Of course, it’s better to emit less carbon, and support systems and policies that emit less carbon. That said, carbon emission is unavoidable, and I’d like to minimize that portion of my impact as much as possible.

I am definitely willing to pay to offset my carbon usage, but I’m under the impression that this is mostly a scam. Does anyone use these services? If so, can you tell me what reasoning or sources you used that satisfied you that the service your chose isn’t a scam?

  • @darth_helmet
    link
    77 months ago

    It sequesters the carbon while it’s alive, but you’d need to bury the plant deep underground to remove it from the equation

    • @kakes
      link
      47 months ago

      Or do the exact opposite and launch it into space.

    • @JungleJim
      link
      37 months ago

      It doesn’t have to be removed to that degree to be useful. Simply composting the biomass and then using the compost will create more biomass to create more compost, all the while sequestering carbon in a living system. Life is a good place to store carbon, and this type of life makes oxygen. A greater ratio of oxygen also offsets carbon in a different way, creating more overall atmosphere and lessening the percentage that is carbon dioxide.

      • @deranger
        link
        7
        edit-2
        7 months ago

        When plants break down they release CO2. It needs to never decompose to remove carbon dioxide.

          • @kakes
            link
            47 months ago

            Because we breathe in O2 and breathe out CO2. The Oxygen is attaching to Carbon and leaving our body with every breath.
            This is the opposite of plants, which breathe in CO2 and breathe out O2, storing that Carbon.

            That said, I’m sure we also release a lot of CO2 when we decompose. Worst of both worlds, really.

            • Call me Lenny/Leni
              link
              fedilink
              English
              17 months ago

              That’s what I mean. If mishandling a plant’s death is bad for us, then handling an animal’s death in the same way should be good for us, right?

              • @JungleJim
                link
                27 months ago

                Unfortunately not. While animals inhale oxygen and exhale carbon dioxide, and plants inhale carbon dioxide and exhale oxygen, both plants and animals release essentially the components upon death and decay, and these components, mostly carbon dioxide, are already overly represented due to fossil fuels consumption.

                • Call me Lenny/Leni
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  17 months ago

                  Considering the Earth has been around for a billion or so years, I can’t understand how these two circumstances combined haven’t turned Earth into a one gas system by now. I’m not a global warming skeptic, but this part just seems off.

                  • @JungleJim
                    link
                    2
                    edit-2
                    7 months ago

                    Until we started burning fuels, it balanced itself. What we call fossil fuels is literally the buried carbon of life that came before. The stuff the natural process already dealt with once before. We brought it back, and now it all has to be reprocessed and put back in the ground or deep ocean where we got it or there’s no balance in the system and it will take very long times for natural processes to bring it back to normal levels, maybe never.

                    Imagine a full bath tub with the drain open and the water running., Water is flowing in and out at an even rate, meaning the tub is draining but stays pretty much full. Now imagine somebody took the drain pipe and routed it back into the tub. Now the drain has to deal with that water again, and the new water coming through the tap.