Carbon Inlays, not Offsets

Forums: Sustainable Development, Carbon Offsets, Carbon Inlays
Email this Topic • Print this Page

Carbon offsets are popular because they allow people to buy off their guilt for contributing to rising CO2 levels, but offsetting doesn't really solve the problem when land is still being cleared, developed, and/or maintained without adding trees and other carbon-absorbing organisms.

So instead of 'offsets,' why not think about 'carbon inlays?"

Living carbon can be inlaid into existing developments and corridors by removing sections of pavement and loosening the soil to allow trees and plants to take root and thrive.

Granted it can take special architecture to ensure tree roots can spread out underneath roads and foundations without damage to either, but ultimately it is better to reforest existing developments and preserve undeveloped land instead of offsetting one by paying more for the other.

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 239 • Replies: 14

No top replies

@livinglava,

You are suggesting doing city planning by planning more space for trees to grow?

I support that idea.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

You are suggesting doing city planning by planning more space for trees to grow?

I support that idea.

Good for you.

I'm also making a point about the fundamental problem with the idea of 'offsetting' emissions, which is basically buying indulgences.

Rather than offsetting climate sins by paying to protect undeveloped land elsewhere, better to restore developed land now so that all land will be restored/reforested eventually.

It's a question of looking into the future and seeing either a world of climate-sins and their offsets or a world of climate virtue without the need for offsets.

See the difference?

1 Reply

@livinglava,

You can do both...

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

You can do both...

Not really. Carbon offsetting implies that the sustainability of emissions and land-use are determined by how much undeveloped land is preserved.

In reality, the sustainability of fossil fuel use is actually determined by the long-term deep carbon cycle; i.e. how long it takes the living biosphere to replenish and maintain natural fossil-fuel levels and all the processes that are supported by those.

So what we have to ascertain is how fossil fuels are used by nature in the absence of human harvesting of them, and then decide how much we can afford to leech off of that.

So, for example, in a million years time there should be a million years worth of organic sediments built up to form a million years worth of fossil fuel deposits. What's more there will be a million years worth of weathering and erosion of land into the oceans, so there should be a million years worth of mountain-growth to replace those eroding mountains.

We need to know how fossil-fuel build up feeds into these geological processes. We shouldn't assume that plate tectonics and other geological processes occur independently of organic sedimentation and fossilization. All energetic processes connect with and feed into each other in various ways; the only question is how exactly.

1 Reply

@livinglava,

It is my belief that right now in 2019 we should be drastically reducing our carbon emissions. This is a serious problem that we have in the next 10 to 100 years. Where carbon offsetting works we should do that. Where reforestation and urban planning work we should do that too.

I don't have time to worry about "long term" processes that will happen over the next 1,000,000 years. I am worried about the next 30 or so years.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

It is my belief that right now in 2019 we should be drastically reducing our carbon emissions. This is a serious problem that we have in the next 10 to 100 years. Where carbon offsetting works we should do that. Where reforestation and urban planning work we should do that too.

I don't have time to worry about "long term" processes that will happen over the next 1,000,000 years. I am worried about the next 30 or so years.

What an offset does is justify you (or someone else) taking a bunch of flights by spending even more money to buy undeveloped forest land somewhere.

But what happens when that money gets transferred to the seller of the offset? Answer: they get some money to spend and/or invest. The net effect is economic stimulus, which is going to give more people more purchasing power to take flights and buy more offsets to go with them.

Net result:
1) more flights taken and thus more CO2 emissions.
2) turning undeveloped land into an offset market, which will drive up land prices due to speculation, and eventually people will try to recoup their investment by harvesting natural resources from the land and/or developing it.

You would like to think the land will be kept pristine in perpetuity because it is 'offset' land but people lobby for policy and zoning changes so they can make money when they want more.

If they are spending money on flights and carbon offsets, they are going to be looking for more money to make to pay their bills.

So offsetting is going to increase unsustainable economic activity, not reduce it.

The better option is to simply reform the economic activity that is currently going on, e.g. by building carbon inlays into it.

1 Reply

@livinglava,

That doesn't make any sense.

1) You seem to be trying to make a rather convoluted argument about why carbon offsets lead to more carbon use. It doesn't make sense... if you raise the price of one thing then people tend switch to something else (i.e. buying smaller or electric cars or taking the bus). I can tell you from personal experience that when the price of airplane tickets go up, I am less likely to take a trip.

2) Experts should do actual research to find out the impact of carbon offsets rather than you or I or any other random idiot on the internet making wild ass guesses.

3) If carbon offsets work to lower the amount of carbon emissions over all, then we should use them. If they don't work, then we should not use them. It is that simple.

This has nothing to do with your idea of carbon inlays. If I understand you correctly this as simply designing urban spaces to be more green. I agree with this idea whether or not we have carbon offsets.

2 Replies

@maxdancona,

I live in the Boston area, I am close to an excellent bus line comes every 10-15 minutes and can get me on the subway in 15 minutes to anywhere in the city. For me and my daughter to go out on the subway costs about $10. The equivalent gas to drive 10 miles is about $0.20, even adding a couple of bucks for parking driving is clearly the best choice for most trips even when decent public transportation is available.

