Carbon Offsets: Last Week Tonight with John Oliver (HBO)

[@atorrance]

Seeing John Oliver quoting research done by Wendover Productions is amazing. This what new media landscape has become and it’s sweet.

[@in1420]

For real, I have been watching Wendover for years and to see Mainstreamish reference him is amazing.

[@Vtethers1314]

We love you @wendoverproductions

[@rsmith02]

Who is that?

[@afriendofafriend5766]

@@rsmith02 popular youtuber

[@feddy11100]

They should've cited him and linked to the video.

[@rolandrohde]

One of the main issues with "net zero" or "offsets" is the fact that it often completely disregards the time factor. You can cut don a tree and burn it within a few hours, but having that same tree grow back to it's former size (and thus Carbon content) can take decades or even centuries. That fact is usually not prominently displayed in those net zero calculations...for obvious reasons...

[@nielskorpel8860]

@Clyde Clyde, please, I understand you want people to know about investing money, but it is not relevant for this comment right now, ok? :)

[@danilooliveira6580]

also forests are extremely complicated, its not as simple as a tree grows and there is less carbon in the atmosphere. the ability of a forest to sink carbon depends on a lot of factors, and among them, the biology of the soil. a new forest can actually be a carbon source as its growing because of the fungus and bacteria that live in the soil, and only when the canopy starts to close they become actual carbon sinks, while old forests are much worse at sinking carbon, if not straight up carbon neutral. so simply planting tree may not just be almost insignificant, but they can also make things worse without proper planning.

[@LostInDub]

Don't look up 🙈

[@rey6708]

@@nielskorpel8860 they are bots dude

[@FulloutPostal]

@@nielskorpel8860 don't reply to bots, just report them

[@Xadius22]

On behalf of Ireland, I'd like to thank John and everyone who donates for saving our whales and dolphins, we were unsure if they'd have enough trees to live in throughout the winter.

[@toastedjoe1013]

This is a major problem as the drunk leprechauns will claim dibs on the forest and start fighting the whales.

[@Aluren00]

There is no need to thank him. I mean, who on earth would have a problema with that?? Its just common sense to save land dwelling whales and dolphins.

[@arthur3816]

I always thought they migrate to Tuscany for the winter

[@LiteraryMultitudes]

@@arthur3816 Yes they do! They're causing huge amounts of emissions when crossing the Alps in late October every year... lots of smog right where I live for weeks!

[@TheInvisibleCanadia]

Maybe next they can save Wales.

[@arjitjere1559]

As an ecologist, well done John for explaining that it is very hard to achieve zero emissions. Also it matters whether the trees planted belong to that area are exotic or native. That pine tree in africa was a weird decision,pines are NOT found in africa.Planting exotic trees which invade native trees will only damage the land. Offsets are just a short cut, the solution should start with phasing out fossil fuels!

[@annebruecks7381]

I'm not an ecologist, and even I said, 'Pine trees?? Wtf?' Who makes these decisions?!

[@whatabouttheearth]

An introduced species is not necessarily an invasive but I know that certain invasive species of Pinus (I think Pinus Pinaster) are the majority of South Africa's timber trade, which is rediculous, and they were introduced over a hundred years ago. But there are pines like Pinus halepensis and Pinus Pinaster which are Mediterranean pines which are native to parts of northern Africa. But Uganda? I have know idea. I don't know about pines but Quercus (oaks) essentially "walked" down Canada split in the northern US towards east and west than met up again at the southern border, hybridized ( the sections "Red oaks"/Lobatae can breed with other red oak species and section "white oaks/Quercus can breed with other white oak species) in Mexico. Now Mexico has more endemic (natives that are only there) oaks, and more oaks than any place. And now they are naturally pollinating down to south America where there is at least 1 species (central America is a choke point preventing more animal distribution of acorn). But that happened over an extremely long period of time. So trees can have some freaking weird adaptation traits. Sorry, I know Oaks are off topic, I just go down month long rabbit holes of studying oaks from time to time. Check out the migration of their subgenera and sections, it's so freaking cool.

[@blayneschwarz188]

So what are we going to phase out fossil fuels for?

[@izzzy03]

here in Germany planting trees everywhere is now in.... just "green politician" in cities dont care about terms like albedo influence, or fact that bark parts, leaves and branches that fall during cold days and not removed from streets are direct emission of co2 and methane back to atmosphere :)

[@whatabouttheearth]

@@izzzy03 Although that certainly would not be using the soil and decomposers to hold the carbon, that would still be a very miniscule level of CO2. I never thought of that though.

[@Pantalaimon91]

So glad to see Wendover Productions get a shout out in this episode. Wendover did such a great job breaking down how the scams operate and why they're doing so much more harm than good.

[@Marijuanifornia]

Whatever Wendover is, they didn't tell the public about the 1942 USDA film *Hemp for Victory* or how Cannabis legalization will reduce pollution, replace fossil fuels, end deforestation and stop climate change. So, whatever Wendover is, it's just as responsible as every other media outlet that only adds to the problem instead of telling their audiences how to solve it.

[@Wickedtendencys]

N v. Vv

[@sunspot6502]

Mother Earth will ight a fart and that will be the end. There is nothing we an do about it now.

[@shughes57]

Wendover is a serious gem of KZbin.

[@marsilies]

I literally stopped watching the video and hopped to the comments when they showed the Wendover clip. It's no surprise that a show as sharp and intelligent as LTW would use Wendover as a source, but it's still exciting to see.

[@tushirS]

Good to see John using Wendover Productions as an example to explain offsets. Wendover Productions's carbon offsets video was a great one.

[@Joeseanag24]

Ikr

[@sucyshi]

Funnily enough iirc they still buy them anyway for their travel shows

[@spiffythebritishguy]

Ever since watching the wendover video I was wondering when John Oliver was going to do a video on it. So good to see him cite Wendover

[@aurtisanminer2827]

I love that channel!

[@sandragray4598]

@clyde_1 SPAM link

[@TheMisterSurreal]

I am so glad Oliver touched on the fact that a lot of the 'offsets' that are being purchased are done so on the backs of landowners in developing countries. It's another financial shell game for companies to keep doing what they would have been doing anyway and get a marketing boost out of it. The only way to curb emissions is to stop emitting, period.

[@molybdaenmornell123hopp5]

Exactly. Instead, watch these guys invent one fake solution after another to flatter and seduce us. It's like a scantily clad student sidling over to her teacher after class to whisper, "I'd do *anything* to pass the exam, Mister." "Anything, did you say?" "Yes ..." "Would you ... revise?"

[@trumpet12345]

tesla has made craptons on offsets

[@MrBebopChamploo]

It's also not just something corporations do - basically all developed countries have processes of externalizing the costs and negative impacts of economic activity onto developing countries (both intentional and incidental). Whether it's via the IMF, the WTO, trade agreements or treaties etc.; the ones with money and resources shape policy to benefit themselves and bring in more money. Carbon offsets are just a continuation of externalizing costs to maintain or increase profit, except now under the guise that they are actually doing the opposite and internalizing (some) costs (unless of course the offsets are purchased by customers for $2 to offset 1000 miles of air travel. Hypothetically).

[@Liana-cp5cp]

It’s yet another form of neocolonization, except this time it’s through a fake promise for a “greener future”

[@bellaelizabeth7864]

@@molybdaenmornell123hopp5 💕💕Wow

[@kcthonian]

I remember learning about how at one point the catholic church sold vouchers for prayers to people, so that they could effectively "pay away" their sins and guilt to get into heaven. The simlilarities to our modern carbon offsets is eerily similar, imo.

[@alisakumm9165]

I've been thinking the exact same thing since the first time I heard about carbon offsets, and it works because people WANT to fall for it. The uncomfortable truth is that we cannot continue the way we have been living and we need to make sacrifices to stop the worst. It's not about saving "the planet" at all; it's about saving ourselves. And I fear that is what people still don't understand.

[@crnbrry300]

Also, in the prayer voucher scenario, the intention is to DO something. In some of these carbon offsets, the intention is to NOT DO something. Which doesn't create any actual value.

[@davidnorris166]

They were called "Indulgences"

[@Deanjgallagher]

Climate alarmism = a religion.

[@ginnylin]

I remember learning about this in the context of sailors. They would make port, go confess their sins in advance and pay some type of fee to the church (or donation), and then go booze etc to their hearts content.

[@MmumfordCubed]

Ahhh, time for another day of my daily dose of existential crisis in comedy format

[@KaladinVegapunk]

@Clyde3 seriously? Do you think spamming your unrelated get rich quick scheme video in the comments would work? Don't give him the clicks people.

[@sailaab]

Odin Satanas, this bast ard has been doing so for a while now... on ALL main uploads under the channel.. practically under every comment thread The least we can do is to mass report the turds and the comments too.

[@sailaab]

Go on the 'about' page of this bas turds profile and use the 'report' feature. Child molester or terrorism or some such reasons.

[@stevesmith4630]

I KNOW, RIGHT?!

[@couragekarnga8735]

Gods, we should've listened to Al Gore!

[@poocrafter2]

Nice to see the use of Wendover in this. He did a great video about the Carbon Offsets scam

[@Leo-qe1my]

Lol, that's were I have already seen this. And here I was wondering for the first ten minutes why they do the same topic again, without even mentioning it.

[@elgonzo7239]

I bet Sam from HAI will be really jealous of this.

[@sujimtangerines]

Lol, I knew that looked & sounded familiar. Sam is awesome. I don't know if I'm suffering from deja vu but I feel like one of his other videos was used in another ep, or maybe another late night show?

[@Marijuanifornia]

The USDA reported in 1916 that one acre of Cannabis can make as much paper as four acres of trees. That is what began the anti-drug propaganda of Cannabis prohibition. The USDA encouraged Americans to grow Cannabis to defend our country during World War II. Please watch the 1942 USDA film, *Hemp for Victory.* This is the key to reducing pollution, replacing fossil fuels, ending deforestation and stopping climate change. There is an official .gov link to the film from the US National Archives. It has been public since 1990. One episode of this show about *Hemp for Victory* would finally make the film go viral and change the world.

