Technology

72896 readers

3098 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

Follow the lemmy.world rules.
Only tech related news or articles.
Be excellent to each other!
Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
Politics threads may be removed.
No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

L3s@lemmy.world

enu@lemmy.world

technopagan@lemmy.world

L4s@lemmy.world

L3s@hackingne.ws

L4s@hackingne.ws

Study: Carbon offsets aren’t doing their job, overstate impact (arstechnica.com)

submitted 2 years ago by stopthatgirl7@kbin.social to c/technology@lemmy.world

5 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Cambridge study says carbon offsets are not nearly as effective as they claim to be.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] Aesthesiaphilia@kbin.social 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

carbon sequestration is not ever going to work

I don't know what you're talking about, it's a thing that is currently being done. Not some future hypothetical tech.

But yes it is too expensive for now. Costs are coming down hopefully that continues to be the case.

And yes, the best, cheapest, most efficient way to reduce ghg is to eliminate fossil fuels.

[–] bioemerl@kbin.social 0 points 2 years ago

It's hilariously expensive and it's expensive because physics. We measure carbon in the atmosphere in parts per million. The entire surface area of the planet is already littered with Caron absorbers and they don't make a dent.

It's never happening