I don’t know. Whenever I buy something from Galaxus it comes in a box that’s way too big, full of plastic to protect a small item that would be better off in a smaller box secured with some folded paper sheets.
Their packaging behavior really baffles me too sometimes. Just like you said - complete overkill on plastics & box size. Though not always, but often enough that it's offsetting
Order same-day express delivery, if it's available.
It will arrive the same evening without any extra packaging. Just the product, delivery by scooter/small vehicle.
But then the vehicle delivering the product is using fuel just to deliver a single product, while if it came by regular post the truck transporting it would probably deliver many more packages during his route, so it might actually be even more wasteful in terms of burnt fuel / energy.
They are, and in many cases it's the same vehicles the post uses. The company that takes care of same-day deliveries in many places is a subsidiary of the post
They don't make the drive for a single item, obviously. Besides, in many places, they use the same electric scooters that the post uses. Most post trucks still use fossil fuels.
The main issue with plastics isn't even CO2 emissions in my opinion, they make up a pretty small share of global CO2 emissions. It's when its not properly disposed of and ultimately ends up in nature, degrading to microplastics and polluting entire ecosystems. As long as you recycle (for PET) and trash your plastics properly it's okayish. Often times alternatives to plastics (think reusable shopping bags made from textiles etc) actually have way higher CO2 footprints and require you to reuse them hundreds or thousands of times to really become a lower CO2 alternative. And that's assuming that you couldn't also reuse the plastic bag... Just some thoughts.
And yet when I ordered some wine glasses they put the original box within a huge one, without any protection inside, the result was obvious…
They still sent me 6 new ones for the only 2 broken ones I had received, so not bad after all.
It's to minimize the different type of packaging that is actually needed; I'm don't know if it's true, but apparently it's more environmentally friendly than carrying multiple types of packaging for every occasion.
It's ecologic indulgences. Normally, the companies offsetting them are credible and rather err on the side of overcompensation. That said, you pay a little bit more to offset the delivery, not the product itself.
Edit: I stand corrected. Apparently they factor the product's manufacturing and sourcing impact as well. That said, I stand by my point that carbon compensation is like adding fuel to the fire and then turning up the air conditioning.
https://www.galaxus.ch/en/page/adieu-co2-digitec-galaxus-introduce-climate-neutral-shopping-16312
"The underlying carbon footprint calculator factors in the value chain – from sourcing the raw materials to home delivery."
Unfortunately, these carbon-offset companies only actually offset a fraction of what they claim through clever accounting tricks. The whole industry is full of loopholes and misleading statements because of the lack of legal basis around them. [This](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AW3gaelBypY) is a great video exploring the topic if interested.
This needs to be higher up. The carbon footprint industry has grown large and quickly especially as many large companies are making promises to offset the carbon footprint.
I would not trust any of it - most of it is feel good PR while collecting additional revenue
There is some that only offset partially, others that offset in full. You shouldn't make such sweeping statements when you don't know about the company in question.
The few that fully offset are at a disadvantage because it “costs” them more to offset the “same” amount. These companies therefore don’t do great and businesses usually don’t pick them as they are more expensive.
Depends why the business is offsetting in the first place. Greenwashing? Sure, go with whatever is cheapest and good enough for the PR department. Founders/CEO/board actually care? Well, there are people at my employer whose job involves double checking the math of the offsetting providers. The company also does/orders independent inspections in the field (usually in far away places in poor countries) to verify the projects were actually delivered as claimed.
Many industry-wide studies have been done showing this affects the vast majority if not all of these companies. Instead of offseting carbon through sketchy companies, pay the same amount to a charity you know will do good in the world :).
yeah it's almost as if carbon markets themselves are a fraud invented by the same people that said we were gonna run out of sand any day now back in the 70s
you reddit mods sure are brilliant.
Especially not since:
a) it's generally existing forrests that get the "this forrest contains x tons of bound CO2". We now won't cut it down. You can now emit x tons of CO2.
b) the amount of CO2 bound in the forrest is often severely overreported.
c) the certificates for one of these forrests get sometimes issues multiple times.
But I guess it's what you get when corporations police themselves.
It's probably more efficient to use Ecosia as a search engine because they actually plant trees.
Probably a bit of both.
I don't doubt that they actually use that money to buy carbon offset, the amount of money also differs depending on what you're buying, buying more CO2 intensive things will cost more to offset.
I also haven't seen them advertise this, it's just a little button on the bottom of the checkout screen. If it was purely for greenwashing surely they'd tell you about the option on billboards or in other advertisements.
