Here is a list I have formed:
-Switch to Esim
-Build more apartments
-Use shampoo/conditioner bars
-Put carbon labels on products
-Buy stuff at the store
-Eat plant based
-Prioritize transit over cars
-Switch to Ecosia
-Recycle
-Give homemade gifts
-Compost
-Be organized
-Avoid synthetic cloths
-Switch to green burials
-Buy reputable carbon credits
-Mandate microfibre filters for washing machines
-Install Linux on old computers
-Switch to Electric car -Shut down all oil operations
-Pickup litter
-Ride your bicycle instead of the car
-Adopt kids and companions instead
-Build more green spaces
-Convert animal agriculture land to wild lands
-Support repairability
-Ban private jets
I did some research into the matter a few months back. Before, I held the same prejudices and have only heard carbon credits were a way for companies to keep polluting without consequences. While it is true that carbon credits get misused for that, doesnt mean all carbon credits are like that.
There are a lot of projects that get monitored appropriately and prove their actual impact. There are principles like additionality, permanence, singularity by which you can judge if a given project is actually beneficial.
Tree planting initiatives for example dont satisfy the permanence principle and are therefore not considered effective for carbon compensation.
Your last sentence definitely holds true, but not all emissions are evitable, like I need to live in a home with heating, some people need to drive to work. People in developing countries cant even afford to think about reducing their emissions. Additional measures for reducing emissions are definitely necessary. Unfortunately the current regulations for those are too vulnerable to exploitation.
I can definitely believe that there are carbon credit projects that are beneficial in the long-term, hell I don’t even write off reforestation completely (although I know that it’s a lot more complicated than chucking some saplings in the ground and calling it a day), but the question is how much of the carbon credit programmes are actually beneficial? This article by The Guardian suggests that the majority of the top 50 programmes aren’t.
A bit off topic, but this one kind of strikes a note on a npersonal level with me. I personally think we should punish companies that don’t offer WFH where it makes sense.
My roomie for example is a truck driver. It would be impossible for him to work from home. I’m a software developer, and I do work from home, but a lot of companies in my industry are pushing for a return to office, and even removing the option to work from home altogether. We all saw the immediate effects the covid restrictions had on the environment. I know it’s not feasible for everyone to work from home, but not letting people work from home, when their job could be done remotely, ought be a finable offense.
The thing is, there is no accountability for corporations. They are free to do more or less as they please, and when they do get caught with egg on their face, the fines are usually just a light slap on the wrist. Conversely, if a private individual attempted the same things, they’d get hit with legal fees and fines that’d take them into bankruptcy.
We’ll never see a change until there’s some sort of equality between the two.
Yeah definitely, but the number of people working from home rose immensely thanks to covid, before it was more or less unthinkable. I think in the next few years there will be some major changes regarding work conditions, lets hope for the best.
Anyway, final thought on carbon credits: I didnt mean to imply that the majority or even the average program behind carbon credits is beneficial, and I dont think it is relevant for the point from my first comment. OPs suggestion was buying carbon credits for additional impact, and as long as you do that correctly (i.e. buying those that are beneficial) it helps and is not greenwashing.
If we start replacing fines with Capital punishment for the C-Suite and board of directors, we would get more progress. White color crimes affect more victims, and they have more robust evidence then most murders so wrongful convictions will be lower also.