[@ZennExile]

It's not a scam it's just incomplete because the profit potential is higher than the scientific investment. The truth is, yes trees are not enough, you could never plant enough trees. However, trees are not the whole picture. Or even most of it. The vast majority if carbon storage potential inherent to living ecosystems is below the surface. The soil can hold thousands of times more carbon than the trees can alone. Which is exactly the solution we need.

[@martinnussbaum3435]

Fascinating claim by Kitkat considering that Nestle admitted to Congress that they know slavery is part of their supply chain and it would be too difficult and expensive to assure that their chocolate is fairtrade.

[@apathyguy8338]

Do you own an iPhone? If you think indentured servitude that the mass majority of the Chinese people have to put up with is anything short of slavery you're wrong. You and everybody else who owns and electronic device made China also enjoys the wealth of slavery have a good day with that.

[@dorothycrispin902]

@@apathyguy8338 so should we not demand that companies stop then?

[@TheAsymmetrical]

@@apathyguy8338 lmao, this guy.

[@bograham6221]

@@apathyguy8338 there is no ethical consumption in capitalism

[@XavierTheNeonTiger]

@@apathyguy8338 "Yet you participate in society. Curious! I am very intelligent."

[@joeygambone4757]

The extent these big corporations go through just to not do anything is insane. We are all doomed.

[@PitLord777]

The irony of going through lots of effort to protect their slothfulness.

[@strawberryjampm9930]

@@PitLord777 it’s not… slothfulness, necessarily. It’s the profit margins. You see, they simply cannot drop even a little, even for just a bit. No fundamental change in the way they operate is possible, at least not voluntary. Rather just throw a bunch of surplus funds at the first available cop-out option and get a fat tax cut to go with it.

[@danfergus3335]

@@strawberryjampm9930 I mean they could buy tesla wall batteries and establish wind farms close to their operational centers to become neutral, problem is it would cost atleast a million dollars, probably closer to 10 million usd PER FACTORY with average net profit of a few hundred thousands at best

[@ynraider]

@@PitLord777 *Avarice... They don't NEED all those profits. Our collective starvation/suffocation/extinction is just for their ego...

[@samrevlej9331]

The power of inertia...

[@TheRealSullyG]

Proud to say I am officially carbon neutral thanks to Oliver Offsets!

[@timothytosser288]

John oliver otomantone cover when

[@theborg2638]

Please let's all report Clyde3 and Prigiyan Short as SPAM!

[@lorenzo121191]

I cannot use this offset because I do not live in US. I guess I'll just be dooming the planet then

[@Styphon]

@@theborg2638 I do that for all those links. I am surprised there is no bot-scrubber for them already. Wake up, KZbin.

[@DeltaNovum]

@@Styphon this platform which I will not name, but the search engine that runs it really wants it to fail. I'm sure of it. Everything points towards it. Do you know how easy it would be to remove those bots that spam the same links over and over? This platform has been losing money since the beginning. They have not only changed things like comment placement, removing the downvote button etc, but they also changed the algorithms to screw over the content creators for a while now. Everytime I comment about this my comment gets shadowbanned (I can see it, but no-one else can). Same goes for when I comment about the situation in a country that's about to collapse and is being run by a bear who really loves honey.

[@dennismwebembezi]

As a Ugandan, I think the effects of offset solutions being sent to the third world and developing countries are felt firsthand by the very occupants of that country, which actually emit negligible amounts of carbon dioxide. They face the wrath of governments trying to implement a project that solves nothing without knowing that the source of funding comes from the industrialized world. The Swedish company will abandon the project, but the local Ugandans will not get their land back.

[@godzillamothra5983]

it is pretty much the same when the west send all their polluting factories to China and other parts of the world that have cheaper labors, and then accused them of polluting the environment.

[@jomidiam]

The only way the industrialized world knows how to relate to Africa is through exploitation.

[@folkfiction]

😣

[@AudioElf]

To be fair, my guess was officials wanted foreign money and didn't care what they had to do to get it. That's not exactly Sweden's fault. I know it's more complex than that, but that sounds like a civil domestic issue as much as a foreign one

[@QueenAnneBoleyn6]

@@AudioElf True, but within the context of the world, the colonization and hardship that Ugandans have endured from Europe and other world powers makes it more than just a domestic problem.

[@kajoliloli]

Carbon offsets feel like a very "pay your way into heaven" approach to solving climate change

[@schwig44]

Does that make John the modern-day Martin Luther?

[@videogamer596]

Aka Carbon Offsets are a modern form of indulgence.

[@molybdaenmornell123hopp5]

Yup, very like that. And heaven has a quota, because there's nowhere near enough land to plant trees on.

[@robertcowan7610]

That'd be an accurate description if the payment was made with Monopoly money.

[@leadpaintchips9461]

@@robertcowan7610 How so? "Pay your way to heaven" was using real money that was considered an insignificant amount by the person paying, and the people approving were just making buttloads of money off of it.

[@murlocmaster6192]

That unfaithful wife bit was golden. That burn was beyond what was needed to start a fire

[@OleOlson]

Taking on corporations is why I love LWT so much. Many shows are afraid of calling them out, fearing losing sponsors (ie. money), but John Oliver just goes straight for the their throats in his truth telling.

[@corvus2512]

Sadly, whether it’s this or the housing crisis or American healthcare nothing will be done about any of it

[@veganpotterthevegan]

@@corvus2512 it would be nice if world governments do something. In the mean time, people can put a huge dent in slowing climate change yet refuse to do so. Stop flying, don't eat animals, turn down your ac/heat, bike, walk, bus... the government doesn't have to do anything for the public to take these steps

[@Sojo214]

@@veganpotterthevegan Wouldn't change much. Yes, every little bit helps, but it's like putting a bandaid on your arm that was nearly amputated in an accident. Companies drive such a massive percentage of the climate crisis, if they aren't on board, we're just not fixing this.

[@JTStembler]

Time to actually *build* carbon capture plants all over the world?

[@Voknal]

100 years from now, in a post apocalyptic world. People will find a hard drive with all the episodes and wonder how it all happened when we knew what all the problems were.

[@bristowski]

Congratulations to Wendover Productions! Their video on carbon offsets is really well done!

[@johngallagher260]

All of their videos are fantastic! I watch them, LWT, and RealLifeLore as soon as they release, and are IMO the current pinnacle of informative video essays.

[@pattymac1776]

I was watching a Half As Interesting video before this and when I heard his voice I thought I hit the back button lol

[@rpinckney1655]

As soon as the clip started I paused and looked for this comment!!! Such a great feature.

[@teresabenson3385]

@@pattymac1776 Love HAI. I have half the attention span.

[@Nazenko]

I got so excited when I heard the voice

[@emixam6947]

This honestly sounds like companies are holding the earth itself hostage. “Send me money, or I will cut down these trees, and keep sending me money or I will be cutting down forests”

[@tomlxyz]

That would be better because then we could charge them for a crime and make them stop

[@FranthonyZarcoza]

thats what happens when decades go by of unchecked wealth accumulations. these companies have the means to reset the planet and wipe out the surface dwellers, go into hiding, then come back out once shit blows over.

[@willemhendriks1905]

Hiya Terra, Manny Bigmoney's the name. That's a nice vista you got there. It'd be a shame if something happened to it, you know those hills deforest easily...

[@joshm6720]

we had a scheme long ago to have people adopt a tree or we would cut it down (we own a small forest). never actually implemented it- but its exactly what is happening now.

[@DesmondSG]

Well, climate efforts have to be economical for the land owners as well. If its beneficial for the world that their trees remain un-logged, then they should be compensated fairly for the opportunity cost. Saving the world shouldn't penalise the stakeholders involved.

[@milkgrapes6420]

Finally, Wendover Productions is in Last Week Tonight. Awesome

[@roccomemes]

Lets fucking going!

[@coastaku1954]

I was just about to mention that!

[@zennydoo]

Pretty sure that was the voice of Sam from Half As Interesting, never heard of this "Wendover Productions".

[@coastaku1954]

@@zennydoo Hmmm, yes, that's true

[@TroyVan6654]

@@zennydoo I'm pretty sure his legal name is Sam from Wendover.

[@piedpiper1172]

Wendover Productions and Last Week Tonight having a cross over is EVERYTHING and I am here for it.

[@GTAVictor9128]

I wonder if Our Changing Climate would ever get a reference. It advocates for ecosocialism and so may be regarded as "too radical" by the mainstream media, but it was the first channel to inform about the carbon offset scam, among many other environmental topics.

[@konsta3790]

@@tchittenden1 v.

[@ooooneeee]

@@GTAVictor9128 yeah capitalism needs to die to fight climate change.

[@samanthamyers5719]

"that violently British man did a pretty good job of explaining the concept" can also sum up his whole show

[@matzefly]

That should be the title of this show😆

[@kenlieck7756]

@@matzefly I think it is in Bangkok…

[@98triffid]

To be fair I don't think that will fit on the title

[@peterfox6159]

*Yup. And it also is a ... "clowns funeral" ... EVERYTIME XD*

[@AmirGTR]

Not really. He's really going out of his way to demonize people who are at least fucking trying

[@headsinger]

Love that Wendover Productions is getting some big time recognition. They produce excellent content on that channel.

[@WanderingYankee]

Now John Oliver needs to do an episode on bricks!

[@StrickerRei-Chn]

Oh and Nebula and other youtube educational content creators.

[@hypercodedOld]

@Buhs Jet Lag opened my eyes to the complex nature of travelling around the world, I absolutely love that series. HAI is nice in terms of fun trivia, it's such a good series for younger kids to watch at times too.

[@RockhopperRio]

I was listening without watching the screen for a bit and then when I heard Sam’s voice I had to do a double take lmao

[@SacredDaturaa]

@Buhs Okay hear me out... brick airplanes.

[@subtropical1228]

I'm so glad he did an episode on this! He is absolutely hitting the nail on the head! Another thing to note is the obvious fact that trees take time to grow!!!! Many species of trees aren't fully grown after a decade!! And in the early stages, they require maintenance!!! And planting baby forests will OBVIOUSLY not immediately sequester the same amount of carbon as a forest full of mature trees!!!!! time to face up - YES you actually need to STOP polluting!!!!

