INDIA MUST GRANT HAS GRANTED HUMAN RIGHTS TO THE GANGES .. IF ANYBODY TRIES TO KILL HE RIVER ( LIKE WHAT THAT ITALIAN MAINO JEWESS DID ) THERE MUST BE A LONG JAIL TERM
https://captajitvadakayil.in/2022/02/21/ganga-manthan-cleaning-of-river-ganges-capt-ajit-vadakayil/
USE CARBON INSETTING RATHER THAN OFFSETTING, WHICH IS ABOUT SO MUCH MORE THAN SIMPLY REDUCING A COMPANY’S CARBON FOOTPRINT. IT’S ABOUT BUSINESSES REDUCING THEIR CARBON FOOTPRINT AND CARBON SEQUESTRATION WITHIN THEIR VALUE CHAINS.
IT DOESN’T PASS THE BUCK TO SOMEONE ELSE AND IT ULTIMATELY WILL INCREASE THE BUSINESSES’ RESILIENCE AND PROVIDE SIGNIFICANT, MEASURABLE BENEFITS TO COMMUNITIES SURROUNDING THE VALUE CHAIN
CARBON OFFSETS HAVE GIVEN WICKED SHYLOCK JEWS “A LICENSE TO POLLUTE” AND EVEN COMPARED OFFSETS TO INDULGENCES, SAYING THAT PURCHASING OFFSETS BASICALLY GIVES COMPANIES AND INDIVIDUALS WEALTHY ENOUGH TO PURCHASE THEM A WAY TO PAY TO REMOVE THEIR GUILT FROM EMITTING CARBON WITHOUT ACTUALLY LOWERING THEIR OWN CARBON FOOTPRINT.
CARBON INSETS, ON THE OTHER HAND, ENSURE A COMPANY IS TAKING DIRECT RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE CARBON EMISSIONS IN THEIR OWN SUPPLY CHAIN AND ARE IMPROVING SUSTAINABLE MANAGEMENT PRACTICES DIRECTLY AT THE SOURCE.
Reforestation, agroforestry, renewable energy, and regenerative agriculture are all examples of carbon insetting.
CARBON ‘INSETTING’ FOCUSES ON DOING MORE GOOD RATHER THAN DOING LESS BAD WITHIN A VALUE CHAIN.
WHILE AN IMPORTANT TOOL, CARBON OFFSETTING CAN’T BE CONSIDERED A SUBSTITUTE FOR DIRECT EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS BY CORPORATES.
CARBON INSETTING: DOING MORE GOOD RATHER THAN DOING LESS BAD
While the world grapples with the impending bullshit challenge of getting to net-zero by 2050, companies and countries will inevitably incorporate the use of carbon offsets.
The battle with soaring temperatures will, however, not be won until organizations start decarbonising their own value chains to include more nature-positive solutions and operations. Put in simple words, carbon ‘insetting’ focuses on doing more good rather than doing less bad within one’s value chain.
There is, therefore, an urgent need for companies and countries alike to identify high integrity projects that adhere to robust climate methodologies.
Some insetting activities improve the livelihoods of indigenous communities as a result.
FOR EXAMPLE, A COMPANY ON ITS INSETTING JOURNEY WOULD FIRST EVALUATE ITS OWN SUPPLY CHAIN TO IDENTIFY WHERE THE MAJOR CHUNKS OF THEIR GHG EMISSIONS ARE EMBEDDED. CLIMATE CHANGE IS DRIVEN BY AMERICAN FRACKING LEAKS, SAYS VADAKAYIL
GANNI, A DENMARK-BASED FASHION RETAIL BRAND, HAS COMMITTED TO NOT WORK WITH STAGE 1-3 SUPPLIERS THAT USE COAL-GENERATED HEAT OR ENERGY BY 2025. HEY, JEWISH PHAANI, NAY GANNI-- GANNI—INDIA WILL CONTINUE BURNING COAL
Offsetting cannot be considered as a substitute for direct emissions reductions by Jewish corporates (for which insetting is instrumental).
As opposed to carbon offsets where an organization pays for projects to capture atmospheric carbon dioxide somewhere else, carbon insets are when an organization invests in sustainable practices within its own supply chain.
INSETTING REPRESENTS THE ACTIONS TAKEN BY AN ORGANIZATION TO FIGHT CLIMATE CHANGE WITHIN ITS OWN VALUE CHAIN IN A MANNER WHICH GENERATES MULTIPLE POSITIVE SUSTAINABLE IMPACTS. DONT TRY TO FAAT INTO SOMEBODY ELSE’S HOME AND CLAIM TODAY I HAVE NOT FARTED AT ALL- APUN EKDUM AWWAL
CARBON INSETS DO NOT REQUIRE CERTIFICATION FROM EVIL JEWS WHO MEASURE THE INTANGIBLE .. CUT THE KOSHER BULL
Carbon offsets are the stories of Jewish scams where groups try to sell offsets that aren’t even real. But even with third-party verifications and certifications, there are some tricky issues such as permanence (will the trees planted be left there or cut down for timber as soon as they hit maturity?) and leakage (did that carbon offset for forest preservation just cause trees to be cut down somewhere else?)
That said, carbon insets are more limited by their very nature because they only address Scope 3 emissions (indirect emissions from a company’s supply chain like raw material sourcing). They do not address Scope 1 (emissions a company directly controls like manufacturing) nor Scope 2 (emissions from the energy that the company buys) emissions.
