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

@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.

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.

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

I KNOW, RIGHT?!

Gods, we should've listened to Al Gore!

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

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.

I always thought they migrate to Tuscany for the winter

@@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!

Maybe next they can save Wales.

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

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.

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

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 :)

@@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.

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.

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.

They were called "Indulgences"

Climate alarmism = a religion.

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.

That should be the title of this show😆

@@matzefly I think it is in Bangkok…

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

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

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

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

We love you @wendoverproductions

Who is that?

@@rsmith02 popular youtuber

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

Lets fucking going!

I was just about to mention that!

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

@@zennydoo Hmmm, yes, that's true

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

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

@@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.

@@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

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

The power of inertia...

Ikr

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

Yo 🔥ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-rdJ9bsN7JAw.html

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

I love that channel!

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

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.

Don't look up 🙈

@@nielskorpel8860 they are bots dude

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

Does that make John the modern-day Martin Luther?

Aka Carbon Offsets are a modern form of indulgence.

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

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

@@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.

Yo 🔥ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-rdJ9bsN7JAw.html

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.

N v. Vv

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

Wendover is a serious gem of RU-vid.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

Yes

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.

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

@@apathyguy8338 lmao, this guy.

@@apathyguy8338 there is no ethical consumption in capitalism

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

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?"

tesla has made craptons on offsets

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).

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

@@molybdaenmornell123hopp5 💕💕Wow

what's the joke here?

⁠​⁠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.

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

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

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.

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

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?

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.

Yo 🔥ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-rdJ9bsN7JAw.html

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.

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

@@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.

Exactly ! This is the $100 reward remark.

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

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.

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...

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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

I got so excited when I heard the voice

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

@@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

@@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.

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

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.

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.

@@tchittenden1 v.

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

😄

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

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

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

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

Yo 🔥ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-rdJ9bsN7JAw.html

Don't believe the hype

When were they featured?

@@channelname511 9:40

@@pyrotechnic96 wow, very impressive!

Now John Oliver needs to do an episode on bricks!

Oh and Nebula and other youtube educational content creators.

@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.

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

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

They didn't convince me! Duh.

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

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.

@@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.

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

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...]

we totally knew! 🤣

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.

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.

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.

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.

@@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?

"Good intentions"

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.

The public is ignorant of so much.

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.

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

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

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

That's outrageous!

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

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

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.

@@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.

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

@@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.

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.

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...

Microsoft is striving to be carbon negative

John oliver otomantone cover when

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

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

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

@@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.

Bravo 👏🏻

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.

King of the Hill reference?

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

More for companies than individuals

@@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.

That is perfectly on point!

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

@@firstnamelastname7708 🤣

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

That is so wholesome 🥰.

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

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.

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

😣

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

@@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.

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.

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.

It's the same with recycling.

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

@@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

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.

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.

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.

@@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.

@@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.

Yo 🔥ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-rdJ9bsN7JAw.html

Jeez. RU-vid will be overrun with bots.

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."

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?

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

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.

@@ids1024 this is so dark

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.

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

What could be a less shaky investment than trees ?

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

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.

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

That last sentence applies to so much in this world

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.

It’s like “thoughts and prayers” 🙄

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.

Thank you for this comment!

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...

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.

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

Yo 🔥ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-rdJ9bsN7JAw.html

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 RU-vid. 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.

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

​@@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.

What's the nearest town?

@@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

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.

@@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.

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.

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

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

@@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.

@@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.

@@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.

fr bro wasn't expecting a wendover video in here

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

Wait, what?

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

@@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.

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

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

@@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.🤷🏾‍♂️

@@yourlogicalnightmare1014 YOU FIRST

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

Yes!

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.

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.

@@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.

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.

Yo 🔥ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-rdJ9bsN7JAw.html

You prefer to be dumber with breakfast? Lol

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

@@slackumjackum That only happens after reading your crap.

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

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.

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.

@@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.

@@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.

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 😮!

I know right? Newt is fair game!

What is Haiti, Alex?

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

@@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

@@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.

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

its easy to fool the weak minded....

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

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.

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.

@@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.