• brbposting@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    4 months ago

    Hey!

    They’re not always BS. Just most of the time!

    Or are they? Some of the companies who are the best at it and seem to be genuinely trying have been shown not to be able to guarantee one way or the other.

    “Wait, someone cut down that forest we planted?!” (no joke)

    • PunnyName@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      4 months ago

      At least I understand forests that are replanted over and over to be used for lumber, effectively reducing the use of old lumber for myriad products.

    • RvTV95XBeo@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      4 months ago

      Just to be clear, renewable energy credits are different than carbon offsets, and easier to guarantee because they’re often tied directly to a metered renewable energy source.

      That said, there are still junk RECs on the market, like those tied to energy that was produced up to 2 decades ago that nobody got around to claiming / retiring. Or RECs tied to energy sources that may have happened regardless of the REC sale.

      • brbposting@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        4 months ago

        Ohhh good point! Wanted to edit that into my comment there even, thank you.

        The junk RE credits are really interesting. As is the “ha we were building that solar farm no matter what!” problem - reminds me of when that happens in… tax deductions I think.