@MaxLenormand@Twitter oh but you can cc @MetaTreesNFT. Lets do the math:
- 1 tree planted = 1 NFT = 1 ETH transaction at avg footprint of 35 kWh/ 102.38 kg of CO2 (Dec 2021).
- 1 typical tree can absorb around 21-25 kilograms of carbon per year, but only once fully grown.
See the problem?
@MaxLenormand@Twitter@MetaTreesNFT The problem is much larger however as
1 The science of carbon removal through trees is complicated and sequestration depends on many different factors (soil, environment, tree species, micro and macro environmental conditions, etc)
@MaxLenormand@Twitter@MetaTreesNFT 2 Once planted only a small fraction of tree make it to old age where majority of sequestration potential lies: (depending on the species, but often) Following a soft power law (through wood, leafs, and soil) over a 100 year lifetime 1 tree can offset up to a tonne of carbon
@MaxLenormand@Twitter@MetaTreesNFT 3 Imagining that All planted trees by such NFT schemes miraculously All make it to old age, then there's still the point that a "perfect" tree would still need 4-5 years to offset just 1 ETH transaction. But wait... Isnt the point of NFTs to be a marketplace with buying/selling?
@MaxLenormand@Twitter@MetaTreesNFT And thats the crux of them problem: While perhaps organizers of such schemes of tree planting with NFTs have good intentions, this topic isn't addressed in their white papers or materials, and thats the real problem: None of these so-called Green NFT schemes back up their claims
@MaxLenormand@Twitter@MetaTreesNFT Etherium's move to proof-of-stake might help fix some of these issues bringing transaction carbon footprint from 125-150kg co2 to (allegedly) 0.07 kg a 1500x reduction, this still doesn't change the fact that Green NFT schemes should do their #homework
@MaxLenormand@Twitter@MetaTreesNFT If @MetaTreesNFT or any other Forestry or tree related #crypto or #NFT are serious about helping the planet do reach out and I'd be happy to provide constructive criticism or point you to many of the much more knowledgable people than myself in the #climate and #offset space
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
One of the most troubling paragraphs in the recent IPCC report is the suggestion to keep burning fossil fuel longer b/c carbon capture and storage (CCS) so gas & oil companies can keep making money on these "stranded assets" (est. 1-4 trillion $).
Problem #1: Shell, BP, Chevron, ExxonMobil, etc all pledged to zero out their carbon emissions by 2050 but at the same time _keep_ exploring new fields. Most of them are actually increasing fossil fuel production. The dream of CCS will only intensify this. grist.org/accountability…
Problem #2: CCS is an experimental technology with a couple of pilots around the world. Unlike renewable energy, EVs, LEDs, etc the price of CCS has _not_ come down much (unlike what most proponents think) (src @GlobalEcoGuy)
Lovely bunch of drawings from Victor Papanek's Notebook (1986), first appeared in "Design for the Real World" (1971), developed further in "The Green Imperative" (1995) thread...
Design is a conscious and intuitive effort to impose meaningful order.
Papanek's lecture notes on "The Moral Imperatives", 1992-98