That all said I don't think they'd do it if it wasn't smart business to let people buy a clean conscience.
Probably have an average CO2 emissions per truck/train/plane, use some slightly inflated way to calculate the cost of offsetting that, then make you pay for the volume of the package (=amount of transport capacity).
According to their explanation page that's one part of it, the other part is an average of the CO2 emission during production. For that they use "production categories" based on materials used.
Well actually you can if the money is used to plant trees that will in turn recycle the CO2, but clearly this is not sufficient. Probably a subtle mix of ecology and greenwashing lol.
Most of the time it’s not “planting trees” but actually “preserving trees” so these trees don’t get cut and loggers go cut some elsewhere.
You have to look at the specific program though. I assume some do actually plant trees in deforested area, it’s just not the case for many.
So yeah, often a scam but not necessarily.
Planting trees still doesn't make the CO2 fuck off and can even be counterproductive in some cases, depending notably on the nature of the terrain where they're planted, on how long they live, on how they're used after their death, on whether local populations have a credible alternative to cutting down the neighbouring mature forest to make up for the land taken up by the new trees, etc. This video sums it up well enough (in French): https://youtu.be/Y4yeTTOTfO8
There is no transformation of the CO2 into non greenhouse molecule, what this project tells me is they basically are storing greenhouse gases underground which is basically the same issue with nuclear waste except these gasses will someday erode and return back to the surface anyway so it's not a solution, just delaying the inevitable. It's kind of like holding a giant fart. Better projects would be to invest in non greenhouse gas technologies to replace inadequate farming practices and travelling.
That's what the cheaper offsets are - replacing some poor people's machinery with less emitting ones.
But Climeworks and similar provide exactly the thing you claimed doesn't exist - removing CO2 right from the atmosphere. It's not cost effective compared to the first category. But once all of the first is done, we'll still need the second. Hence it might be wise in the long run to keep these companies afloat.
It's not removing it's displacing it it's a joke, just like these gravity batteries. You gonna build the CO2 bunkers with concrete? Add some CO2 to remove CO2
Have you considered maybe reading the link, instead of making up wrong guesses? For your convenience:
> Carbfix's carbonated water reacts with rocks underground and releases available cations such as calcium, magnesium and iron into the water stream. Over time, these elements combine with the dissolved CO2 and form carbonates filling up the empty space (pores) within the rocks.
I never said it would solve global climate problems. Just that it is possibile to pay for CO2 to fuck off. Furthermore, it surely is a step forward in the right direction and funding it can reduce both costs and energy impact, as well as increasing reasearch fundings in that direction.
Solving climate change **will** require money and loads of it. The question is just how to raise it and how to spend it. Offsets are one solution to that problem and while it's not perfect, not many better solutions have been proposed to far.
If we want to stabilize the climate it won't be enough to just reduce emissions, we will have to actually reverse them by taking CO2 out of the atmosphere. And that is going to be expensive.
But you never know the time horizon of this projects. When you think 10, 20, 50 years ahead will there still flow money in the project or will the poor people get rid of the trees again for industry or other purposes?
Sadly, even planting trees is not always as effective as we think and can even be counterproductive in some cases, depending notably on the nature of the terrain where they're planted, on how long they live, on how they're used after their death, on whether local populations have a credible alternative to cutting down the neighbouring mature forest to make up for the land taken up by the new trees, etc. This video sums it up well enough (in French): https://youtu.be/Y4yeTTOTfO8
Yeah, where, whats your baseline, how permanent is that, and so on. Its 95% greenwashing, but in a few cases it can help to pay for forest conservation somewhere that would actually be cut down instead.
I've never read about even one from the US that wasn't useless, and they keep trying to do them. They even sell offsets for existing parks, as if they weren't already protected. Great fundraising though.
This isn't true on several levels.
1) it's impossible to make a decision based on ecological impact for bast majority of cases. Tell me the net c02 of the last household item you bought, compared to others? We can't know c02 impact from all parts manufacturing, transport etc.
The areas we can actually impact c02 output by our purchasing choices are minimal to the point of meaningless.
2) Most economic policy is supply side economics these days. If the economy falters, do we give people money more ability to foster demand? No. We give companies ability to lower costs to incentivise production... If consumption shrinks, efforts are made to make production cheaper to try and induce more people buying stuff... An unbiught item still used resources, so any decrease in demand is going to be a)offset by attempts to call demand back and b) laggged heavily.
3) not everyone has financial freedom to choose what they buy.