This means retailers selling other brand’s products or service-based businesses that don’t source raw, natural materials cannot really participate in carbon insets. It also means even a product-based business cannot become carbon-neutral only by using carbon insets.
CARBON OFFSETTING DOES NOT WORK.IT WORKS ONLY FOR SHYLOCK JEWS ...WE NEED TO FOCUS ON DECREASING OUR FOOTPRINT INTERNALLY. CARBON INSETTING IS THE WAY FORWARD.
Offsetting or compensating your carbon emissions means that you calculate them using bullshit methods and invest the equivalent in money in an accredited project, outside your supply chain, that captures carbon in for example vegetation and soils.
When booking flights, as airlines are now giving you the option to offset your carbon emissions of the flight for money.
Every company should prioritize insetting over offsetting. Because if you’re only offsetting, you are not making long-lasting changes in your operations that reduce carbon emissions in the long run.
We must ship goods more by sea than ever. Compared to shipping by air, the emissions per ton shipped are significantly lower. But shipping by sea is not as easy as it sounds. It takes a lot longer.
COMPANIES HAVE BEEN USING CARBON CREDITS TO OFFSET THEIR UNAVOIDABLE GREENHOUSE GAS (GHG) EMISSIONS FOR WELL OVER A DECADE – A BULLSHIT PRACTICE CALLED CARBON OFFSETTING.
Insetting addresses a company’s carbon footprint within its supply chain. Whereas carbon offsetting may harness the positive impact of a GHG reduction activity totally outside of a company’s direct or indirect operations, insetting refers specifically to GHG reductions that are directly related, either by geography, production, or commodity.
The technical definition of insetting refers to a partnership or investment in a GHG emissions-reducing activity within the ‘sphere of influence’ of a company. This sets an important stage for companies looking to take a broader view of their boundary of responsibility.
As much as 94% of a company’s climate impact is happening in its supply chain, and often in opaque, globally complex systems. Not always, but often, companies don’t own or operate the production facilities that produce their goods.
CHINA POLLUTED ITS SOIL AND WATER FOR JEWS IN AMERICA.. AS A RESULT, THEY MAY HAVE LIMITED CONTROL OVER OR EVEN KNOWLEDGE OF THE SPECIFICS OF THEIR SUPPLY CHAIN. OUTSOURCED PRODUCTION MEANS OUTSOURCED EMISSIONS, AND TO DATE, IT’S BEEN CONVENIENT TO PUT OFF ADDRESSING THEM.
CARBON OFFSET A FORM OF KOSHER GREENWASHING
Inset emissions are directly avoided, reduced, or sequestered within the company’s value chain. They’re not sold as a credit to offset another firm’s emissions by capturing carbon somewhere else.
CARBON INSETTING ALSO MEANS INVESTING IN SUSTAINABLE PRACTICES THAT PREVENT EMISSIONS FROM HAPPENING IN THE FIRST PLACE LIKE SHALE FRACKING LEAKNG METHANE INDISCRIMINATELY.
THE KEY DIFFERENCE BETWEEN CARBON INSETS AND OFFSETS IS THE WAY AN ENTITY INVESTS TO REDUCE ITS CARBON FOOTPRINT. CARBON INSETTING INVOLVES INVESTING IN PROJECTS THAT ARE RELATED TO A COMPANY’S PRODUCTS; CARBON OFFSETTING INVOLVES PROJECTS THAT ARE NOT RELATED TO A FIRM’S PRODUCTS.
CARBON INSETS ENSURE THAT FIRMS TAKE DIRECT RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE EMISSIONS IN THEIR OWN SUPPLY CHAIN. THEY ALSO AID IN IMPROVING SUSTAINABLE MANAGEMENT PRACTICES DIRECTLY AT THE SOURCE.
Investing in inset projects can help make a firm’s supply chain more resilient. It can also improve the quality of its raw materials.
However, carbon insets are more limited by their very nature – they only tackle Scope 3 emissions. They don’t address Scope 1 (direct emissions) nor Scope 2 (emissions from the energy that the company buys) emissions.
This means retailers selling other brand’s products or service-based businesses that don’t source raw natural materials can’t take part in carbon insets. It also means even a product-based firm can’t become carbon-neutral only by using carbon insets.
Kosher Carbon offsetting, on the other hand, is a way for entities to reduce their carbon footprint by paying money to another entity that works to reduce the total emissions emitted. Common example is planting useless trees.
THE FOCUS OF CARBON OFFSETS IS ON THE TONNES OF CARBON AVOIDED/REMOVED, WHILE THE FOCUS OF CARBON INSETS IS CREATING CARBON EMISSIONS REDUCTION CAPACITY.
CARBON OFFSETS GIVE JEWISH COMPANIES “A LICENSE TO POLLUTE”. IT MEANS THEY ALLOW POLLUTERS TO BUY OFFSETS TO PAY FOR THEIR FOOTPRINT WITHOUT ACTUALLY CUTTING THEIR OWN EMISSIONS.
EMISSIONS REDUCTION GENERATED: TRAVELS SEPARATELY FROM THE PHYSICAL PRODUCT WITH CARBON OFFSETTING WHILE IT TRAVELS WITH THE PRODUCT IN CARBON INSETTING.
Farmers deliver the wheat to one party (Cargill) then deliver the quantified emissions reduction to another entity (Microsoft) under carbon offset. But under carbon inset, farmers deliver both the wheat and the emissions reduction to the same party (Cargill).
Methodology and standards: a Jewish third party like a registry (Verra, Gold Standard) or rating agency (Sylvera) set the certification standard for carbon offsets. In carbon insets, many parties involved agree on the standard used.