[@baronvonlimbourgh1716]

I think the idea is that the carbon offset goes for the lifetime of the tree. So if you polute 1 ton this year they will plant a tree that will absorb 1 ton of co2 over the next 50 years.. Also, the whole tree planting scheme is a scam anyway. The co2 is still entering the system. Unless they send the fully grown trees into space or pump them back into the ground where the oil came from, when the trees dies or burns the carbon returns to the air and system. It is at best a temporary storage solution

[@spicypotatosofttaco3227]

Yes!! The role old growth forest play in the climate is crucial! I just saw a video about how some very old trees emit a pheromone when they are very dry that triggers rain somehow, I can't find the link, and the trees in the Amazon actually create rain clouds via transpiration. Also a lot of birds and insects rely on older trees. We can't undo cutting those down.

[@JewTube001]

need to stop polluting and stop deforestation. but nobody wants to do it. they want to keep building and consuming things forever. one day we're going to pay for this.

[@hg6996]

When the carbon came from fossil fuels planting a tree won't change anything as long as you don't remove the carbon stored in the tree when the tree dies which exactly nobody does.

[@TheRambunctious]

Right, but the carbon is only pulled out of the atmosphere during the trees growth, once it is fully grown it is no longer removing carbon from the atmosphere as all the carbon captured by photosynthesis is being used in its own respiration.

[@TreyCapnerhurst]

I'm *thrilled* that you took the time to frame this. Trained as a geologist and climatologist, I thought the general public knew that this, like "oil spill clean up", was pure performance art. I was genuinely shocked to learn that the public wasn't in on this theatre, and many believe that these measures are actually effective. Everyone in the industry knows that businesses, government, and media goes through the motions that something significant has been done, and they all go on as usual.

[@HTV-2_Hypersonic_Glide_Vehicle]

The public is ignorant of so much.

[@Jkjoannaki]

If we, the general low to middle class people, feel responsible for the environment, we cannot hunt them down for what they have been causing. It's our fault for using plastic bags and regular straws and not going to our 12 hour shift with our bikes. Nuclear waste and factories don't create any pollution. Don't be surprised if they end up killing all the homeless and the literal slaves around the world to reduce co2. That's the way to go, lets keep the rich happy.

[@jayflach3408]

A lot of people are aware but still statistically insignificant in comparison to those ignorant.

[@NoalFarstrider]

Air quality control is a lie. They hide the meters...

[@JG-zu5wc]

Do elaborate on the oil spill thing. Have no idea what you’re talking about.

[@gildeddragonfly]

Any time John says "practically anyone can set up...." I know he knows because they DID it.

[@davidhollenshead4892]

What got me is how easily he managed to start his chain saw... But then he was employed as a "cutter" in Brittan while a struggling comedian... [and no, a "cutter" doesn't cut trees down, they do the prep work for a "dumper" in organized crime...]

[@chidosenganp23]

Here in Spain, I recently found out that there is a foreign company dedicated to sell carbon offsets by planting trees. It turns out, most of the trees where dead due to drought also a large part burned on recent fires but because they planted the trees they still get paid as if the trees where alive and absorbing CO2

[@couragekarnga8735]

That's outrageous!

[@RealTalkWithSSG]

Exactly this is what's the issue. Cutting off a 50 year old tree cannot be compensated with planting saplings that end up dead.

[@Djuntas]

yeah team tress xD wooopdididop. Who is gonna plant them, who will take care of them, and who will preserve them in the future.

[@SmallSpoonBrigade]

I've been thinking about buying some offsets, but this kind of thing is what's making me hesitant. I've pretty much given up on convincing my wife that she can't just go around leaving lights on all the time and using disposable dishes for regular eating. It's particularly angering given that her dad used to work as an engineer for an oil company, to see her going around pretty much deliberately destroying the environment as best she can.

[@SmallSpoonBrigade]

@@RealTalkWithSSG That depends what you're doing with the tree. If you're turning the tree into wood for building something, then it's probably a good trade as the carbon won't reenter the environment for years and the saplings will absorb more carbon dioxide than a mature tree will. But, point taken for many uses the carbon dioxide gets freed by whatever use your using the tree for.

[@radioheadfanshoshka]

I wasn’t expecting Wendover Productions in a John Oliver segment but I’m absolutely here for it!

[@HobbesHobbiton]

"An Atlas Of Human Suffering." Goddamn, that's dystopian _as fuck._ What a time to be alive.

[@couragekarnga8735]

And people wonder why I refuse to bring children into this world! Um, have you seen the world?

[@HobbesHobbiton]

@@couragekarnga8735 "Why aren't you having kids?" *gestures vaguely at the world*

[@Marijuanifornia]

The legalization of "Marihuana" stopped the Holocaust. Watch the 1942 USDA film, *Hemp for Victory.* The more you know....

[@slackumjackum]

Don't believe the hype

[@civil_villain]

@@slackumjackum Yes, don't believe this well researched episode or the fact that in 2019 100% of scientific papers on the subject reached the same consensus; instead, believe some random slump in a KZbin comment section 🙄

[@mboettcher349]

"What it is, what it does, and why it may actually be making things worse." I've never heard the weekly format of this show summarized so succinctly.

[@Mokona127]

I work at a company doing carbon stocktaking and, yes, offsetting. If you or your company seeks to offset emissions, first of all, consult a European company, because the standards are much stricter. Trees are always a shaky investment, but if you insist on trees, see that you get a project with a replanting guarantee. That way, if the forest fires inevitably get to your 7 acre woods, the same amount will need to be planted again. Never use temporary credits. If you're looking for efficiency, ie cheap credits, consider heating- or cooking projects in developing nations. And please, big companies, stop ruining it for everybody.

[@TheEmbrio]

What could be a less shaky investment than trees ?

[@Mag1cMerl1n]

@@TheEmbrio I'm guessing green energy so you can cut down fossile fuel stuff

[@ombeline_beline]

Big companies could also pay their fair amount of taxes to all the countries they operate in and therefore have those countries being able to sustain real protective environmental and forestry services with real scientists actually knowing what they're doing.

[@bonniea8189]

And what about wind farms, which the segment only glancingly touched on?

[@mitchellblake1475]

That last sentence applies to so much in this world

[@olivierb.2149]

By god this segment is good. So well written. So impactful. Congrats to the whole writing staff.

[@TheQueerLeaf]

Yes

[@rneumeye]

When John Oliver said... "When I said practically anyone can set up a carbon offset company, you all knew where this was going".... Yes... Yes we did. 😏🏆

[@andreawallenberger2668]

we totally knew! 🤣

[@michaelharris9938]

As soon as he said it, I was wondering when he was finally going to get to saying he did actually do it. Like he said, we all knew he was going to.

[@BusinessWolfRay]

*Editing this entire thing because after some fact checking, it turns out that corporations *don't* get to use your donated money (directly or from round ups at the register) as a write off on their taxes. It's nice to know that there's actually some regulation in place for this. Instead, I'd caution you to look very closely at the charities the companies are giving the money to. There are a lot of charities out there who have become extremely predatory and harm those they claim to help.

[@Calvan42]

If anyone should get the write off from donating it should be the person who makes the donation. Find your own groups to fund, legitimate ones, there are groups that are developing new methods of carbon sinking, like seaweed and soil, there are groups developing new technology that can utilize recyclable and non-recyclable materials to make things like fuel or electricity, there are so many better ways to invest in the planet. Also, grassroots groups that can lobby for active changes in the system that has allowed our planet to get like this. Also, I'm gonna watch that linked video too, see what it's about.

[@goadfang]

No, no they don't. Donations they collect from consumers are not counted as the corporations donation for tax purposes. Corporations often donate a portion themselves of course and for that portion THEY donate they may take a deduction, but the portion you donate via their collection program is separate from that. You'd think someone with the username "business wolf" would know the first fucking thing about how corporate accounting, but I guess in this case the user name doesn't check out.

[@robertlowther7442]

It seems like your saying, “ That’s not fair, why should I have to pay?” And I agree, it’s not fair that we paid the bill while they do the damn. But the problem still needs to be fixed. I say hold your money until you find A company that is doing something useful with it, and then just help pay. We can argue about compensation when the world isn’t ending anymore.

[@simmerke1111]

@@goadfang You'd think someone with this arrogance would know the first thing about this issue. Creative accounting combined with lawyer speak terms and conditions often make it tax deductible. While some companies don't do this, many do and it's well known to happen. I agree it shouldn't happen, and the law/tax code says so. But they'll bend the rules and have them break before following them. Sorry to bust your bubble, naive one.

[@BusinessWolfRay]

@@goadfang Thank you for the correction, it did prompt me to do some more research into the topic and I amended my original comment. However, that was a super rude way to go about it. I never claimed to know anything about corporate accounting. I'm actually an Illustrator, I just own my own illustration and mixed art media business. I am a cartoon wolf who runs my own small business. That's where my name comes from.

[@DuranmanX]

Offsets are basically paying a protection fee to a mobster saying "that's a nice forest you got there, would be a real shame if something were to happen to it"

[@massimocole9689]

Yeah and to make it even worse, mature forests are mostly carbon neutral, the amount of carbon they absorb due to growth is equal to the amount they release due to rotting. So promising to preserve them doesn't actually remove carbon from the atmosphere, it just prevents more carbon from being added. Which is important, but not actually a way of being net zero. To use the balloon analogy again, this isn't like adding three balloons and then removing three balloons. Its like adding three balloons and then promising not to add 3 more balloons. Yeah sure, its not making the problem worse, but its also not making it better.

[@belldrop7365]

It's worse than that. The mob will bring a pot of plant in front of your home and threaten it unless you pay.

[@laerin7931]

@@massimocole9689 It can get even worse than that, depending on why the tree would be cut. Because if you pay for carbon offsets to preserve that tree and it then dies and rots, then it's carbon added to the atmosphere. if that tree is cut and turned into, say, furniture, then that carbon is locked away. With mature trees, it often makes more sense to cut them and lock their carbon by turning them into something lasting, while planting new trees.

