The Carbon Offset Problem

Lol we were just writing a video with this same title and thesis. I think you said it all though! Nice job Sam and team.

To summarize, carbon offset is a license to pollute. The licensor is trying to make a quick buck while the licensee pays as little as possible to feel good polluting. Great investigative journalism.

I did the math one time on how many trees a company claimed to plant, and the space required. It was 3x the size of the U.S. And considering there are literally hundreds of these companies, it's not possible or we'd be building tree houses.

Odd that preserving lands counts as “carbon offset” as the demands driving such deforestation still need to be met and the loss of forested lands will likely be accounted for elsewhere. The increase in deforestation in area b could be said to be directly resulting from “offsets” in area a, assuming the baseline in area a is valid.

One aspect I've never liked about Carbon Offsets is their similarity to Credit Card debt. The carbon is often emitted immediately, yet the offsets can take years to offset that amount of carbon (if, as was pointed out, they actually work). In theory, this can kind of balance out with a sufficient pipeline of new offsets, but as long as the amount of carbon being offset each year is growing, we'll be in a carbon "debt" that we might not be in if less carbon was emitted due to the lack of offsetting opportunities.

Carbon credit offset programs that are based on protecting existing forests have never made sense to me. They have already (over a hundred years or so) absorbed a majority of their carbon from previous human (and natural) activity. If you’re generating carbon emissions today, then offsets should be based on programs that actually sequester equal amounts of carbon at the same rate and in near real time. Same goes for purchasing offset credits from re-forestry programs that effectively say that a tree over its lifetime will on average sequester the carbon I emit today. If I am going to contribute 1 tonne of carbon into the atmosphere in the next month, then my offset program should absorb 1 tonne of carbon in a month (either shortly before or after I actually generated it) - otherwise we’re not doing anything to tackle raising carbon emissions today.

Fuck yeah bro. You can now add 'As seen on 'Last week tonight with John Oliver'' to this channel's banner.

Thank you for presenting this scope and severity of this problem in such a clear and concise way. We need to hear it.

Super important and very well done video! I desperately want there to be carbon offsets you can buy that are literally only direct air capture or monitored biochar. Seems entirely doable to me, but only if videos like this educate people on why it is necessary.

The very first travel agency to offer carbon offsets (Responsible Travel) actually stopped offering them for this very reason

Already watched the video once, but just saw you cited on Last Week Tonight. Glad to see more people exposed to the channel. Great Work!

sounds like a protection racket. “Nice forest you got there. would be a shame if it (cough) got cut down”

I would've assumed that the "trees" variety of carbon offset would require fostering new forests instead of merely not chopping down existing ones. That's kinda messed up.

Hell yeah, Wendover Productions. You guys absolutely crushed this.

This video was extremely well put together and educational. Thank you ❤

A well researched and produced video on an important topic. Thank you making this.

“Donate $50 and save a life!” “Really, how?” “If you donate, I promise I won’t kill a random person. I wasn’t going to anyway, but you can take credit for saving them if you donate.”

I've always felt carbon offsets are like saying sorry before you do something terrible. I guess this stands confirmed.

thank you for bringing these issues to light

"Stove stacking" is just another example of Javon's paradox. If you make something more efficient, demand just increases rather than decreasing.