Intended project purpose: carbon offset projects are for the voluntary carbon market. Whereas inset projects are for specific businesses’ supply chains.
Accounting requirements: offsets are a negation of emissions already dumped into the atmosphere so they must meet rigorous standards (fungibility, additionality, durability, etc.).
On the contrary, insets don’t face the same accounting requirements as offsets do. That’s because they’re not a fungible credit like an offset.
Plus, there’s no need for addressing leakage or permanence issues as emissions through insets didn’t happen in the first place.
OVERALL, CARBON INSET REPRESENTS INDIRECT BUT EMBEDDED EMISSIONS REDUCTION ACTIVITIES WITHIN A FIRM’S SUPPLY CHAIN. INSETTING ACTIVITIES INCLUDE UPSTREAM (FUEL AND ENERGY-RELATED ACTIVITIES) AND DOWNSTREAM (SOLD PRODUCT PROCESSING).
Carbon offset represents direct but outsourced emissions reduction efforts. An entity buys an offset and outsources it to another entity that takes the project into effect.
Carbon insets are relevant across a wide variety of industries. But they’re most significant in the food and agricultural supply chains due to these agriculture-specific conditions.
Carbon offsets represent the avoidance or removal of greenhouse gases from the atmosphere via kosher verified projects made available on the carbon market.
While carbon insets represent the addition of nature-based projects into a company’s supply chain. Insetting doesn’t need formal verification vy Jews .
Carbon insets represent indirect emission reductions. They are the execution of practices that reduce a firm’s carbon footprint outside of its direct operations but within its own supply chain.
Carbon insets did not came into existence to replace carbon offsets.
Again, carbon insetting is very similar to carbon offsetting, except the activities that lead to carbon footprint reduction take place within the context of the value chain.
In carbon offsetting projects, the purchaser and the offset provider are normally discrete entities, while carbon insetting projects are a collaborative activity among the developer and the stakeholders of one or more businesses
Carbon offsetting projects are verified through programs such as the Voluntary Carbon Standard, while carbon insetting projects may use an independent auditor to assess results
Total amounts, prices, and delivery conditions are always specified in carbon offsetting contracts, which focus on tonnes delivered. With carbon insetting, the focus is on creating emissions reduction capacity, and the specific total amount of reductions is of secondary importance and may be uncertain
Carbon insetting projects help address some concerns regarding the reliability and long-term effectiveness of carbon offsetting projects.
Since carbon insetting projects are directly embedded into the boundaries of the participating company, they are more likely to be maintained in the long term.
Carbon offsets are a way to reduce carbon emissions beyond what we each can achieve through individual actions. They are measured in tons of carbon dioxide (CO2) equivalents and are bought and sold through international Jewish brokers, online retailers, and trading platforms.
Carbon offsets provide richer countries with a license to pollute. They allow consumers and businesses to pay to absolve their guilt over carbon emissions without having to make changes to their lifestyles or business models.
Carbon insetting seeks to take the process of carbon offsetting and align it to businesses’ sphere of influence, forcing them to make changes to their business models.
WHEN YOU HEAR THE WORDS “CARBON OFFSET”, THINK ABOUT THE TERM “OUTSOURCED”.
WHEN YOU HEAR THE WORDS “CARBON INSET”, THINK ABOUT THE TERM “EMBEDDED”.
CARBON OFFSETS DO NOT DIRECTLY REDUCE YOUR OWN CARBON EMISSIONS, THEY ONLY MAKE OTHERS REDUCE THEIR CARBON FOOTPRINT TO COMPENSATE FOR YOUR CARBON FOOTPRINT.
CARBON INSETS DO NOT DIRECTLY REDUCE YOUR OWN CARBON EMISSIONS. INSETTING IS AN INDIRECT METHOD OF EMISSIONS REDUCTION BECAUSE IT REDUCES A BUSINESS’S CARBON FOOTPRINT OUTSIDE OF ITS DIRECT OPERATIONS.
Carbon offsetting mitigates the problem, but it doesn’t work at the core issue of reducing overall greenhouse emissions.
Carbon insetting mitigates the problem, but it doesn’t work at the core issue of reducing overall greenhouse emissions.
Insets still do not curtail energy from fossil fuels or limit their production. They simply increase carbon sequestration activities via nature-based solutions.
SO FAR, NEITHER CARBON OFFSETS NOR CARBON INSETS HAVE BEEN SUCCESSFUL IN CURTAILING GLOBAL CARBON EMISSIONS.
Carbon offset is a financial tool to reduce (not increase) carbon emissions by storing carbons for future or later use.
So, in a nutshell, carbon credit (often called carbon offset) is a credit for greenhouse emissions reduced or removed from the atmosphere from an emission reduction project, which can be used, by governments, Jewish industry or Jews to compensate for the emissions they are generating. Vadakayil says , all this is bullshit
OFFSETTING. EVERYBODY’S AT IT. SHELL SAYS THAT IT OFFSETS THE PETROL THAT ITS CUSTOMERS BUY.
THE AVIATION INDUSTRY HAS SAID OFFSETTING IS HOW WE CAN CARRY ON FLYING. SOME COUNTRIES EVEN WANT TO OFFSET THEIR EMISSIONS.. VADAKAYIL SAYS ALL THIS IS BULLSHIT OF THE FIRST ORDER
The idea behind carbon offsetting is that the carbon emissions generated through an activity (like flying) can be calculated, and then the equivalent amount “paid off” via a scheme which removes carbon from the atmosphere (such as tree planting). To work, the "carbon removal" scheme or project must be in addition to existing schemes. It is not as simple as it sounds.