[@cmwork8870]

While financing billionaires summer camps!

[@AbbasIdris]

Thanks, John Oliver, for entertaining and informing us at the same time! Keep up the great work! You truly deserve every Emmy that you have won and will win!

[@redfin382]

I love how giant corporations have convinced us that we are the problem with emissions...and not...you know..the giant corporations.

[@teresathayn5170]

They didn't convince me! Duh.

[@redfin382]

@@teresathayn5170 well obviously they haven't convinced me either.

[@andiward7068]

People's desire to feel in control and important is used against us. Regardless of our individual actions we can never come close to reducing the harm done on an industrial level.

[@TheMidwestAtheist]

@@andiward7068 I hear what everyone is saying, but, let's be honest: It's a *both* problem. Industry exists like it does because we've been convinced that we need to consume. If we didn't consume, there wouldn't be so much industry. That said, I do recognize that it is the rich who are by far the biggest consumers and, thus, the biggest drivers of industry. My point is more that it is important to recognize that there is a feedback loop in the system. Edit: I should note industry has forced us to consume in many ways. Suburban housing, for example, is devastating to the environment. But one cannot simply decide to move. Similarly, many places lack good public transportation. So I do acknowledge there are cases where our hands, as the consumer, are tied.

[@piewert787]

@@TheMidwestAtheist and who convinced us we need to consume?

[@melody-13]

I was hanging out with my pet rabbit when I decided to watch this on my phone. The moment John started talking, my rabbit hopped over and started watching the video intently. I’m not sure whether it was the subject content or hearing John Oliver’s voice but she was completely engrossed in it for the entire 23 minutes. So John, you clearly have a new fan. She will be tuning in with me every Sunday from now on.

[@firstnamelastname7708]

If you send me $3 I will offset your pet rabbit’s carbon.

[@melody-13]

@@firstnamelastname7708 🤣

[@jimmyfouhy6402]

My rabbit would run 100 ft. to house, if she heard a Kitkat wrapping. Smart Bunny.

[@ooooneeee]

That is so wholesome 🥰.

[@backelie]

@@firstnamelastname7708 I just have my rabbit run in a hamster wheel to produce a green alternative to the coal I would otherwise burn.

[@cle_roknn3742]

So if you want your mind really blown: Finite Carbon, one of the companies running this type of program was bought out by British Petroleum. The same BP that brought you the Gulf oil spill. NCX was a small forestry operation before Microsoft, JPMorgan, and venture capital got involved. These companies are mostly owned or operated for the benefit of big business or venture capitalists. Their goal is not to offset carbon emissions, it’s to monetize a “feeling” of doing something good for the environment rather than actually doing anything…

[@pamelacass9642]

Well....it just gives those companies an excuse to advertise lies about what they're not doing to help the environment. Why else would Elon try to hitch a ride off Earth to go f'ck another planet? Greta tried...she surely tried.

[@barkYdarkATFB]

It’s like “thoughts and prayers” 🙄

[@FutureCommentary1]

They are only doing it because consumers want the feeling that they are consuming from "good" companies. We are telling them: I want to crank up the AC in my gaz guzzling car; please lie to me.

[@holly50575]

Thank you for this comment!

[@BusinessCasual]

Nice job Sam!!

[@genericuser1454]

what's the joke here?

[@archerdork7116]

⁠​⁠Stab in the dark here but the creator of Wendover Productions (9:34) is named Sam and it’s pretty cool that their research is featured in a show of this size. So possibly that.

[@xXGreatKilla]

@@archerdork7116 This seems more like a stab in a well lit room, with your glasses on, at the bullseye of your intended target.

[@archerdork7116]

@@xXGreatKillaI mean, you never know. Maybe OP got a friend named Sam who did the camera work.

[@briankasnick4403]

What I always found interesting was none of them ever strove to be carbon negative…

[@Stroopwafe1]

But of course, because that would be actually doing something, and companies obviously don't want that

[@kaltaron1284]

@@Stroopwafe1 It would just require them to buy a few more credits than necessary. But why do that if "carbon neutral" already sounds good enough.

[@PeterDB90]

Is that even possible? You would have to completely stop having a carbon footprint (which is already impossible unless you eliminate yourself entirely), and then remove carbon from the air, which as we saw, is not as easy to do and requires more land for planting trees than we have on earth.

[@HoboWhisperer]

Negative is bad though. Don't want to advertise that you are Negative! Remember that they are trying to reach the same audience that rejected the 1/3 pound burger because they thought it was smaller than a quarter pounder...

[@carolynburch3661]

Microsoft is striving to be carbon negative

[@pibyte]

9:33 Shoutout to Wendover Productions. Well deserved feature of a very good channel!

[@UmmYeahOk]

Hank: “What the heck is a carbon offset?” Dale: “It’s like a ‘get out of jail free’ card for people concerned about the environment but not concerned enough to do anything.”

[@Craxin01]

King of the Hill reference?

[@coloradokittenfoster7459]

I love that episode! lol They were ahead years ahead of their time.

[@rsmith02]

More for companies than individuals

[@UmmYeahOk]

@@Craxin01 season 13 episode 2 basically the entire episode is about carbon offsets. I honestly had no idea what they were until I saw that episode.

[@KuruGDI]

That is perfectly on point!

[@soulgypsy5151]

Much Love to John Oliver and his team. This show is one of the many reasons Last Week Tonight with John Oliver has won the Emmy Award for best show since 2015. We need more John Oliver's! And much love to John Stewart for your gift of whit and talent in having John Oliver, Stephen Colbert, Trevor Noah and Jordan Klepper as part of your team....a breath of fresh air...

[@TokranInami]

saying that "not chopping down a tree" offsets carbon emissions is like saying "not burning down your house" is investment in real estate

[@ambermcdonald1302]

Bravo 👏🏻

[@jacktattersall9457]

We will solve the housing crisis by not burning down homes, that's why the provincial government is happy to provide free home fire safety inspections.

[@gaberobison680]

In short: don’t be surprised when the technique designed by companies to avoid responsibility doesn’t account for the issue at all

[@questworldmatrix]

Oh I'm sure they'll be paying some impoverished third world village to do voluntary suicide for $1000 a head as a carbon offset.

[@Onigirli]

@mikoy huio is delaying the inevitable more harm than good?

[@shoesncheese]

Carbon Offsets are a very capitalistic solution to the problem. It's a way to "fix" the issue without actually addressing the cause by throwing money at it. Companies still make record profits, still pollute just as much, can say they are "carbon neutral", and get a tax write-off for the expense. Carbon Offets makes them money. That's the only reason they're doing it.

[@quesee08]

Exactly. Its meant to drive profits not carbon footprints. On side note: I always noticed it's the poor that are always the receiving end of all these "conservation" projects. I came from third world country and since the 1980s I have seen projects in poor communities like sustainable fishing when the industrial fishing industries has never stop. And the irony of it is poor people usually have the lowest carbon footprint but they are the one who still have to sacrifice the most...

[@alwynwatson6119]

John Oliver should sell environmental offsets. That way, people can drive electric cars and still post about having a massive carbon footprint. Or companies can gain the technological benefits of decarbonisitng the supply chain whilst not being cancelled for being woke.

[@loganknoll]

John Oliver is absolutely fantastic and this show is a beam of light in a world that gets darker every day.. thank you

[@sebastianbarrios7288]

The focus on companies should always had been that they have to minimize their own carbon emissions instead of giving an escape by having them say "well we are producing more trees over there that dont account much for what we do, and will take years to grow into something that properly does its job, while every single day we still emit the same carbon and do nothing about it". What's going to be the escape once we run out of space for these offset projects?, because as always actually fixing the damn problem will always be the last priority.

[@tonygabagool]

This is exactly how Tesla became too big to fail. Selling electric vehicle certificates to manufacturers without even making said ev yet

[@BasedKungFu]

Well now that rich people can take space tours, I think it's pretty obvious what their back up plan is when the planet inevitably burns.

[@jtylermcclendon]

You're right that corporations should be held accountable. Now they just try to push off the burden on others. However, as a farmer I am in a position to change farming practices that sequester carbon, and a business like an airline is not. A transfer mechanism that lets the airline pay a farmer to sequester carbon makes sense. The practices we would do are so costly they would never be done if we don't get some money back in exchange.

[@traveller23e]

@@jtylermcclendon Although a law requiring the farmer to sequester carbon rather than just allowing airlines to pay them to do so would be more effective. Best if funded at least in part through the government, to prevent food prices from immediately skyrocketing. Better yet if the government got the money necessary through high taxes on corporations involved in large carbon emissions. Consider it a mechanism to _force_ the airline to pay the farmer to do this, without letting the airline claim to be carbon-neutral.

[@jtylermcclendon]

@@traveller23e my experience over that last 10+ years is that when policies and programs are put in place they push the costs on the farmer with no real benefit to the farmer. The bigger issue is that consumers will not pay a higher price for goods because they are sustainable. There are individual products that are exceptions, but in aggregate consumers will not pay more and just buy the cheapest product. Environmentally friendly has really just become a marketing message that isn't pushed unless it increases profits. I am generally small government, but I think I agree with you in principle but would change it so that the regulatory burden is at the consumer level, meaning the goods havrle to meet a standard. From there it would flow back to the manufacturing process at the farm level, but consumers have to pay for it. Farmers wind up holding the bag because we are a small group and don't have lobbying power compared to corporations. Similarly, politicians would rather place the burden on farmers because we are approximately 1% of the vote versus the number of votes from general consumers.

[@june2420111]

Glad John Oliver is increasing consumer awareness about green washing, companies are doing all kinds of things to avoid fundamentally changing their businesses. As consumers we need to hold them accountable and push for more. We want radical change, no fossil fuel, no 1-time plastic, accurate tracking of ethical supply chains, reusing 100% of trash, etc.

[@beeroslava]

Yes!

[@miskatonic6210]

So stop flying, stop eating meat, don't use cars and only buy clothes once a year. Btw reusing trash uses a lot of energy.