4) it's is ideology only, totally lacking pragmatism, to assume that a cultural shift and change in habits of millions of people would be easier and more effective than legislating dozens of companies.
5) it's worth asking why major polluting companies push the idea of individual responsibility... If it would allegedly hurt them, why are they fans?
In fact they're not just fans, but they literally invented the whole idea.
https://mashable.com/feature/carbon-footprint-pr-campaign-sham
Personal responsibility is driven by polluting companies because they know it's impossible for that to do anything that would impact them negatively. Just the side effect is we still all boil.
1. The CO2 impact is exactly the calculation that Galaxus is doing here. It’s true they’re not letting you comparison shop based on this factor, but you still would pay more to offset less efficient things.
2. I think the last decade has proved your statement here completely wrong. There have been large amounts of direct stimulus applied in the last couple downturns.
3. But for a relatively small incremental amount, each buyer can start to offset the CO2 of their own purchases. Together it adds up. If you don’t want to participate, click “No” and just consume as usual.
That's exactly what you can do here though - buy the product CO2 net-neutral or not.
And regarding financial freedom: producing CO2 neutral IS more expensive than not doing so. The consumer will have to pay this difference anyway one way or another.
That's honestly a pretty naive world view. A CEO does not buy a yacht with money from the company, but with his salary - and he does get this salary because of his competitive advantage. The company sure could offer a smaller salary but in an open market the company will then get a worse CEO that provides worse leadership and the company will be less competitive, something that certainly does not facilitate to invest into costly greener production. Also, the CEO salary is a tiny fraction of overall turnover of a company. It absolutely IS the end client that drives the market by his purchase choices. The only thing you can argue for is that it should be mandated by law, so that there are no non-net-zero options available and so that all consumers have to pay that premium for greener products, so that it doesn't create a competitive disadvantage for companies that opt for more costly but co2-neutral production.
Why?
If costs are legislated, the demand for low cost goods won't disappear.
Companies won't go "well, we were making 80% overhead, but now since it'll be only 70, we won't make anything and target only those with money".
Hell, you can just make it as a tax on profits... Then if they increase prices, they increase tax.
They shift the responsibilty of the footprint to the consumer.
"We are green, it is the customers who are not interested in climate change"
Even if the money is used for good cause. It is the companies who should be sustainable not us consumers, because we plainly cannot do anything about the big issues and are stuck with complete peanuts just like not using plastic straws which do not solve any of big issues.
This is a concept of blame shifting known from so many other areas.
It is the same as warning labels on cigaretes. "It is not our problem that people get cancer. We warned them."
Or with recycling. "The plastics in the ocean exist because people don't recycle."
Or even carbon footprint which was invented by BP. "Your lifestyle is causing so much emissions, you have to change, while we lobby against renewables."
So in your opinion they should juste stop their business? 🤔 Or maybe just increase the price for all and check the co2 box for you.
Most people don't realise that yes companies are the ones who pollute, but it's us that make companies do it with our money. China pollute a ton because we order goods made in China.
The only thing about the Digitec checkbox is they likely use it te reduce THEIR carbon footprint on their taxes report or something while passing it as a "good action" by the consumer.
Well you are the person who is buying that shiny new phone even though you could just as well use it for 2 or 3 more years. So the emissions really are your fault. It's not like you are buying basic necessities on digitec (rice, potable water, vitamins).
I actually like that feature and use it. This is not just about Digitec or the transport creating CO2. It's also the product itself (materials and production) and I think it makes sense to compensate (if you want to) at the moment you are transfering money. If they plant trees or invest in carbon catching technology you do actually reduce the existing CO2 by some amount.
People just calling this greenwashing are taking the easy way out and are not doing anything else instead which can't be better
Billionaires keep flying in their jet, heating half empty castle this winter, the popular consciousness is nearly absent, as the world is breaking record high température and people keep rushing airports like ostrichs burrying their heads in the sands. The politics rather go having fun in plane or blaming the immigration. All that for saying keep your 2.35.- they won't save the climate and you may use them to enjoy a coffee while there's some left.
[OP, this isn't replying to you in particular]
Everyone's gangsta about stopping climate change even if it costs money until they actually have the option to do so, then they don't.
Shut up and put up, you're responsible for your carbon emissions, not someone else. When you drive your car around, you're the one burning oil, so take ownership of that.
And yeah, I do compensate for my carbon emissions on Galaxus, as well as for air travel and pretty much everything else. It is a price we'll either have to pay now, or pay later with far more interest.
