"#Mangroves and #saltmarshes sequester large amounts of carbon, mitigating the greenhouse effect. New research from the University of Gothenburg shows that these environments are perhaps twice as effective as previously thought."
WaPo finally posted a modest critique of meat industry greenwashing.
<💬>
Under another new California law, companies also must disclose the emissions created throughout their supply chains, and the Securities and Exchange Commission is working on a similar requirement.
It all has big food companies rushing to show progress in cutting emissions, particularly after so many of them promised to zero out their net release of greenhouse gases — known as going “carbon neutral” — by 2050 or earlier, in alignment with the Paris agreement on global warming. In the backdrop is a contentious debate over how those companies should calculate their carbon footprints.
The fight has shifted to an obscure independent organization called the GHG Protocol, a group made up of corporations, scientists and environmental groups that writes accounting rules for greenhouse gas emissions that will guide what climate claims companies can make under new state laws.
Among the companies involved in determining when and how farming and harvesting methods can be used to erase the emissions impact of products like hamburgers and dairy are McDonald’s, Nestlé and the Global Roundtable for Sustainable Beef, to which meat giants Tyson Foods and Cargill belong.
The deliberations of the GHG Protocol, which is managed by the World Resources Institute and the World Business Council for Sustainable Development, are kept confidential. But discord spilled into public in the fall, following its publication of draft guidelines for farm and forestry emissions. Dozens of environmental groups and academics say the rules as proposed would allow companies to declare climate-unfriendly products such as lumber, paper, beef and milk carbon neutral — or even carbon negative — by making modest land use adjustments that don’t truly mitigate the emissions of those products.
</💬>
There's certainly going to be more and more tension due to these corporations trying to find better greenwashing, better methods of faking data, more sophisticated bullshit.
I've just computed that if you want to #offset ONE #travel by #plane#Paris to #Rio (about 2880 tCO2, according to @labos1point5), by not sending #email (without attachment), I need to completely stop sending emails for the next ...
272 YEARS !
assuming an average of 10 mails per day, each working #day. The #carbon#footprint of an email is considered to be 4g CO2eq.
@GrahamFr You got that right... I'm not all that happy around bodies of water. I'm much happier on dry land thank you lol. Helen enjoys it, although due to weather and time etc, hasn't been out with her cousin this year sadly.
I'm finding the C source code #ghidra generates to get maths wrong in some places; in this ARM code, we've got something that's base+index*#elementsize+#offset and it's some how come out with something close to base+index*#wrongsize
"A total of 39 of the top 50 #emission#offset projects, or 78% of them, were categorised as likely junk or worthless due to one or more fundamental failing that undermines its promised emission cuts.
Eight others (16%) look problematic, with evidence suggesting they may have at least one fundamental failing and are potentially junk, according to the classification system applied."
Apple is increasing its commitment to sustainability, I say casually to the Verizon employee as I trade in my iPhone 14 Pro with 89% battery health for a brand new iPhone 15 Pro