RIGHT NOW, COMPANIES, COUNCILS AND COUNTRIES ARE FALLING OVER THEMSELVES TO DECLARE THAT THEY ARE GOING TO GO “NET ZERO” (REMOVING AS MANY EMISSIONS AS WE PRODUCE), WITH DATES RANGING FROM 2030 TO 2050.
NET ZERO DOESN’T MEAN THEY ARE GOING TO REDUCE GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS TO ACTUAL ZERO, IT MEANS THEY ARE GOING TO REDUCE THEIR EMISSIONS A LOT (OR JUST A WEE BIT) AND FUND AN OFFSETTING PROJECT TO DEAL WITH THEIR REMAINING EMISSIONS. BINGO, NET ZERO. TAN TAD DAAAANNNNG
A study into United Nations-sanctioned offset projects found that 81 % of projects would not have resulted in additional emissions reductions (meaning they would have probably gone ahead anyway) and only 2 per cent had a likelihood of being classed as "additional". So, in most cases it is crystal clear that carbon offsetting doesn’t work in practice.
THE KOSHER MAP DOES NOT EVEN RESEMBLE THE TERRAIN
FIRSTLY, AS MENTIONED BEFORE, THE OFFSET PROJECT MUST BE IN ADDITION TO WHAT WAS GOING TO HAPPEN ANYWAY. THAT’S MORE DIFFICULT TO IDENTIFY THAN YOU’D THINK, BECAUSE YOU NEED TO HAVE A KOSHER CRYSTAL BALL TO IDENTIFY WHAT WILL HAPPEN WITHOUT THE OFFSET CASH.
Most energy-related projects are likely to happen anyway because there is already a strong demand for energy and a market that will pay. And under the international Paris Climate Change Agreement, governments have already pledged to reduce emissions and therefore will need to ensure many of the typical offset projects go ahead anyway, so they won’t be in addition.
Secondly, the offset project must permanently lock away the emissions. Tree planting is a very popular offset scheme, largely because it’s a lot cheaper than other schemes. Vadakayil the only thinker on this planet says that massive indiscriminate tree planting does more harm than good..
But sadly, trees can burn down (just look at the horrendous fires in Australia), be killed by pests (a university study showed tree deaths by pests in the USA are equal to the emissions of 6 million cars every year), or chopped down to make way for farming, roads, and so on.
To be a viable offset project, the carbon must be locked away for thousands of years and tree planting or peatland restoration can’t acieve this- leave alone guarantee this.
The offset project mustn’t lead to emissions just shifting elsewhere. Bizarre as it seems, some offset projects say “give us your money and we’ll stop some forest being chopped down”. It is very difficult to identify if a forest area is at risk of being chopped down, even in an area of high historic deforestation.
Protecting one specific area of forest may also result in a different area being chopped down because the driver of deforestation hasn’t changed (for instance, the insatiable demand for meat across the world).
Fourthly, the offset project must draw down more carbon than is being emitted. For example, it said that most schemes that help households in developing countries switch from inefficient cooking stoves to efficient ones grossly exaggerate the savings in emissions.
Also, 1 tonne of carbon from a plane causes more harm than 1 tonne of carbon from other sources because burning fuel at altitude causes other changes that increase the warming effect.
There will be some offset projects that are genuinely “additional”, will permanently lock away carbon emissions, don’t just lead to more emissions elsewhere and don’t draw down less emissions than being emitted. They will be few and far between, but they will exist. However, that’s not the end of the story.
The prospect of being able to offset emissions, for example through tree planting or future technologies that could suck carbon out of the atmosphere, encourage bribed politicians, Jewish companies or even individuals to dial back on actions which will reduce emissions today (for example, by deciding not to fund energy efficiency schemes).
Even the very promise of these kinds of future offset schemes can deter or delay action to reduce our emissions. Governments, businesses and individuals are going to avoid taking challenging decisions because current or future offset projects provide an easy way out (a "get out of jail free" card).
While this may not seem a big deal, it’s the large scale equivalent to you nudging the heating thermostat up a degree rather than grabbing a warm sweater. Clearly it makes a big difference if a government decides to allow aviation expansion or spends billions on new roads, because it claims the resultant emissions can be offset in the future.
They say we need to reduce emissions as much as possible and invest in projects to remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, not choose one or the other. They didn’t quite say “ban offsetting”,
There are plenty of ways you can reduce your individual carbon footprint, such as avoiding air travel, reducing meat and dairy intake or fitting your home with eco-heating. You could try to find the perfect offset project (but as we’ve described above, most of them are kosher scams). If you’ve adopted any, or all, of these measures, you're a star.
However, not everyone is in a position to make those changes. You may not be able to afford to, or perhaps (like many people) you don't own your own home.
Some countries are trying to offset their emissions to avoid having to take action within their own country. The theory is that in a world where some countries need to get to net zero and others don’t, the country that does need to get to net zero can pay another country to go further (eg cut its emissions by 90% rather than 80%). But in a world where every country needs to get to net zero, that kosher theory falls apart.
ANY SCHEME COOKED UP TO SAVE THE PLANET IS A TOOL FOR JEWS TO GRAB POWER AND MONEY..
