this post was submitted on 24 Oct 2023
57 points (89.0% liked)

Asklemmy

43945 readers
638 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy 🔍

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

  1. Open-ended question
  2. Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
  3. Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
  4. Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
  5. An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Of course, it's better to emit less carbon, and support systems and policies that emit less carbon. That said, carbon emission is unavoidable, and I'd like to minimize that portion of my impact as much as possible.

I am definitely willing to pay to offset my carbon usage, but I'm under the impression that this is mostly a scam. Does anyone use these services? If so, can you tell me what reasoning or sources you used that satisfied you that the service your chose isn't a scam?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] thoralf@discuss.tchncs.de 44 points 1 year ago (4 children)

Why? To ease your conscience by claiming that it is not as bad because you paid something extra? It’s the modern version of the selling of indulgences.

It’s worse than doing nothing because it gives the people the illusion that it’s not so bad - while in fact it is exactly as bad.

[–] SkepticalButOpenMinded@lemmy.ca 18 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I am not against easing one's conscience, so long as that's not the only thing people do. It's a perverse turn in our culture that we've started to shame people for trying to act morally. We have a conscience for a reason: to motivate good behaviour. This reminds me of the right's claim that everything is "virtue signalling", as if moral action itself is undesirable. It coheres with a hyper individualistic and self-interested worldview.

My question is precisely whether "in fact it is exactly as bad". That is an empirical claim, not one that you can declare with a serene wave of the hand. That John Oliver reporting is useful in that regards, whereas your comment, devoid of argument or evidence, is not.

Seeking to ease one's conscience by means of spending excess money is hyper-individualistic and conforms with a self-interested worldview.

The perverse thing is how neoliberalism has left people with the idea that they can meaningfully impact the world through deciding where they spend the pittance left them after their bosses and government warmongers have taken their cut.

If you give a shit about the environment stop believing the propaganda that market forces will be swayed by your hobby of guilt spending. It will be the hard work of organizing people and uprooting the financial interest who direct national and global policy.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)