[@ZebraGirl97]

I do have some concerns about flat out saying no 1-time plastics. I think the amount of 1 time plastics we actually need vs what is convenient is an important discussion, but I have a genetic disease and have a central line (a catheter) in my chest that ends in my right atrium of my heart. I have always felt guilty for the amount of single use plastics I have to use to stay alive - in the form of sterile saline flushes, single dose medications, IV fluid bags, IV tubing, and medical supplies for the line. But they can't be reused because they literally are injected into the largest vein before the heart or your heart, and the risk of sepsis is massive if you aren't meticulous with sterilized, single use products. But I wouldn't be alive without it. I just remind people of this when we talk about completely eradicating single use plastics. Recycling and sterilizing can help minimize the impact, and I absolutely agree that the rampant use of single plastics in the vast majority of businesses like restaurants, shipping companies, large businesses like Amazon, and so many other situations is inexcusable and unnecessary. But there's a sizable amount of medical care that simply would not be safe with multi-use products. The amount of people that would die without single use sterile plastics is staggering, because cross infection risk or improper sterilization is a massive issue for immunocompromised or high risk folks relying on these supplies to be alive. Just my take.

[@Greenitthe]

@@miskatonic6210 While generally good ideas, personal lifestyle changes aren't meaningful. Pressuring corporations and legislatures is the only way to make a substantial impact. Consumer responsibility is a marketing campaign meant to shift blame away from the largest polluters - corporations.

[@OnesFan1]

You forget abolishing animal agriculture industry, which causes the loss of 2 thirds of the forests we need, emits more green house gasses than all the types of transportation combined, pollutes the water and creates zoonotic diseases pandemics. Is a radical change that we all can do at an individual level, and will have a biggest impact since we are more than companies. Go plant base for the planet.

[@jdt.jd.]

Was never expecting to hear John Oliver mention Hawk Mountain. It's a gorgeous hike spot, especially in the fall. There have been petitions to get public transit to run there to cut down on the number of people driving cars there. Hopefully it'll eventually go through

[@Undivided-X]

What's the nearest town?

[@jdt.jd.]

@@Undivided-X that kinda depends on your definition of town lol. It's officially in Kempton, but people from PA usually refer to it as near Lenhartsville, Kutztown, or Mckeansburg. Lanta, the bus service based out of Allentown/Lehigh Valley, has run buses to the first two towns

[@jeffreytoman8351]

I’m not sold on that being a good idea. I love the idea of people enjoying the outdoors. I amPa resident and I am an avid backpacker. I’ve seen more trash cans being placed at certain high traffic areas. Most people would think that it’s a good thing…. It’s not. Someone has to drive a truck there to empty the cans and the cans are only there bc the litter has become so bad, that someone said let’s just put trash cans there. If you pack it in, you pack it out.

[@ann8846]

@@jeffreytoman8351 I can see your point, but disagree. The more people get to the outdoors, the more will understand its benefits and importance. If you go to certain communities with high public access, you see trash. In others, you see zero trash. I think you can and should 1) provide receptacles with instructions for recycling 2) educate visitors on why it's important to use them 3) whatever else they do at Rehoboth Beach and Duck, NC to ensure compliance and cleanliness. It's kind of sad to see parks in suburbs accessed only by people who drive big SUV's to them. Esp. in the U.S., we really do seem to want to make those who can't afford cars as miserable as possible. Public parks should always be publicly accessible.

[@jacktattersall9457]

Maybe that could be a carbon offsets project: a hybrid-electric shuttle bus to Hawk Mountain funded by carbon offsets indexed to shuttle ridership and decreases on local parking occupancy.

[@HLB-cd9nl]

I did a literal spit take, for the first time of my life, at the "he only does that to people with severe illnesses" part.

[@alycekollmer1056]

I though that was unnecessary also, when you dish “it” out, I think you should be able to take it.

[@islandneni1829]

Ikr it's SO funny😅😂

[@_nickthered]

I love how quickly companies went to passing along the cost of these offsets on to their customers. It's like "we didn't want to do this but yo u do so here you pay for it"

[@somebonehead]

It makes my blood boil. They absolutely refuse to shoulder their fair share of the burden. They do this with charity, too. As long as charities exist to clean up after them, they'll never feel inclined to actually address their behavior at the source.

[@Jedi_Vigilante]

No amount of profit is enough for them, and every industry has fallen victim to this. It doesn't matter if their corporate officers are taking home 7 figure bonuses monthly, they'll still pass on any and every cost they can while pretending to do otherwise. The worst part is, we accept it as normal far too much. What is the main objection for increasing the minimum wage? That companies will just pass that "increased cost" off onto the customer, so we shouldn't do it. THEY ALREADY MAKE RECORD PROFITS, THERE IS NO NEED FOR THE OFFSET!!! How about the fact that wait staff at restaurants are barely paid anything without tips. Why are already paying customers expected to pay EXTRA just so that their server can make decent money? Shouldn't the cost of paying the wait staff come out of the money we pay for the meal? If it doesn't, then why do so many places charge so much? It clearly isn't for the food itself, I could buy half a grocery store for the amount some sit down restaurants will charge for half a plate of food. Then you have the "donate your change to x charity" things...like we are struggling to pay to put food on the table while your CEO is buying their 4th super-yacht, I'm pretty sure that charity doesn't need MY change when that CEO could donate a small country's entire GDP without even noticing.

[@elkarion]

It's the same with recycling.

[@Ichigo111293]

@@Jedi_Vigilante Exactly! These fuckers need to be forced to pay their fair share, by any means necessary.

[@monirogue1570]

@@somebonehead what if I told you many of the charities they get involved with, including big names that are considered "reputable" by the general public...are by and large not even using the money as intended and only a very small percentage of money donated is actually going towards whatever cause the charity claims the money is for? My blood has been boiling over for years now

[@empressclown]

Regarding the shovel made out of a KitKat not being sustainable: the crunchy insides of a KitKat bar are other pulverized KitKat bars that were broken or misshapen during production. KitKats eat themselves. That's already minimal waste and a commitment to sustainability.

[@spongeintheshoe]

...That's also kind of gross, given it's food we're talking about.

[@Prophes0r]

That's...not what 'sustainability' means...

[@adambuchbinder2791]

@@Prophes0r It is! If you make something and you're less wasteful about it, that's more sustainable! Also, this is the difference between "post-consumer recycled content" and "recycled content"; things can be recycled before they leave the plant in the first place.

[@Prophes0r]

@@adambuchbinder2791 No...it literally isn't. Sustainable : of, relating to, or being a method of harvesting or using a resource so that the resource is not depleted or permanently damaged Using your scraps to make more product is 'waste-reduction' Using the profits to run farms to grow your own ingredients/packaging/fuel would be sustainable. There is no such thing as 'more' or 'less' sustainable. It is a Yes/No state. Don't fall for all that nonsense marketing speak that's just there to make you feel good about the same old garbage. You are smarter than that.

[@sdfkjgh]

@@spongeintheshoe: It's all rather like that common trope in advertising that nobody ever thinks enough about to realize the rammifications: one anthropomorphized item of food eating another anthorpomorphized item of the same type of food; or anthropped food being happy to be eaten. One is cannibalism, the other is, idk, fatalism? An homage to _The Hitchhikker's Guide to the Galaxy?_ All I know is, Wienerschnitzel had the right idea a few years ago when they depicted their spokeshotdog constantly screaming in terror and running away from those who sought to eat him.

[@SeanGHOB]

Saw the title of this and, immediately, thought, "I'm going to see some Wendover content I already watched." Glad they added to the comedy. John Oliver is a funny guy.

[@blacksmeim8791]

Jeez. KZbin will be overrun with bots.

[@dridadbunkerphd6523]

One of the best things about John's work is he and his staff actually DO the things that prove the BS is really BS. Gotta love that.

[@drewmany]

😄

[@plabcentral630]

The only problem is that they are only one team. Everyone needs to think like them.

[@Jornandreja]

They'll just raise prices and make you pay for the "carbon offsets", then the executives will increase their salaries, bonuses, and benefits. Those executives will then just buy more houses, planes, and increase their individual carbon outputs by the equivalent of millions of people each.

[@TentinQuarantino_]

Don’t forget the yachts! Kind of makes you root for pirates.

[@Marijuanifornia]

The best carbon offset is the Cannabis plant which grows quickly in every climate and takes in CO2 as it is growing. The USDA reported in 1916 that one acre of Cannabis can make more paper than four acres of trees. Ford made a plastic car with Cannabis in 1941. There is video of it on KZbin. The USDA legalized Cannabis in 1942 to win World War II. The 1942 USDA film *Hemp for Victory* is online from the US National Archives.

[@lorcostridge2811]

@@Marijuanifornia I was not expecting this at all but now I’m fully on board.

[@Marijuanifornia]

​@@lorcostridge2811 I beg this show every week to just show the film to people. Bill Maher, John Oliver, Seth Meyers, Stephen Colbert; literally anyone who isn't me could get millions of more people to know about this in a single day. This isn't taught in schools because it "promotes drugs." This isn't talked about in any news program, or even in online podcasts about Cannabis legalization. It is just sitting online at an official government website, and barely anyone in the country notices. There was even a bill in Congress titled HR 3652, the *Hemp for Victory Act of 2019.* Nothing. Not a word.

[@mockingbird4346]

@@TentinQuarantino_ Kind of?

[@Michelle-lk2nz]

Best way to start a Monday morning - listening to John Oliver talk about the environment

[@slackumjackum]

You prefer to be dumber with breakfast? Lol

[@user-sx1fg7lc3c]

Lol same. I sit down with my breakfast before work and watch Johnny boy every Monday

[@Styphon]

@@slackumjackum That only happens after reading your crap.