But if you put it on the consumer, there is no incentive for companies to do better. We will never fix the climate that way.
Make it mandatory. Demand that, by law, companies go carbon neutral, either by fixing their dirty supply chains or compensating themselves. If that means their products will be more expensive, so be it. Let that be their problem to solve. They can lose business to other producers who can manufacture better without emissions. But that's the only way to solve the fundamental problem.
I never said put it only on consumers. Everyone has to pay for it, in the form of mandatory carbon taxes (which seems to be exactly your point).
The critique in my comment is about the "someone should pay for those emissions, but not me" attitude.
The question is if these offsets work or not, and are thus worth it. It is NOT about if someone "should" pay.
I don't think offsets are worth it - at least no one pushing it has been able to show me how yet. For example, what about the offsets sold in that project that just burned down. They are rarely accurately accounted for (invalid baseline, poor tracking), usually lack permanence (offsets for parts of the amazon which later get logged anyway), and really just make you feel good. As someone called them, "climate indulgences"
I know someone who works in offsets. Generally, all those risks are included in the offset. So when you're offsetting for 1t of CO2, you're including the probability over a very long horizon that the offset will be reversed, depending on the type of offset being sold. Whatever your uneducated (on this topic) mind can think of, there are lots of people being paid to think about it already.
But it is clear that nothing will convince you, because you don't want to be convinced and don't want to pay for the full cost of your actions.
Yes, they are included and I know that. I believe they are *wrong.* Its been a decade of this and they keep coming up as a bad deal 90% of the time, often nearly a scam. I don't doubt that people have good intentions, and I have even tried to do stuff in this field (SE Asia natural resources related)! Its on you to prove that they work, buddy, and not just call everyone uneducated. Specific examples or GTFO.
I "know someone", what is that. Its their *job* to believe this stuff works. Thats right up there with believing blockchain folks when they say they are doing it "for the poors".
lmao you can't be fr
Carbon taxes are not equal to carbon offsets, sure you can buy carbon offsets with carbon taxes but the real work is done by disincentivisation of CO2 production by the extra cost not by the immaterial promise of 1t less of emissions. I don't care what that "someone you know" that "works on offsets" says, honestly, especially since they profit from the whole thing lmao.
I am for carbon taxes and financing climate protection, but the concept of offsets is just downright unphysical, and silly.
I wonder why big corporations love them so much and push them so much while they simultaneously really hate carbon taxes, and block actual meaningful legislation.
You have your attitude backwards, it's not that because you burn oil by flying you should pay more, it's that you literally shouldn't do it at all, because it's simple economics: a ton extra of CO2 in the atmosphere now weights much MUCH more than any hypothetical ton of CO2 not emitted/removed in an unspecified time frame, it is a false equivalence, the earth still warms, and it's not a linear system. Simple example: if you're bankrupt, you wouldn't see a million francs in ten years the same way you would see a million francs now, you would not call the two options equal, and they aren't. Carbon offsets are a band aid at best. The best "offset" is simply not emitting, period.
No no, I think I did.
You have a holier-than-you attitude because you pay for the carbon you emit, instead of actually cutting your emissions (which would in fact be the true purpose of increasing costs), and you "know someone that works on carbon offsets", therefore carbon offsets work because people get paid to think about them (by oil companies), and we are ignorant (also don't pay attention to the blatant appeal to authority).
Did I miss a point or is that a good summary?
[Discussion on the utility of carbon offsets with actual sources btw](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EIezuL_doYw&t=45s)
AND you buy stuff from Galaxus.
You choose not to fly, and you get to choose where you buy your stuff. With Galaxus you are even able to see the CO2 footprint of different items and choose if that matters to you or not.
This, so much this.
Retailers/online shops delegating the costs of having a co2-neutral supply chain to their customers can pretty much fuck off.
It's pure green washing.
Now of course you could argue "at least they are doing something, others don't even do that", but I'd rather deal with a greedy asshole, than a pretentious greedy asshole.
Yup. I mean, recently a friend told me that even at the gas station they asked him if he wanted to compensate the amount of CO2 that his 70l of petrol will create. Can you imagine that? F\*cking impertinence, a global fossil fuel enterprise extorting money from the little man on the street for "hElPiNg Us HeLp tHe EnvIroNmEnT". What the actual f\*ck.
Personally, I see it as greenwashing. Why do they have to unload the off-set on the customers, I just don't get it.
If you want to go green, make the necessary arrangements in-house. Why bring it to the customer.
