this post was submitted on 12 Aug 2023
140 points (96.7% liked)

World News

39142 readers
4708 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Kata1yst@kbin.social 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

By definition it isn't carbon sequestration if the grams CO2 equivalent (gCO2e) isn't negative after a full lifecycle study. Lifecycle studies are somewhat contentious as you might imagine since they try to encompass so much in one number, but generally studies agree that the major proposals are strongly negative.

You can read more about that here for a few of the more likely candidates. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_sequestration#Geologic_carbon_sequestration

[–] elouboub@kbin.social 4 points 1 year ago

By definition it isn't carbon sequestration if the grams CO2 equivalent (gCO2e) isn't negative after a full lifecycle study.

I think that should be the definition, but looking at the wikipedia page that you shared, it doesn't seem to be. At least not by:

There's no notion that it has to be have a net negative CO impact, which is exactly what I assume businesses and politicians rely on. They can say "we're putting away carbon", which is technically true, but they don't have to say how much carbon was used in order to do so.

IMO, until at least the carbon cost of sequestration is reported instead of just the monetary cost, the contracts aren't worth the paper they are written on.