[@dudeitel]

I wish he had talked about how a lot of tree planting initiatives aren't done with proper biodiversity conservation objectives in mind, which can lead to monocultures or invasive species that harm ecosystems, and other issues. Also, when these trees are planted, there are usually no management measures for who looks after those trees, and a lot of those trees can just end up dying anyway. Even if it's done right, ***tree planting cannot replace older forests***; older forests have SIGNIFICANTLY more value for carbon storage due to their complex structures and large trees-the potential to mitigate carbon emissions increases by at least 600% by preserving intact forests and avoiding associated forest degradation practices. So it's *MUCH* more valuable to preserve forests than to plant new trees. It's not a one-for-one trade because it would take at least a hundred years for new forests to develop properly, and we don't have that kind of time to wait. I work in this field so it's something I hope more people can understand! I suggest anyone who is interested in this topic to check out these open-access scientific papers on it: Maxwell, S. L., Evans, T., Watson, J. E. M., Morel, A., Grantham, H., Duncan, A., … Malhi, Y. (2019). Degradation and forgone removals increase the carbon impact of intact forest loss by 626%. Science Advances, 5(10), eaax2546. doi: 10.1126/sciadv.aax2546 www.science.org/doi/full/10.1126/sciadv.aax2546 Di Sacco, A., Hardwick, K. A., Blakesley, D., Brancalion, P. H. S., Breman, E., Cecilio Rebola, L., … Antonelli, A. (2021). Ten golden rules for reforestation to optimize carbon sequestration, biodiversity recovery and livelihood benefits. Global Change Biology, 27(7), 1328-1348. doi: 10.1111/gcb.15498 onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/gcb.15498

[@lan9741]

Thank you very much for mentioning this! I watched the whole time, hoping he would address the subject, but sadly nothing... Seeing as this was a very recent topic for me with Alexandre Antonelli coming to my Uni, I especially appreciate the sources you linked :) I really hope more people read up on this, since public pressure is the only thing able to induce change.

[@blixten2928]

Great, thanks! I'll use that in my class on "sustainability", where we look for succinct ways to understand, critique and (maybe) help improve the whole off-setting thing.

[@dudeitel]

@@lan9741 happy to share, and what a coincidence that he went to your uni recently! I agree that public pressure is super important. I guess the pressure to become 'eco-friendly' is causing companies to greenwash too since they assume that consumers won't know any better and they get credit for appearing like they care about the planet. Hope we can all raise awareness and hold companies and others accountable

[@dudeitel]

@@blixten2928 really glad to hear you'll use it in your class! :))

[@sderoski1]

The human caused mass extinction is a category of crime that has to be invented, like mass genocide or something

[@conors4430]

John is an international treasure for the like he shines on these things. If modern civilisation ever had a Tombstone, it would read, here lies, people who could, but who didn’t”

[@krmr]

The audience overlap between Sam/Wendover and John Oliver is huge. John's trying to harness this is awesome 😎

[@dirankesuma]

fr bro wasn't expecting a wendover video in here

[@Jemppu]

I was so excited to hear Sam's voice!! :D Kid's made it.

[@hiendkle]

Wait, what?

[@pvic6959]

idk if i should be concerned there didnt seem to be any credit...

[@YT-Lucas]

@@pvic6959 there was, Wendover was noted while the video played. I think the biggest question is when John Oliver will be brave enough to cover the brick situation.

[@chazdomingo475]

I live in a rural area with many "dirt poor" land owners. All of our timberland is basically clear cut at this point. It is in the Southeast so the land should be completely forested, but you can drive for miles through the country side and see nothing be waste and devastation from clearcutting. If these offsets could prevent such a catastrophe they could be able to do good, but again, there is little incentive in a capitalist system to do good for good's sake. The bottom line is profits, and the rest is controlling the narrative. I don't believe capitalism is a solution and I know capitalism is why all the land is being clearcut and corrupted with pollution.

[@Grintock]

See, if you set up a well-regulated system, capitalism definitely can be the solution. A decent example is the EU-ETS using economic incentives to optimise CO2-reduction.

[@DesiGalCrochet]

Capitalism is the reason we are in this mess. It can't be the solution as well.

[@aaronb1195]

Free-market vs. command-and-control economy arguments are misplaced here. The Soviet Union fostered some of the worst environmental catastrophes in human history, and they were hardly capitalists. No economic system inherently internalizes externalities without a lot of work.

[@theshunzun]

@@Grintock if that were possible, it would’ve already happened. The systemic components are already here. It just doesn’t happen because it’s not as profitable to do so.

[@theshunzun]

@@aaronb1195 ​ nobody said anything about command-and-control economics, or the Soviet Union. The concern is capitalism can’t be the solution to a problem it created. If something is not profitable in the market, no business will pursue it. That unfortunately includes reforesting cleared land like what the OP described above anecdotally.

[@Craxin01]

The entire purpose of cap and trade was that there was to be a limited amount of carbon dioxide pumped into the atmosphere. A company that successfully reduced its emissions could see the amount they reduced by to a company that went over. It was to overall limit carbon. Offsets are kind of meaningless unless you can demonstrate how much carbon you have taken out of the air, which you obviously can't.

[@dance35100]

OG cap and trade and knowing how much carbon is being sequestered is based off of erroneous science at best. The guy who came up with it didn't use ground cover as part of his calculations and still to this day does not think plants have carbon.

[@someguy2135]

Planting trees is a popular way to offset. Preventing the destruction of established forests has a much bigger effect. How can each of us encourage that? Draw your own conclusion- "While the wildfires raging in the Amazon rainforest may constitute an “international crisis,” they are hardly an accident. The vast majority of the fires have been set by loggers and ranchers to clear land for cattle. The practice is on the rise, encouraged by Jair Bolsonaro, Brazil’s populist pro-business president, who is backed by the country’s so-called “beef caucus.” While this may be business as usual for Brazil’s beef farmers, the rest of the world is looking on in horror. So, for those wondering how they could help save the rainforest, known as “the planet’s lungs” for producing about 20% of the world’s oxygen, the answer may be simple. Eat less meat."- CNN Another reason they burn the Amazon is to grow soy. "More than three-quarters (77%) of global soy is fed to livestock for meat and dairy production. Most of the rest is used for biofuels, industry or vegetable oils. Just 7% of soy is used directly for human food products such as tofu, soy milk, edamame beans, and tempeh." -Our World in Data Animal agriculture is a major cause of deforestation, habitat loss and thus biodiversity loss.

[@fisharepeopletoo9653]

@@someguy2135 Hypothetically speaking, if everyone tomorrow turned vegan, would there be enough farmland to support the population of the planet? And if not, what would be the difference in amount of deforestation compared to what we have now? Genuine question, not trying to hate or start anything, just curious how the numbers come out. I will say though that it's hard to blame those farmers for clearing land to farm on. Yes, it is horrific to look upon, but it's not like we didn't do it in our own countries first. Even looking at satellite photos of the U.S. from when the first satellite photos were taken to now is astonishing, a lush green continent has turned mostly gray and brown. It'd be pretty hypocritical of me to say they can't do what we've already done to elevate our society

[@OnesFan1]

Methane gas is warmer than Co2 and we emit more than Co2 every day. Same with nitrogen

[@Craxin01]

@@OnesFan1 Nitrogen is the majority of our atmosphere, not sure if you knew that. Methane is a potent greenhouse gas, which I am sure is what you meant. Losing it into the atmosphere is doubly tragic as it is more potent than Carbon Dioxide and is a useful fuel that burns clean. Sequestering methane is doubly beneficial for the same reasons, keeping it out of the atmosphere and utilizing it for clean energy.

[@merissaj4518]

I love John and his team. Their research is excellent and arguments are insanely strong. Can't watch too many in a row or I get depressed, but love them anyway. Humans are the absolute worst.

[@bararobberbaron859]

Love how Kitkat, rather than stopping with the child labor for their cacao, is spending on offsetting. I mean, in theory a good thing to do, but it's a very odd priority and presumably a cheaper way to positive press than stopping exploiting children.

[@ids1024]

Somehow child slavery offsets don't sound quite as good. "For each credit you buy, we'll pay someone not to enslave their child. Which they weren't going to do anyway. Which totally balances the slavery we profit from."

[@FutureCommentary1]

How are child labor and climate change linked? How would stopping the first slow down the second? Edited to add: I read you again. You didn't claim a link between the two. Another question then: why does it have to be one or the other?

[@durnsidh6483]

@@FutureCommentary1 They should be doing both, but they are sweeping the child labor issue under the rug.

[@Punnikin1969]

If those children earned a meal or something by planting a tree it would all balance out. Guilt-free Kit Kats for everyone. Slavery isn't going to go away any time soon, so we may as well use the free labor to gloss over another horrifying truth. Stop cutting down our slaves. Gimme a dollar every time you buy chocolate and I will pledge to preserve some exploited child laborers and make them plant trees where their home should have been.

[@MrMischelito]

@@ids1024 this is so dark

[@SorasShadow1]

Huge, profit-driven companies wouldn't like it if it worked, but it's always good to have videos like this break down as to why.

[@garysantos7053]

"Pollution, coupled with Human Greed and Stupidity, are the biggest threats to humanity." -Stephen Hawking

[@yourlogicalnightmare1014]

Human greed and stupidity would be harmless with 5 billion fewer of them

[@racindaze3450]

You forgot to add " white elitist liberal, private jet flying, suv driving, finger waving fascists"

[@saxyrep1]

@@yourlogicalnightmare1014 Harmless?!? I have to disagree. That combo is a recipe for disaster no matter how many of us are out there. That said, it sure would reduce the pollution problem.🤷🏾‍♂️

[@DgurlSunshine]

@@yourlogicalnightmare1014 YOU FIRST

[@My-Pal-Hal]

Let's simplify that. Humans are the biggest threat to humanity. Or even simpler. A Threat to pretty much everything.

[@matkosmat8890]

I spent my whole weekend not cutting trees down. I'm good for another week.

[@annabland1110]

I find it interesting that there’s no discussion here about the difficulties of cultivating trees through the first handful of years when they’re extremely vulnerable to drought, pests, and disease and die off easily. There are full time forestry workers who plant thousands of trees every year trying to rebuild their woodlands, with a depressingly low tree survival rate, despite desperate efforts. Mature trees are incredibly beneficial but planting trees doesn’t mean that those trees will reach maturity.

