Posted: Sep 25, 2021 3:34 am
by Spearthrower
Macdoc wrote:You'd be wrong but no convincing the entrenched. :coffee:

Well, it might help if you actually tried convincing rather than engineering a scenario that assumes you're correct without offering anything to support your position.

Macdoc wrote:Perhaps you'd like to argue your point with David Suzuki

Perhaps you'd like to explain why I would want to argue any point with someone I don't know, don't care about, and who isn't here?

Macdoc wrote:

Your own link says:

The price per tonne of offsets, however, is far below the estimated costs of damage that a tonne of carbon pollution will cause via global warming and ocean acidification.

Macdoc wrote:Carbon reduction of any form is valuable and it's just one more tool to achieve that as the world attempts carbon neutral.

Carbon offsets explicitly are not carbon reduction in ANY form. The same amount of carbon is generated, regardless. What we need is an actual reduction in the production of atmospheric carbon, not sleight of hand accounting that makes it look like we're doing something other than business as usual.