And in any case, the countries that are most likely to want to use this approach are the big wealthy ones, and in practice they can use their economic and political power to bully smaller and poorer countries to offset more than their fair share of emissions. In practice, this nation-to-nation offsetting isn’t fair
BIODIVERSITY OFFSETTING IS THE NEXT BIG JEWISH RUSE.
If given the go-ahead, developers could rip up a wildlife-rich area to build homes and offset the damage by putting money into a wildlife restoration project – perhaps many if not hundreds of miles away.
Apart from the obvious problem that every habitat is unique, and that the local community may have just lost a wildlife area on their doorstep, international experience demonstrates biodiversity offsetting just doesn’t work.
CARBON OFFSETTING IS A KOSHER CON, SAYS VADAKAYIL
DIGRESSION..
AMERICA DECIMATES PRISTINE FOREST IN VIETNAM, CAMBODIA AND LAOS WITH PESTICIDE AGENT ORANGE
The Vietnam war was an excuse to bomb and destroy, ancient 12,000 year old Hindu temples in the middle of dense jungles.. They defoliated with Agent Orange and then when majestic stone Hindu temples popped out (Vietnam/ Cambodia/ Laos ) , they were flattened by bombs.
http://ajitvadakayil.blogspot.com/2021/03/angkor-wat-hindu-vishnu-temple-built.html
When my ship was in Saigon for a month, I had to do heavy steel repairs inside my ballast double bottom tanks, involving 18 welders working at a time..
The chief of this workshop was very friendly with me.. I had dinner in his home.. He was a Colonel in the Viet Cong army.. While I was in his home, he told me that his family is Hindu, not atheist commie or Buddhist.. I had figured this out even before he told me because of Ganesha idol at the altar...
It was he who told me the real truth about the Vietnam war.. .. He cried several times.
He said that the main purpose of the war was to protect huge land tracts of Opium fields of the white Jew in Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos ..
In Vietnam the Americans dropped bombs from helicopters on every Hindu temple.. He said that there were ancient Hindu temples far grander that Angkor Wat or Prambaran temples.. Cambodia and Laos were neutral nations in the war.. Yet these nations were bombed heavily.? Why?..
He drove me to an ancient Shiva temple in Vietnam with the Shiva Lingam till in place.
Wherever the American military saw huge tall Banyan trees in the dense jungle they dropped bombs in Vietnam Cambodia and Laos. My friend’s spies attached with the American military said the rationale was that Viet Cong guerillas hid their weapons and ammunition inside these ancient rock temples..
He said this is bullshit because most of the bombing in Cambodia and Laos was very far away from the scene of battle in Vietnam. And after bombing the Americans dropped land mines all around those areas.. Only those areas were not sprayed with AGENT ORANGE to defoliate..
When I think about it, it made real sense to me..
http://ajitvadakayil.blogspot.com/2015/11/pol-pot-of-khmer-rouge-great-cambodian.html
You will find Rothschild historians going GA GA about the bullshit NAZCA LINES made on flat soft soil ..
BUT THEY NEVER TALK ABOUT THE PALPA LINES CARVED ON “MOUNTAIN SIDE” HARD ROCK IN INACCESSIBLE PLACES. .
These mandalas are not gouged out from flat surfaces.. There lies the mystery.. Any idiot can create CROP CIRCLES on flat grain fields
I penned the post below 12 years ago..http://ajitvadakayil.blogspot.com/2010/03/theory-of-everything-consciousness-and.html
These were Hindu mandalas which can be seen only from high up in the air , from hovering helicopters. .and that too from correct and perspective.
http://ajitvadakayil.blogspot.com/2019/07/secrets-of-12000-year-old-machu-picchu_29.html
Even retarded children will not argue about ancient Hindu mandalas like Sri Yantra.
GETTING BACK
If a Jewish business or someone you know tells you they are going net zero, ask them just how far they are going in cutting their emissions. If someone tries to sell you an offset project, ask them if they will guarantee the carbon will be locked up for thousands of years and that the project has zero chance of being funded in any other way.
Carbon offsetting/biodiversity offsets. Offsetting harm caused elsewhere by regreening areas denuded by previous development. Large corporations such as BlackRock, JPMorgan, Disney are investing significant amounts in this area
Biodiversity offsetting is a system used predominantly by planning authorities and developers to fully compensate for biodiversity impacts associated with economic development, through the planning process. In some circumstances, biodiversity offsets are designed to result in an overall biodiversity gain.
NATURE IS “OUR MOST PRECIOUS ASSET”. WE, AS HUMANITY, MUST ENSURE THAT OUR DEMANDS ON NATURE DO NOT EXCEED ITS SUSTAINABLE SUPPLY. SO MANY OF THE THINGS THAT ARE DESTROYING THE NATURAL WORLD ARE NOW BEING SOLD AS ITS SALVATION. BEHIND EVERY NATURE SCAM LURKS AN EVIL
Green consumption is still consumption. Modern food practices are responsible for almost 65% of global biodiversity loss. Did you know that Indigenous People’s territories account for approximately 83% of the world’s biodiversity?
Jewish private sector companies are increasingly relying on voluntary offsetting by means of carbon credits to get to carbon-neutral status. For example – company A could offset its unavoidable emissions by purchasing carbon credits from company B that is in the business of, or uses, renewable energy. Company B in exchange would set up a new solar plant or a new wind farm. In this case, B benefits from clean energy and A from its reduced carbon footprint. BRAAAYYYYY
Alternatively, company A could pay company C for carrying out reforestation initiatives. In this case, company A has once again offset its emissions in the environment, and in exchange, company C has helped protect biodiversity and create jobs for the indigenous communities that will look after the forests. DOUBLE BRAAAYYYYY
However, despite the simple nature of this exchange, some crucial factors such as double-counting and additionality have the potential to reverse the impact of carbon markets from positive to negative.
