both carbon offset and the business surrounding it (especially carbon sequestration) are mostly for the purpose of virtue signaling. it’s no different from the sunday confessions held mostly in catholic cathedrals, where one can sin all they want during the week and have it all forgiven in a couple minutes talk with a priest. if you can keep current operations as is, reap massive profits, and pay pennies towards carbon removal, which dumb business executive will refuse?
sure we may need to decarbonize. but an arms race between how much you can pump into the air and how much i can remove is a stupid strategy. if too much carbon in the atmosphere is net negative, maybe we should revise whatever processes cause us to release that much? but i think any attempt there will necessarily demand that we put brakes on the false progress march (powered by capitalist greed). men with tiny dicks and assortments of self-help sex toys need the ‘billionaire’ drug injected into their veins, to prop up their self-worth so any attempt to pause the certified dollar-churning processes will be defeated, easily. but i digress.
if too much carbon in the atmosphere is bad, stop putting too much into it. or maybe it’s not necessarily bad but we’re stuck with a global warming narrative that’s wrong, on net, but hard to recant? i don’t know. what i do know is that virtue signaling is a moth-gathering flame. see america.
