I just got a CO2 meter and checked the levels in my house and went down a rabbit hole trying to address the issue. Apparently it would take 249 areca palms to offset the carbon RESPIRATION of one adult.

So okay 249 trees just for me to breathe, not to mention the rest of the bad things we all do.

So how can this math ever balance? 249 trees just to break even seems like an impossible number. Then all the flights I have been on, miles driven, etc.

I feel like that’s… Way too many trees. Is it hopeless or am I missing something?

  • Cheesus@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    136
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    1 year ago

    You’re not supposed to. It is a marketing ploy from oil and gas companies to shift the blame from corporations to individuals for their pollution.

    • alvvayson@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      37
      ·
      1 year ago

      The oil and gas companies and their “environmentalist” buddies.

      We could have prevented climate change with nuclear power in the 1990s.

      Even without solar and wind (they were too expensive at the time) or carbon taxes, Sweden and France managed to get emissions down to 5 tons per capita with old nuclear and hydro technology. If all rich countries had done the same thing, climate change would have been a non-issue.

      We can still solve it today with today’s technologies: solar, wind and battery technology has evolved and become affordable. Carbon taxes are politically feasible. And old nuclear technology is becoming more acceptable and gearing up.

      Sure, try to help by reducing your energy use where possible and investing in things like home insulation and energy efficient heating and transportation.

      But the actual big things that need to be done can only be done by politicians, to force economies to change.

      • charliespider@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        13
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Even without solar and wind (they were too expensive at the time)

        This is true and I’m not disputing this fact, but had the oil companies not interfered with and killed off any attempts at alternative energy sources, things may have been quite different.

      • SCB@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        carbon taxes are politically feasible

        Not in the United States, they’re not. I actually work with politicians as a climate lobbyist and carbon taxes are a complete non-starter.

      • ZodiacSF1969@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Batteries are not quite there yet. It’s still quite a large investment to build massive batteries that can help small to medium towns for short periods of time. As an EE I’m hoping we make a breakthrough soon that will allow us to increase their energy density. Either that or move to different liquid fuels, which have an energy density advantage.

      • dustyData@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        I don’t know is mistype or not, but I find that both “braking” their heads and “breaking” their heads work in this context.

    • Hamartiogonic@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      1 year ago

      We’re burning these fuels and spending the energy on these sectors.

      It’s mostly due to burning coal, oil and gas while expecting to get electricity, heat and motion out of it. Which sectors need to change urgently? Industry in general, road transport and buildings.