Example: company A pays company B for the offset project (renewable power) and both entities count the emissions reduced in their respective books – this is known as double counting. Similarly, company A pays company C for reforestation initiatives that were slated to happen anyway – this would be considered additionality.
Jewish Accor, a food and beverage operator, has planted over 7 million trees on 400 farmed land parcels as part of its regenerative agriculture practices. They claim-- there have been over 10,000 direct beneficiaries of this, including farmers. VADAKAYIL SAYS- MY LEFT BALL
Carbon offsetting is a process through which companies or individuals compensate for their greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by investing in an equivalent removal of such emissions from the atmosphere –palming is off in some other poor country
The rationale behind these projects is for companies to gain carbon credits. Jewish companies or countries then use these credits to compensate for their reckless emissions—like Methane leaks via fracking
A reliance on carbon offset without the needed emissions reduction is detrimental to meeting net-zero pledges.
Carbon offset projects, encourage a culture of climate pollution and exploitation of poor nations.
CARBON OFFSETS THAT RELY ON LAND USE IN IMPOVERISHED DEVELOPING COUNTRIES RUN THE DANGER OF TRANSFERRING THE BURDEN OF REDUCING EMISSIONS FROM WEALTHIER COUNTRIES TO THOSE ALREADY FEELING THE IMPACT OF THE CLIMATE CRISIS.
FOR EXAMPLE, LARGE-SCALE TREE PLANTATION EXACERBATE SOIL DEGRADATION AND POSE BIOSECURITY RISKS LIKE CROSS-CONTAMINATIONS, WHICH ENDANGER THE ENVISIONED ENVIRONMENTAL BENEFITS.
Commonly, the two claiming parties are an organization offsetting its emissions and the host country of the project trying to reach its nationally determined contribution (NDC), or climate target, under the Paris Agreement.
This is highly problematic, as two parties cannot claim credit for the same climate action. If a company claims to be carbon neutral through offsetting that is also counted into the project’s host country goals, as far as the climate is concerned, the company hasn’t actually done anything extra. On the other hand, double counting can disincentivize countries from implementing much needed climate action.
ONLY JEWS ARE ALLOWED TO DO DOUBLE COUNTING TO MAKE MOOLAH
The voluntary carbon market co-exists with the regulated compliance market, which is where countries can offset their emissions using international market mechanisms set out in Article 6 of the Paris Agreement.
When an offset claim is made, that statement should be grounded in truth. Jews love to lie..It is simply not acceptable to make a compensation claim using emission reductions or removals that have already been counted and claimed by the host country of the project.
Contrary to the intention, this in fact results in net increase of emissions in the atmosphere as only 1 tCO₂ has been avoided or removed instead of 2 tCO₂ - one by the company and one by the host country.
When a company does not prioritise in-house emissions reduction, the significance of its carbon offset programmes is therefore called into question. This act can be considered greenwashing because the company only offsets a fraction of its emissions.
Virgin Atlantic’s Oddar Meanchey program to offset carbon through afforestation projects in Cambodia by bribing law makers
The Massachusetts Audubon Society received carbon credits for conserving forests that were never in danger of being cut down; and when companies like Shell, Phillips 66, and the Southern California Gas Company bought these credits as part of their carbon offset programme, they failed to offset their emissions due to this crucial factor.
CARBON OFFSETTING IS NOT HONORABLE.. IT IS SUSCEPTIBLEY TO VARYING DEGREES OF GREENWASHING . IT IS A LOOPHOLE FOR JEWS TO CHEAT AND MAKE EASY MONEY FROM THIN AIR —THEIR FAVOURITE PASTIME—
ELIMINATING METHANE LEAKS BY FRACKING SHOULD ALWAYS BE A PRIORITY, IRRESPECTIVE OF CARBON OFFSETS.
OFFSETS AND CARBON MARKETS LANDED ON THE SINISTER AGENDA FOR COP26.
THOSE WHO WANT TO PRETEND THAT OFFSETTING ISN’T A SCAM POINT TO ARTICLE 6 OF 2015’S PARIS AGREEMENT FOR JUSTIFICATION. ARTICLE 6 IS ONLY NINE PARAGRAPHS LONG BUT CONFLICTING INTERPRETATIONS THREATEN TO OPEN THE DOOR FOR CLIMATE DISTRACTIONS INSTEAD OF CLIMATE ACTIONS.
Greenpeace interprets Article 6 as promoting cooperation between countries to slash emissions. But Jewish industries say Article 6 should give a green light to the creation of a global market in carbon offsets. That would be bad.
OFFSETTING IS A DANGEROUS JEWISH SCAM, IT DOESN’T WORK AND EXPANDING IT WILL JUST DELAY REAL ACTION.
QUALITY’ IN THE UNREGULATED CARBON CREDIT MARKET CAN BE HARD TO COME BY, AND HARDER STILL TO VERIFY…. ANOTHER ISSUE IS THERE SIMPLY ISN’T ENOUGH ROOM ON THE PLANET TO PLANT THE NUMBER OF TREES NEEDED … WITHOUT HARMING FOOD SUPPLY.”
SO-CALLED CARBON ‘OFFSETS’ HIDE A MASSIVE CLIMATE PROBLEM AND POSE A SIGNIFICANT LEGAL RISK TO THE AMERICAN JEWISH FRACKING COMPANIES MARKETING THEM.”