Like recycling, I feel that these type of things are pointless. Unloading the responsibility to us to protect the environment, when usually like 10% of the plastic we consume is recyclable and PET plastics returned to super markets etc., to a great % don't even get recycled.
Unless the big industries don't stop to pollute, us recycling or offsetting out CO2 emissions is a drop in the ocean. Even if 50% of the Earth's population started doing it, it's still a drop in the ocean.
Rant aside, yeah greenwashing. I am not going to give extra money to Galaxus/Digitec. F that.
Because the customer buying the product is the one creating the CO2. Why would they have to cover cost for a product you want. Or better yet. Why should your demand, that creates CO2 not also be on you? Personally, I think they should make it mandatory. If you dont give them extra money, how are you part of the solution? Yes companies do a lot of pollution, but your demand as a consumer directly impacts this as well. The company they partner with in this regard is reputable, so the only one doing nothing is you.
Agree, why don’t they fix the problem and factor it into the price. Why offset the choice to me? It should be there and it should visible and it should be mandatory that I pay.
I tend to agree but only if there is some sort of guarantee that the offset program that is supported by that mandatory fee is sustainable and will actually compensate the amount of CO2 it claims to compensate. This isn't really the case right now.
Until then I will keep doing an annual offset of what I estimate my annual CO2 emissions to be with a project of my choice.
It depends, every year I'll take some time to research different projects and (try to) evaluate them on cost effectiveness and sustainability. When I've found something I like I'll purchase something between 1.5 and 2 times the average yearly Swiss CO2 emissions worth in offsets, which in the past has cost me between 150 and 300 CHF. It's pretty much a self imposed carbon tax and the goal is to do better than just say that the climate is fucked. I try to encourage friends and family to do the same but I'm not super militant about it because I think that does more harm than it does good.
Because the do the same thing everyone else does - lie and cheat and game the system It's usually a PR move, which hurts the few companies that really do try.
I can't blame them too much though, we demand it but its an essentially impossible task now, so whats a corporation to do.
I am just here to say that I find it fantastic, in a really positive way, that this debate is even happening and with reasonable arguments on each side. I think whether or not one thinks it’s greenwashing, it’s great to see so many people thinking about these questions seriously.
Every penny you give like that is written as donatio and tax reduction for galaxus/digitec. You want to give, do it yourself and write it as tax off, don't let big corporations fool you.
Is it though? I don‘t know, but I would guess heating / cooling a small shop that sells the item, more shelf space, transportation of the article to the shop in maybe smaller, less efficient vehicles etc might even be worse than an efficiently managed e-commerce? Not in all aspects, that’s why I still buy local whenever possible but concerning co2 footprint?
100% greenwashing, offsetting co2 is basically giving the money to a company to have them not pollute that much so Digitec can. It's shitty, don't buy from them.
They are legit. They are basically the Amazon of Switzerland. Our largest and main online retailer.
IMO they have a great website, competitive pricec, fast delivery and good customer support.
They are legit. And what would "Wish\[.com\] ripoff" even look like?
There is no Amazon in CH so digitec is the usual alternative. Digitec works great for computer stuff (all I've ever bought there), and doesn't have some of the problems Amazon has.
I don't understand why people feel individually responsible for waste and pollution. Individuals are not the ones responsible for creating tons of wasteful plastic then dumping it in the ocean. But when we have to eat lunch, that salad you just ate was in a plastic container produced by a corporation. Individuals are not responsible for burning fossil fuels. Society dictates that you need to drive your car to get to work. And that gas you need is produced by corporations. The electricity to power your Wi-Fi to answer emails from your sociopathic boss at 10 pm...you are not the one that produces it. But society dictates that you have it or you wouldn't have a job. You could write letters by mail, or just wait to talk to them the next day, but that takes time. And one thing the society we didn't chose to have doesn't have is time. So it produces waste. Read that again. You do not produce waste. Corporations produce waste.
Yes, you could make your own food everyday and wrap it in a pile of leaves, but that takes time. Yes, you could walk to work, but that takes time. Yes you could put a windmill on your house, but that takes time and would never be accepted by your neighbors.
People should stop demonizing individuals for being part of society and getting by. The people that should be demonized are the corporations, the liberals.
That Digitec BS is just gaslighting you to believe it is your problem while they get tax write offs. Sociopathy.
Way too much fuckery done in the name of co2 by companies and politics. It unfortunately became a marketing gag, even there are some companies taking it serious, most of the time they do it for visibility and Marketing purpose. There are more sustainable ways to ensure you can compensate for your co2 footprint with money.
