduction of consumption is our only answer. Your car didn’t magically become eco friendly because ford said they would plant a couple tress after you bought it.