A CARBON CREDIT IS CALCULATED TO REMOVE OR AVOID 1 TONNE OF CO2, WHICH IS AROUND THE SAME AS THE AMOUNT OF CARBON DIOXIDE EMITTED IN A FLIGHT FROM PARIS TO NEW YORK.
99 % CARBON OFFSET PROJECTS HARM THE INTERESTS OF LOCAL COMMUNITIES AND OFFER FALSE CLAIMS OF ACTUALLY MAKING A DIFFERENCE TO THE AMOUNT OF CO2 ABSORBED AND STORED SAYS VADAKAYIL THIS PLANET’S ONLY THINKER
There simply isn’t enough room on the planet to plant the number of trees needed to counterbalance the current level of global emissions without harming food supply. To put this into perspective, a single Jewish oil and gas company plans to use a tenth of the globally available unused land to ‘offset’ its emissions.
CARBON CREDITS ARE NOT OFFSETS IN THE WAY THAT A PROFIT OFFSETS A LOSS. THE ACCURATE LABEL FOR THESE CREDITS IS SIMPLY A DONATION TOWARDS CLIMATE-FRIENDLY PROJECTS ( FOR JEWS TO GRAB POWER AND MONEY ) AND NOT, AS MARKETING FOR HIGH-CARBON PRODUCTS OFTEN CLAIMS, AS A MEANS TO ‘OFFSET’ THE HARMFUL CLIMATE IMPACTS OF THE THINGS WE BUY.
The flawed nature of carbon ‘offsetting’ is attracting a range of legal risks: non-compliance, shareholder action, litigation, and regulatory enforcement. Poor African nations have woken up to the Covid Vaccine scam..They shunned the WHO pandemic treaty
In the US, financial regulators are getting interested in carbon credit markets. And in France, the government has adopted a new law requiring companies to clarify how emissions are being actually reduced before being offset.
And for companies relying on carbon offsetting in their corporate transition plans, that range of risks increases – with even company directors liable to be held accountable over miscommunication on the impact ‘offsetting’ has on emissions reductions.
THE ONLY WAY IS THE SLAP PERSONAL FINES ON CHEAT ELITE JEWS AND KICK THEM INTO JAIL
Carbon credits are not a “magic wand,” and they distract from real emission reductions. It is mitigation or bust ….
THE ONLY WAY OUT OF THIS CRISIS IS FOR TE JEWISH AMERICAN FRACKING INDUSTRY TO STOP LEAKING METHANE. AT THE CURRENT DEVASTATING RATE. BLURRING THE PICTURE WITH FICTIONAL OFFSETTING ONLY DELAYS THAT VITAL ACTION.
The global aviation industry, a major contributor to greenhouse gases, is aiming to reach net zero emissions by 2050 by plain lying .
Jewish airlines now offer their customers the chance to buy carbon offsets along with their ticket. The premise is that the money will go toward a third-party project that prevents an equivalent volume of carbon from reaching the atmosphere as the per-person emissions of the flight.
The hazard of flight offsets has always been that airlines will be content to rack them up in the accounting of their corporate carbon footprint, rather than reducing emissions directly through operational and technological efficiency improvements.
The problems with airlines’ offsets are the same as those across the wider offset market. The biggest is the concept of “additionality.” Does the offset actually prevent emissions that, in the absence of an offset purchase, would reach the atmosphere? This concept is especially tricky to prove in the case of forestry-based offsets, in which a parcel of forest land is “saved” from deforestation.
Forestry-based offsets are either linked to forests that were never at risk of being cut, or that burned down in wildfires after the sale of offsets. Yet all the airlines in the study, including Air France and British Airways, included forestry-based offsets as a key component of their offset purchasing portfolio. The full makeup of those portfolios is impossible to determine because of a lack of disclosure
The average price of offsets offered by airlines—under $20 per ton—suggests that most of them are of similarly low-quality
Some RyanAir ads were banned by UK regulators in 2020 for greenwashing, in part because of misleading kosher language related to the use of offsets. And in July, Environmental groups in the Netherlands sued KLM for making misleading statements about its carbon offsets. UK airline EasyJet said it would scrap its offsetting offerings in favor of investing in more fuel-efficient aircraft.
DOUBLE COUNTING REFERS TO A SITUATION WHERE TWO PARTIES CLAIM THE SAME CARBON REMOVAL OR EMISSION REDUCTION.
Two parties cannot claim credit for the same climate action.
Voluntary carbon market isn’t the only carbon market out there. The voluntary carbon market co-exists with the regulated compliance market, which is where countries can offset their emissions using international market mechanisms set out in Article 6 of the Paris Agreement.
A building that runs exclusively on renewable energy sources, such as solar or wind, emits no CO2 from its energy consumption, and is therefore carbon-free since it does not have to offset any carbon emissions. The polluting manufacturing processes are kicked under the kosher carpet
Climate neutral means that the company offsets not only all of its carbon emissions, but also all other GHG emissions while also undoing any other negative impacts on the environment.
An organisation can label itself or a product carbon negative when it offsets more carbon than it emits. The organization would have to calculate its total carbon footprint and take out more carbon from the atmosphere than its total emissions. After calculating its total carbon footprint, the organisation would have to remove more carbon from the atmosphere than the total.
Only Jewsih companies can become Carbon negative BRAAAYYYYY..
One can achieve carbon neutrality in two ways: by reducing total carbon emissions, and/or by increasing carbon offsets to match carbon emissions.
