Hacker News Reader

It's definitely better than doing nothing, but an hypothetical company doing business as usual and then buying the necessary carbons offsets from permanent carbon sequestration projects would be better for the atmosphere.

Of course, the ideal scenario would be a company that does both things (reduce + offset).

View on HN

That’s not at all clear to me. Are you saying that a company which burns 1 ton of carbon from 2021 grain is worse than a company that burns 1 ton of carbon from fossil sources and buys permanent sequestration to offset 1 ton?

That’s breaking my engineer brain.

Yes. Because the net effect of the latter is zero carbon on the atmosphere.

Isn’t the net effect of the first also zero? (No net carbon was added to the atmosphere than was there on Dec 31, 2020.)

Close to zero as growing the grain was not "free" conversion from atmospheric CO2 to glucose or w/e.

There are net emissions from all the equipment and processing involved. But of course, if buying carbon offsets is a valid way to offset burning coal, it is also a valid way to offset all the truck, tractors, etc associated with liquor production. So you are correct.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com