And so we drive.

I would strongly support a plan to drastically raise gas prices (they should be at least $5.50 a gallon), and to use this extra money to lower the fare for public transportation.

If you want people to choose one thing over another... you raise the price of the bad thing and lower the price of the good thing. It isn't rocket science.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

1) You seem to be trying to make a rather convoluted argument about why carbon offsets lead to more carbon use. It doesn't make sense... if you raise the price of one thing then people tend switch to something else (i.e. buying smaller or electric cars or taking the bus). I can tell you from personal experience that when the price of airplane tickets go up, I am less likely to take a trip.

2) Experts should do actual research to find out the impact of carbon offsets rather than you or I or any other random idiot on the internet making wild ass guesses.

3) If carbon offsets work to lower the amount of carbon emissions over all, then we should use them. If they don't work, then we should not use them. It is that simple.

This has nothing to do with your idea of carbon inlays. If I understand you correctly this as simply designing urban spaces to be more green. I agree with this idea whether or not we have carbon offsets.

Offsetting is creating a market in pristine land to justify spending money made by developing land and otherwise using resources.

If we don't reform the economy generally so land/resource use is sustainable, offsetting won't help anything and it will actually hurt by greenwashing unsustainable activities.

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

I live in the Boston area, I am close to an excellent bus line comes every 10-15 minutes and can get me on the subway in 15 minutes to anywhere in the city. For me and my daughter to go out on the subway costs about $10. The equivalent gas to drive 10 miles is about $0.20, even adding a couple of bucks for parking driving is clearly the best choice for most trips even when decent public transportation is available.

And so we drive.

As long as people choose to drive, government will keep paving roads and greenlighting development that caters to commuting.

If you justify doing things because they're convenient, nothing changes.

Quote:

I would strongly support a plan to drastically raise gas prices (they should be at least $5.50 a gallon), and to use this extra money to lower the fare for public transportation.

Raising more taxes to spend more on transit investments just creates market growth that will fund more car purchases and driving.

People should just use transit and avoid driving voluntarily, and then there would be competition for their business. As long as they give in to convenience and drive instead, there is competition for that business.

Quote:

If you want people to choose one thing over another... you raise the price of the bad thing and lower the price of the good thing. It isn't rocket science.

No, there are two options:
1) people voluntarily forgo the bad thing
2) government prohibits and enforces the prohibition of the bad thing and makes them do what they don't do on their own.

Taxing the bad thing just stimulates efforts to trigger the tax to raise government funding. So, for example, if there are higher fuel taxes, then there will be people trying to stimulate more driving to raise more tax revenues.

The only thing that would really work would be to take all economic incentive out of the picture by having prohibitions that don't involve fines or taxes, but people/business will rebel against those and vote in different politicians to change it so it is possible to pay to pollute.

1 Reply

@livinglava,

You are pulling stuff out of your ass Lava.

It has been shown time and time again that raising taxes on products reduces their use. This is true with cigarettes and alcohol and even with soda. When gas prices have gone up over a period of time, people buy smaller cars and take fewer road trips. This isn't speculation, it has been tried and seen in real life.

Your arguments go against basic economics... and reality.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

You are pulling stuff out of your ass Lava.

It has been shown time and time again that raising taxes on products reduces their use. This is true with cigarettes and even with soda. When gas prices go up over a period of time, people buy smaller cars and take fewer road trips.

Your arguments go against basic economics... and reality.

Not really, if you look at the bigger picture of what all has to change for sustainability to be achieved.

People who continue smoking just pay the taxes at the higher price per pack.

The drastic decrease in smoking has occurred due to people choosing health over habit.

The same thing can and should happen with driving but higher fuel prices won't make that happen. If it would, driving would not have come back after the early 2000s when the Iraq war drove up gasoline to record highs for that time.

Moral choice by liberty is the only thing that is ultimately effective. Without people being wholeheartedly on board with the change, it will be shortlived if it can even be achieved at all in the first place.

1 Reply

@livinglava,

(Sigh)

When taxes on cigarettes go up, smokers as a group buy fewer cigarettes. This is scientifically measured.

When the price of gas has gone up for a long period of time, people have bought smaller cars and have driven less.

We can measure what actually happens. Your idle speculations are wrong.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

When taxes on cigarettes go up, smokers as a group buy fewer cigarettes. This is scientifically measured.

When the price of gas has gone up for a long period of time, people have bought smaller cars and have driven less.

We can measure what actually happens. Your idle speculations are wrong.

People who quit smoking don't buy fewer cigarettes bc they don't buy any.

People who get smaller cars and drive less just start driving more as they get used to new gas prices, tolls, etc.

Real behavioral change takes moral conviction and wherewithal. Raising prices/taxes/fees/fines just makes it less convenient and comfortable.

Roads/highways/cities full of people driving around in small, fuel-efficient cars isn't going to allow reforestation unless roads and highways are all radically redesigned as single-lanes weaving through trees.

Just look around multilane roads and highways during busy times and see how much metal and energy and pavement are covering the land instead of trees.

0 Replies

Forums
» Carbon Inlays, not Offsets

Read Discussion
Reply to All

Carbon Inlays, not Offsets

Quick Links

My Account

able2know