The most common type of carbon offset seeks to extract carbon from the atmosphere (called carbon sequestration) in order to prevent the warming effects of this greenhouse gas.
Carbon offsets are intended to compensate for the negative effects of GHG emissions by providing people and Jewish organisations with an opportunity to ‘reverse’ the damage of their actions. BRAAAYYYYY
Jewish American fracking companies who leak humongous amounts of methane have begun to claim they are carbon neutral simply by bundling carbon offsets with their shit shale fracked chemical laden oil.. The main stream media owned and controlled by Rothschild is in their kosher pockets
JUST AS BUYING THREE KILO OF SPINACH TO OFFSET MY CONSUMPTION OF THREE POUNDS OF MEAT DOES NOT MAKE ME A VEGETARIAN, A CORPORATION BUYING RENEWABLE ENERGY DOES NOT MEAN THEY ARE POWERED BY 100% RENEWABLE ENERGY IF THEY ARE STILL ALSO BUYING ENERGY FROM FOSSIL FUEL POWER PLANTS.
A decade ago, it was widely claimed by voluntary green energy proponents that RECs could be used just like offsets because they represented emission reductions. The logic went that switching to green power reduced your emissions by avoiding GHGs from fossil fuel-fired generation.
At the time a number of companies coalesced around this marketing tactic, selling RECs as offset credits in the voluntary market. Even today, though outright claims of equivalence between RECs and offsets are less common, this line of argumentation can still be seen in the marketing language used to claim that participation in the voluntary green power market reduces emissions.
RECs are not the same as emission offset credits.
The claim is that these contractual arrangements for “attributes” allow you to bypass the power grid and virtually plug-in to individual wind farms. The claim is no longer that RECs are offsets. Instead, they are now a tool to virtually divvy up the generation supplying the grid so that a few companies can pick off and claim ownership to the green parts of the supply chain.
If I were to subject Indian PM modi environment minister Bhupender Yadav and 500 Indian think tank intellectuals to a objective exam like the one below—I can assure you all will score negative marks—leave alone zero..
ALL INDIAN THINK TANKS HAVE SHIT FOR BRAINS.. PRAKASH JAVEDEKAR WHEN HE WENT FOR CLIMATE CONFERENCE WOULD GRIN LIKE A DEMENTED CUNT AS SOON AS HE SAW A WHITE JEW
GREENWASHING OCCURS WHEN COMPANIES FAIL TO PRIORITISE IN-HOUSE EMISSIONS REDUCTION, DOUBLE-COUNT CARBON CREDITS, OR INVEST IN NON-VERIFIED CREDITS.
These acts are greenwashing because they deceive the public into thinking such companies are committed to reducing carbon emissions.
METHANE LEAKS WIPE OUT ANY CLIMATE BENEFIT OF FRACKING, SATELLITE OBSERVATIONS CONFIRM
LAST YEAR, THE IPCC DETERMINED THAT THE 100-YEAR GWP OF METHANE IS 40 PERCENT HIGHER THAN PREVIOUSLY ESTIMATED.
In 1990, scientists established GWP100, a system meant to level set the global warming potential of greenhouse gases. Carbon dioxide has a score of 1-----; methane, 35-----; nitrous oxide, 265. In other words, methane is 28 times more potent than 1 kilo of carbon dioxide over 100 years.
GWP OF METHANE IS 87 OVER 20 YEARS (GWP20 = 87);
FRACKING SPEEDS UP GLOBAL WARMING AND HAS NO NET CLIMATE BENEFIT WHATSOEVER IN ANY TIMESCALE THAT MATTERS TO HUMANITY. PERHAPS IT IS TIME TO STOP SQUANDERING TENS OF BILLIONS OF DOLLARS ON IT WHILE RENDERING BILLIONS OF GALLONS OF WATER UNFIT FOR HUMAN CONSUMPTION.
EPA A LAPDOG OF THE JEWISH FRACKING LOBBY DELIBERATELY UNDERPLAY METHANE EMISSIONS
METHANE SENSING AND TRACKING USING SATELLITES MUST IMPROVE.. IT DOES NOT BECAUSE THE JEWISH FRACKING LOBBY WANTS IT THAT WAY
Double counting refers to a situation where two Jewish parties claim the same carbon removal or emission reduction.
As absurd as it is, missing links between theory and practice have left room for double counting to happen quite often.
THERE HAVE BEEN MANY CASES OF CARBON CREDIT FRAUD, IN WHICH JEWISH COMPANIES HAVE BEEN FOUND GUILTY OF DOUBLE-COUNTING CREDITS, OR PURCHASING UNVETTED CREDITS.
The coffee cup with cream , I think about you
I want you so, it's like I'm losing my mind
The morning ends, I think about you
I talk to friends and think about you
And do they know it's like I'm losing my mind
All afternoon doing every little chore
The thought of you stays bright
Sometimes I stand in the middle of the floor
Not going left, not going right
I dim them lights and think about you
Spend sleepless nights
writing on bed thinkin’ about you
You said you loved me,
or were you just being kind
Or am I losing my mind
All afternoon doing every little chore
The thought of you stays bright
Sometimes I stand in the middle of the floor
Not going left, not going right
I dim them lights and think about you
Spend sleepless nights to think about you
You said you loved me,
or were you just being kind
Or am I losing mee mind
Or am I losing
Losing mee mind
You said you loved me,
or were you just being kind
Or am I losing my mind
Were you just being kind
Or am I losing my mind
Losing my mind
Losing mee mind