[@Jay-cs9uq]

💯

[@jonhowe2960]

Also, interestingly, trees are not immortal. They die and surrender their captured carbon unto the environment. 🙂

[@John_Weiss]

And of course, we know that there _won't be aaaaaany_ worsening of droughts or migration of pests due to that ever-increasing CO2… /s

[@davidaustin6962]

There's no discussion here about that because none of these offsets are going toward those activities, which is I'm afraid a far more heartbreaking and aggravating and substantial story. No offense intended of course.

[@Not-Sorry2011]

“Don’t we have enough trees here?”

[@Michaelroth95]

REDUCING EMISSIONS IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN OFFSETTING. As someone who works in the industry, including with offsets and projects, this is accurate. The good companies WANT more regulation here. The bar is too low and we need unified standards. Everyone in the industry knows this. Carbon projects are a good thing. The fact is, it will take decades to decarbonize supply chains. If we can fund something in the meantime to help, I believe we should. But they need tougher standards. I hope this is not a case of throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

[@MichaelWBauer]

This is my only complaint with the episode. I wish John would have touched on how to improve the system with regulations that establish standards which are meaningful. The premise of Carbon Offsets if done through Direct Air Capture is completely sound, and we shouldn't ignore it as a stopgap on our way to net negative.

[@Michaelroth95]

@@MichaelWBauer I agree. There are some methods that are helpful. Its a viable part of a bigger solution with more regulation.

[@alwynwatson6119]

John Oliver should sell environmental offsets. That way, people can drive electric cars and still post about having a massive carbon footprint. Or companies can gain the technological benefits of decarbonisitng the supply chain whilst not being cancelled for being woke.

[@krysto2012]

Asking consumers to pitch in $2 to offset their carbon footprint absolutely reeks of the 2000s recycling campaigns which saddled the everyman with the burden of saving the environment - 'it's your fault for using too much electricity, not recycling as much' etc, meanwhile major corporations had absolutely massive footprints and couldn't be bothered to budge and inch. They're shifting the responsibility onto us again and we're somehow falling for it again.

[@gothboschincarnate3931]

its easy to fool the weak minded....

[@WoefulMinion]

@@gothboschincarnate3931 I think the majority of people see right through it.

[@ichijofestival2576]

Meanwhile, the executives are taking home millions in bonuses. Even _if_ those $2 pittances are somehow shielded from their for-profit funds, do you think there's even a _chance_ that the end result, in-effect, isn't that you're paying into those bonuses anyway? At this point, you just can't take a corporation's "charity" at face value.

[@moresalad221]

Take a look at the data for pollution contribution from animal factory farming. It's insane that people like to turn one cheek when I hinders their own cultural and biased one sided arguments about why it is that they'd rather eat animal based products.

[@sdfkjgh]

@@moresalad221: I am completely honest in my arguments for eating animal products: They're delicious, and while I have proven to myself that I can live without them, that time spent proving so was utterly miserable, and I never want to repeat it. So, tl;dr: animals are delicious, and eating their meats brings me joy.

[@aspicboat]

- Guys, we're going to kill ourselves through pollution. - You're right, how can we make money from all this tho?

[@sachadee.6104]

Exactly ! This is the $100 reward remark.

[@tammyjantzen9004]

For years I have been trying to figure out how climate offsets work. Logic-wise, it just never made sense to me. My gut would tell me, don't check that box. So...I've never checked the box. And thanks to John Oliver...he has confirmed it. Thanks so much John!!!

[@robinhood4640]

So it's you who is the one polluting our planet. I knew there was someone somewhere who wasn't ticking the box.

[@SmallSpoonBrigade]

They can work, the problem is that for them to work, they also tend to be rather expensive. It's why it's so important for there to be regulations in place that force reductions as it's usually cheaper to just stop polluting than it is to try and remove the pollutants once they're in the environment. There's also the issue of us having waited so long to start doing anything substantive that we don't have the luxury of waiting years for the offsets to kick in. Even if those trees do wind up absorbing all the carbon dioxide that we expect, it still takes many years, during which time there's extra in the atmosphere.And that assumes they don't die or get burned in the meantime, which is an increasingly common problem.

[@dasstigma]

Maybe you should watch the video again and try to understand what he is saying instead of trying to hear what you wanted to hear all along.

[@autohmae]

A bunch of project actually planted trees, which can be sensible, as long as their were no plans to plant them anyway, etc. But the incentives are clearly: to do fancy accounting instead.

[@KitC916]

agreed, it's a scam to get consumers to pay for write-offs that big corporations should just pay their damn taxes instead of constantly asking consumers to subsidize their write-offs

[@luise.perezv.8702]

I'm glad that I finished the video because I was going to say that another big problem with carbon offsets is that many forests are planted in third-world countries, but they are planted in places where they compete with farms. So we now have the problem of producing less food for the local communities because the farms were replaced with non-fruit growing forests because companies decide what trees are being planted.

[@pamelacass9642]

You betcha.

[@karstenb1806]

Well, they can import food. That might cost a little more than producing their own, but hey, they now earn money from the reforestation projects. Everything is well-though-out!

[@TheLarsUrlich]

You always know it's gonna be a good one when John says "And the reason i know that is..."

[@ArachCobra]

This really is a continuous problem of magic thinking. We want solutions that makes us feel like we're doing the right thing, but also requires zero effort or sacrifice.

[@genisz2754]

Lastweektonight is the most informative of all night shows. Hands up to Oliver and his team!

[@juliabrown5396]

His writing staff is amazing!

[@andrewrockwell1282]

Here I am thinking I learned some of this on Wendover Productions, and then you show a clip of them. Thank you to both for putting this info out there.

[@TanksForTheMemories]

This is where you absolutely shine John, and Johns team, keep this type of work coming please.

[@belindaberdes9647]

Thank you John for entertaining us and keeping us information. Keep holding the powerful accountable and outing their lies.

[@MzShonuff123]

That Newt Gingrich joke was solid. Can’t believe the audience reaction

[@juliabrown5396]

I was cracking up too! That’s what my ex did to me when I got breast cancer. He was highly insulted when I told him he was like Newt. And then old Newt did it again 😮!

[@Electricshrock]

I know right? Newt is fair game!

[@adrienrenaux6211]

One of the things he didn't mention is that even when they plant new trees, it doesn't always help much. If they plant a monoculture of trees in a place where a forest that had very diverse biodiversity, that doesn't do much. Also, forests tend to absorb the heat of the sun more than other land uses. So sometimes the increased sun energy absorbed by turning let's say grasslands into forest will heat up the earth more than the carbon dioxyde it helped capture

[@Stierenkloot]

Trees absorb the energy you goofus. Ever heard of photosynthesis? They don’t add extra heat…

[@arianaink100]

Besides limiting the biodiversity, humans planting trees has a high rate of those trees falling down, the natural way they spread is different then planted rows not all trees are perfect so when the come up at equidistant paces trees that would have done better grouped together fall over in unbalance/wind. They also take in a ton of water compared to other areas and plants. If they wanted to do an easy carbon plan they should have gone with algae as they just grow that in a little tank or in lake/water areas not actual land. Meaning more land animals can have a chance to naturally exist without intervention. Biggest issue is the heat right now all growing seasons feel out of wack the droughts and rains aren’t helping much. Feel like reforesting areas is like setting up tinder boxes around fireworks, unless you decide to flood the whole area making it marsh land.

[@Talemuse]

If you are talking about the albedo effect, it is only true if the ground below is reflective like snow which would better reflect sunlight and heat into space. Having trees over soil, which are dark coloured and hence would have absorbed the heat is great for the environment. Forests, other than the usual carbon capturing , providing habitats for wild life also transpires and create clouds which reflect sunlight and cools the planet.

[@nimue325]

Good news: whales are massive carbon sinks! If only someone were putting carbon offset money into saving whales… ;-)

[@rudolfquerstein6710]

@@Talemuse One thing to note though is that trees release CO2 due to respiration and that amount increases with temperature. The amazon rainforest as an example emits more CO2 than it takes in now, due to heat and drought and that is even if you ignore the fires, that obviously release a lot of CO2. So even natural forests are only a a carbon sink if the temperature is right and they get enough water. Otherwise they produce CO2 (obviously only when fully grown, growth still takes CO2, otherwise there would be no wood).

[@ichijofestival2576]

If these companies want to plant trees in places that'll make a difference, they should be doing it here. Thermal imaging has shown that low-income urban neighborhoods run *way* hotter due to a complete lack of trees and other greenery. And that's a problem that's only going to get worse with time. Of course, we're wandering into "actually doing something" territory. So...

[@benzaiten933]

sadly in many places trees are intentionally cut down completely or have their branches cut back drastically to reduce hiding space for all those 'criminals'. if there are more lush and green trees those criminals (aka poor people) couldn't be as easily tracked through drones and helicopters are they are now. and no, sadly I'm not joking, that's one of the reasons low income neighborhoods have fewer trees.

[@davidbeppler3032]

@@benzaiten933 Saint Louis Missouri is murder capital of the USA, our city qualifies as a forest.

[@davidbeppler3032]

@@benzaiten933 Saint Louis Missouri is murder capital of the USA, our city qualifies as a forest.

[@michaelharris9938]

@@benzaiten933 it sounds like you're saying all poor people are criminals or all criminals are poor. I've lived well below the poverty line for most of my life and have never been in jail in my life and I'm over 60. Most people I know who are poor aren't criminals either. And let's face it, there's a lot of well off people that are crooked as all hell too.

[@d.e.7467]

@@michaelharris9938 You misread what Benzaitin said.

[@neco9590]

Honestly, this whole offsetting system always sounded even worse to me if the customer got to pay for it. Oh yeah? You ALLOW ME to pay so YOU can handle YOUR waste? Great. Thanks a lot. Next time I am eating out, I am gonna ask the restaurant if they want me to pay them 2€, so I get to take one bag full of their trash with me.

