Wait correction it's even worse, they pay for offset, the general suggestion is that they will plant trees, some companies do that too but that is symbolic, the offset money goes to unclear destinations, to help with the so called offset. (but considering bio-mass is green according to the EU investing in that could be offsetting too.)
agreed
i'm not advocating for abandoning them, i'm advocating for more transparency, removal of misleading name and more clearer and achievable goals.
For example diesel cars are banned from town centers more and more, that is good news for the car companies who scammed their costumers for years by claiming their diesels where cleaner than they actually where. electric cars are nowhere near ready to replace all off those. Yet the car industry presents them as the only solutions. (after Shell's fake greenwashing successfully killed the reputation of hydrogen cars in europe) Yet Diesels(yes all diesels) can be 40% cleaner by replacing current diesel with an plant based alternative (they have an fancy name for it but i can't remember) With adjustments there are cleaner options but my whole point is forcing poeple to ditch their diesel car isn't the best option in my view, if in 5 years time electric has become much cleaner to produce and maintain it might be an other story but nothing points in that direction currently.
i known, see my response to
@icowden (probably below)
Yes i try to buy more directly from the farm or suchlike alternatives as well is often not more or not much more expensive but the quality is better and it often saves a lot of packaging material to throw away.
Yes well here are only a few farms left as i'm close to London where everything is about building flats apperently but we have a few nearby, a online predence that gives local adresses and the kind of produce they have would help a lot i think, i known there are tons of those in the Netherlands.
Not only that part of the green movement is apperently under the impression farmers are a big threat so it seems to me that would be an issue to discus too, so that they if they calculate things, calculate using real measurements and not from behind a computer.
Technically it's greenhouse gasses and it's indeed about the balance, i knew that. My point is that they (the powers behind the ''net zero blah'') are trying to instagrammify the whole thing, by creating a load of buzzwords setting unreachable goals etc. in 2030/50 whatever the goal is it might look like we all met that net zero goal but i'm pretty sure it will turn out to be fake just like instagram filters do with average pictures and how you then in more then enough cases can't recognize the real person from the heavily edited/filtered one.
I think it's much better to work with shorter term, reachable goals, instead of goals and systems that are made to be abused just as the example i gave in my pervious post.
