Surprise: Satellites Find No Benefit From Carbon Offsets (scam)

Who could have possibly seen this coming?

Satellites detect no real climate benefit from 10 years of forest carbon offsets in California

Many of the companies promising “net-zero” emissions to protect the climate are relying on vast swaths of forests and what are known as carbon offsets to meet that goal.

On paper, carbon offsets appear to balance out a company’s carbon emissions: The company pays to protect trees, which absorb carbon dioxide from the air. The company can then claim the absorbed carbon dioxide as an offset that reduces its net impact on the climate.

However, our new satellite analysis reveals what researchers have suspected for years: Forest offsets might not actually be doing much for the climate.

When we looked at satellite tracking of carbon levels and logging activity in California forests, we found that carbon isn’t increasing in the state’s 37 offset project sites any more than in other areas, and timber companies aren’t logging less than they did before.

The findings send a pretty grim message about efforts to control climate change, and they add to a growing list of concerns about forest offsets. Studies have already shown that projects are often overcredited at the beginning and might not last as long as expected. In this case we’re finding a bigger issue: a lack of real climate benefit over the 10 years of the program so far.

Essentially, these companies offering carbon credits/offsets really aren’t doing much in planting trees. It’s all a scam to make Warmists, mostly the moneyed ones, feel better about their own massive carbon footprints as they continue living the highlife and flying all over, driving in big fossil fueled vehicles, living in big mansions, and more. I don’t blame the companies so much, they’re just making a buck off of Warmists, though, as so many, including myself, noted back in the early 2000’s that no one seemed to actually be checking to make sure the carbon credits/offsets companies, and governments, were actually doing what they were supposed to be doing.

Here’s one idea they have to help fix this

Additionally, California could improve its offset contract protocols to make sure landowners can’t withdraw from an offset program in the future and cut down those trees. Currently there is a penalty for doing so, but it might not be high enough. Landowners may be able to begin a project, receive a huge profit from the initial credits, cut down the trees in 20 to 30 years, pay back their credits plus penalty, and still come out ahead if inflation exceeds the liability.

So, land owners can never back out? The contracts are forever? They will never be able to do with their land what they want? Speaking of satellites

NASA Cancels Satellite CO2 Monitoring Project

The Geocarb Project cancellation leaves a lot of questions – like how NASA managed to spend $170 million on the CO2 monitoring project without putting anything into space.

Good question. Here’s some of the article

NASA cancels greenhouse gas monitoring satellite due to cost

NASA is canceling a planned satellite that was going to intensely monitor greenhouse gases over the Americas because it got too costly and complicated. (snip)

When it was announced six years ago, it was supposed to cost $166 million, but the latest NASA figures show costs would balloon to more than $600 million and it was years late, according to NASA Earth Sciences Director Karen St. Germain. (snip)

The equipment alone has more than doubled in price and then there were non-technical issues that would have added more, she said. The agency has already spent $170 million on the now-canceled program and won’t spend any more.

Nice. Pissed away $170 million for nothing.

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

5 Responses to “Surprise: Satellites Find No Benefit From Carbon Offsets (scam)”

  1. Hey Teach, you need to check out a news feed. Seems you’re missing every actually relevant political story of the last few months

    I’m sure it’s just an oversight

  2. Dana says:

    “Carbon offsets” are nothing more than moving money around, for corporations emitting CO2 to say that they are doing something, without actually doing anything at all: the zero-emissions stuff that they bribe would have been zero-emissions anyway.

  3. Jl says:

    Carbon Boy hardest hit…..

  4. drowningpuppies says:

    Not enough carbon offsets.

    What will they think up next?

    Bwaha! Lolgf

  5. Professor Hale says:

    Nice. Pissed away $170 million for nothing

    Of course, that’s been the story of NASA since the shuttle program ended. Private industry has already proven it can do everything NASA does better and cheaper. Or how many more asteroid smashing missions do we need? Without american money, the ISS would have been abandoned decades ago. And now that it is just a resume enhancer for black lesbian “astronauts”, why should anyone care?

Pirate's Cove