[@capitalinventor4823]

You have always been paying for companies to handle their regular trash but it’s been hidden in the cost of the product or service. The only difference with the carbon offsets is that they are a separate charge for you to see. As there are 1 in 5 large companies performing some level of offsetting and we don’t see an option to carbon offset at the stores when we shop it is fair to assume that the cost of carbon offsets is hidden in the price on many products. Companies put the option to pay for carbon offsets as a way to bring it to the attention of the customers. The companies want to be seen as environmentally friendly.

[@FreshlyBakedLePain]

Companies always pass their costs to their consumers, that is how business works. Obviously when you eat at a restaurant, part of the cost of the meal goes toward whatever they spend on cleaning and waste management.

[@TM-su7vu]

This is no different from paying more for fair trade products. Would you pay extra for slavery-free food? I would hope so. And the pollution is done to meet consumer demand. Companies aren't out dumping toxic waste just for kicks.

[@neco9590]

@@TM-su7vu That's exactly the point. I should not have to pay extra for "slavery free food", companies should not be allowed to produce "slavery food". Why should it be acceptable for companies to engage in slavery at all? Is there any reason for us to keep slavery acceptable?

[@Wingspan_5]

BP investing near $0 in their presentation by having an old man in his shed play with balloons is the most BP thing I've ever seen, aside from a massive world changing oil spill of course

[@dannydaw59]

BP = British polluter

[@lila7605]

That's not true! those custom balloons costed at least 10$

[@a_8850]

I always, always learn something important, at least a few strategic facts if not a game-changer, when I watch Last Week Tonight with John Oliver. Thanks for what you folks do! It's important.

[@livinlicious]

Ah yes, another episode "What is fucked up with the world?" Lets go boys.

[@TheDarkness1]

Everything. Done.

[@couragekarnga8735]

"What is fucked up with the world?" A: Everything.

[@Marijuanifornia]

What is fucked about this world is that no one will talk about the 1942 USDA film *Hemp for Victory* and learn how the legalization of "Marihuana" was vital to defeating the Nazis. Today, this WWII film is the key to stopping climate change. No one cares, even as millions of pampered Americans vote in red and blue states alike to "legalize" Cannabis not to save the world, but just to get high and watch Rick and Morty while the planet chokes on plastic and dies.

[@bodotrenaud7441]

Love it

[@theblukatlife]

Murica and europe... After all you guys are the ones enslav# ing us all

[@elferrous]

"This beak opens for sad news and porridge and I'm all out of porridge" doubles as sad news

[@josedominguez8252]

Please tell me I'm not the only one that hears the term "Carbon Offset" and is reminded of that episode of King of the Hill where Buck Strickland is pressured by Hank to make Strickland Propane carbon neutral. Effective but uncomfortable solutions like carpooling, not using AC as often, shutting off computer screens when not in use (which Buck didn't like because he liked his screen saver) caused Buck to find out about Carbon Offsets by planting trees to offset his carbon footprint. But Buck couldn't even do that because he didn't like the labor so he ends up just buying trees that already existed near some guys house in the woods. Effectively making the one problem they were trying to solve erased just for the sake of peace of mind even if it meant the problem not even being solved. Just pure peace of mind That was the first thing I thought of when I saw the title for this video

[@sempersolus5511]

Then I thought, "Why are they still talking about this? Don't lawmakers watch the same cartoons I do?" Then I felt silly.

[@landocalrissiano9729]

King of the Hill was really ahead of its time.

[@reblewi30]

Yes! That’s immediately what I think of any time I hear the term “Carbon Offsets”.

[@Magmamaster8]

It would be nice to see a historical version of this show covering old history as if it has just happened.

[@Marijuanifornia]

If these God-damned spambots didn't ruin the comment section all the time, I'd post the official US National Archives link to the 1942 USDA film *Hemp for Victory* which legalized "Marihuana" to defend our country during World War II. I'm willing to be crucified at the National Mall in Washington DC if it would finally make *Hemp for Victory* go viral. As in, physically nailed to a cross and left to starve to death if it would just get the American people to see the film.

[@elmarobberts5128]

@@Marijuanifornia I hate them too. It's totally out of control. How do we wake up YT?

[@johnrice56]

Out of all 7.5 billion people, I bet not one is named Prigiyan Short.....

[@huemins]

So... selling Carbon offset is basically like treating trees like hostages? "You better give me that money or this tree and all the others are very threatened to be cut down!!" says the (juridical) person, holding a knife up to the tree's bark. A drop of resin forms at the cut, leaves start to shudder as is a gust of wind had blown through them. The air stood still, though.

[@Astraeus..]

A few years ago we had a bit of an issue with the growing population of wild turkeys (in Canada), and as a joke I decided to start trying to sell Turkey Insurance, which was basically insurance that would protect you from instances of wild turkeys getting into your home or vehicle and doing turkey stuff.... Nobody wanted to pay of course, but one of my friends in particular kept going on about it asking how I'd protect them from the turkeys and how they'd even get into your house in the first place, blah blah blah....so naturally my reaction was to get a turkey (couldn't catch a wild one, so I settled for getting a farm turkey....) and sneak it into his house, with a little sign hanging on the turkey's neck that read "If only there was some kind of insurance for this...." .... Needless to say, I found the whole thing a lot funnier than both him and the turkey did.... good times though.

[@tuemuch]

"When you buy an offset, so you can pollute more, and that offset is bullshit, you're now actively making things worse" - I'm frightened by the fact, that this is so very true, and that big companies spend lots of money - with good intentions - on making things worse...

[@psychicbyinternet]

"Good intentions"

[@alwynwatson6119]

John Oliver should sell environmental offsets. That way, people can drive electric cars and still post about having a massive carbon footprint. Or companies can gain the technological benefits of decarbonisitng the supply chain whilst not being cancelled for being woke.

[@jasonblalock4429]

What I'm wondering is.... how many companies pushing offsets are connected to umbrella groups which allow them to give themselves free offsets by having Member Company A pay to "stop" Member Company B from doing something it never actually planned to do? Like if I owned a tech factory and a logging company, I could have the loggers threaten to chop down a forest, and then have the factory pay them/myself to not do that, while still claiming a carbon credit. Because you KNOW it's gotta be happening already.

[@Locked0Out]

Oh, the Umbrella Corporation definitely has their hands in offsets

[@johnrice56]

Diabolical...

[@thatjillgirl]

Offsets can be great! (Some types of offsetting are much more effective than others.) But it can never be the sole answer. They're what you do to make up for the carbon emissions that CAN'T be reduced or avoided, not what you do INSTEAD of reducing/avoiding.

[@emilyloosli]

AMEN

[@AleJuliet]

Thank you! I feel that this episode was very misleading in just saying that offsetting is super bad and then not giving any other information about what is best. I agree that is definitely not the sole answer, but it helps. And as with everything, there needs to be regulations and checkups in place to prevent greenwashing.

[@backelie]

@@AleJuliet The episode points out it *can* help, *if* you actually reduce deforestation, or replace a coal plant with a windfarm etc, but it *currently* does a crapton more harm than good since that is not what is happening.

[@amylivingston4590]

@@c.kahyaoglu6300 Maybe not misleading, but it was definitely one-sided. He devoted one sentence to "Offsets can, in theory, work if they're done right," and the rest of the video to, "But seriously, offsets are bullshit."

[@ManuelCocco]

@@AleJuliet agree. And I am all for being extremely critical and demanding, we def need more STRINGENCY in VCM and compliance ETS; but saying it's all bullshit maybe it's not the most constructive way...coz phasing out fossil fuels, go 100% RE & electrify transport and heat (plus have net zero infrastructure and buildings) will not be achieved in 10-15 years...and we have this decade only to reverse the trend and start going down on emissions...so offsets are not only a part of the solution; they are CRUCIAL to complement everything else needed to halt and reverse climate change before we are all doomed..

[@Choochinc]

"Not cutting down trees shouldn't be hard" My town: Excuse us while we cut down acres of forest for no reason at all, and do absolutely nothing with the newly cleared land. Also, no trespassing.

[@honeyartstudios]

What is Haiti, Alex?

[@vysharra]

The trees are likely the point. Lumber is very valuable, especially if the trees are big and/or old.

[@LeBonkJordan]

@@vysharra Oxygen tends to be a lot more valuable, but sure, let's just mow down all these old growth forests to temporarily sate the shareholders' insatiable hunger for infinite human expansion so we can make a line go up because It's Good When The Line Goes Up

[@jackvalior]

@@LeBonkJordan You do know phytoplankton and cyanobacteria in our ocean is our main source of Oxygen, right? I do study climate science as a degree at uni, and I'm pretty sure we dont have to worry about running out of air any time soon. Air pollution is a real and huge threat though, and trees help alleviate that. It is just that the oxygen argument comes from an uninformed position that simplified tree as oxygen producer and carbon eater. (They do produce carbon as well at night). Simplification like this is why there are folks that just say more CO2, bigger tree/crop better world. TL:dr Trees be good for non-oxygen related reasons.

[@LeBonkJordan]

@@jackvalior Won't warmer oceans kill off much of the phytoplankton? And that's around 50% of the world's oxygen production, right?

[@GHZoner]

Another thing I did not know about making the world worse and there's no hope and nothing I can do about it. Thanks, John.

[@HipyoTech]

9:50 OUR BOY WENDOVER

[@Pyre]

That moment when your favorite band of all time gets a shoutout, and John absolutely nails the vibe.

[@linggiman]

Thank you John Oliver & team for revealing to us people many of these corporation tricks & lies.

[@adelerahelimihajandralambo740]

As a simple woman from Sub Saharan Africa... Deepest of the appreciations for your lessons... 1) offset does not limit the carbon emission as it is supposed to be! 2) offset is a genuine mechanism used to "capture people moneys but not the carbon" 3) offsetting is a way to crooked people in developing countries to use and abuse people in developed countries and at the same token to pocket the moneys and continue to enrich those who pollute the most! 4) Offset approach would never work as it is a strait way to capture funding that should indeed go to development projets in poor countries that would effectively capture carbone... and do real goods... for example to enrich the soil biomass and improve agriculture - healthy food productions 5) As long as the UN and rich countries and emotional people in those industrialized country failed to request on who receive the money and how it benefits people and the people - it is just a crooked mechanism that enrich the rich polluer