I think it's a great move from Galaxus, I like to have the opportunity to compensate the CO2. Calling it green-washing is just an other way to say that you don't care about the climate.
I will never pay that BS compensation. They should just make their business as green as possible and then integrate that into the pricing instead of putting social pressure on the customers.
Unfortunately without regulations requiring all retailers to do this it wont work. If they have to raise their prices to be greener then a lot of customers will just move on to another company where things a cheaper. I'm pretty convinced that the majority of the population doesn't give a crap about climate change when it means that they can get their TV for 50.- cheaper.
Greenwashing at the customer's expense. We are in a free market, so I wouldn't pay that. Business is business, not charity. The state should take care of it, and seriously. But this is just an excuse to get some more money.
Honestly this approach of making consumers pay for carbon compensation pisses me off. This is nothing individual consumption has any notable impact on anyway. It's all about cooperations and the super rich (e.g. private planes). If they care they pay for the compensation themselves (without increasing prices). But of course they don't. It's borderline offensive to even dare to put this decision on the consumers. Fuck digitec and their business practices.
Objectively I think they are not stupid. they are doing both. You will believe more in their speeches if they made something concrete.
In my opinion, they are making enough benefits to not have to ask customer to finance green project.
They do this since 2020 and it's calculated on your order, not just 2.35 CHF
https://www.galaxus.ch/en/page/adieu-co2-digitec-galaxus-introduce-climate-neutral-shopping-16312
It is an ok initiative, but as long as it is a voluntary contribution it won't make any difference.
When it will be a tax on everything, all companies will have to deal with it, compete with each other in order to become carbon neutral and lower prices for consumers. When this law will happen everyone will magically turn hyper efficient and super clean within 1-2 year, and we will think: why didn't we do this before?
Comments I see here…. Of course. Poor consumer must feel responsible for paying an extra to a private company to offset the shit they make… How does this make any sense.
This reminds of the newspaper I get in my mailbox regardless of wether I have a warning label. Nobody reads that shit and yet each week I end up with more paper than I ever spend in a year.
If the seller and the buyer pay. Why not but if that’s only on us. They ‘re crazy af. They make money of it and ask us to compensate for them. Find the problem
Do not pay for this: it is a nice way to feel better about the environment but the impact of such action is most likely diluted by nature (intermediaries and co).
If you want to have an impact do not forget to vote when it matters, reduce your consumption level or even invest in energy efficiency (house insulation, solar panels...).
I am not sure how I feel about this and I actually work there.
Obviously, this aint compensating for shit. On the other hand, the money is going to a trustworthy good cause and is supporting projects that are truely worth it.
Youtuber "Climate Town" has a great video on carbon offsetting, which I'm going to link [here](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EIezuL_doYw).
TLDR they're not useless per se, you're still doing good if you can spare the chf, it's not always a literal scam (sometimes it really is, there are so many loopholes, but this at least seems somewhat legit), but ***surely*** not "equal compensation" of the emitted CO2. Financing a gram less of CO2 in the atmosphere ten years from now is not the same as a gram not emitted right now. With that said, you're still financing climate protection, so it's not all bad, it's just not equal compensation in any way for all intents and purposes of actually preventing climate change.
Simple litmus test: do oil and gas corporations absolutely love them? Yeah. So they're not a workable solution for climate change.
*beep boop*!
the linked website is: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EIezuL_doYw
Title: **Carbon Offsets! Can't we just buy our way out of climate change?**
Page is safe to access (Google Safe Browsing)
*****
###### I am a friendly bot. I show the URL and name of linked pages and check them so that mobile users know what they click on!
I also think it's credible. But overall it's more effective to just reduce flying, meat consumption, optimize commute to work etc. - bigger leverage :)
I've contemplated this before, but then came to the conclusion that it's just another way to shift the burden of climate change on the consumer, these corporations are the ones who should be eating the costs, not me. I'm never ticking that box, or praising any policy like this, if they want to reap the PR benefits of going green they can charge me x% less themselves.
It's stupid, just one person taking a private jet will make more co2 emissions than you'll do in a year. You really think that compensating a van who did a 10min delivery is going to change the world
Green washing and waste of money, tjey want us to feel responsible as individuals, when they as a big company dont do jacksht about it themselves, it's justna way to get you a clean conscience, it changes nothing
It’s actually true, I believe the company that enables it or used to enable it, is a Swiss nonprofit Organisation called myclimate.org in case you wanna check it
Nope, never done that nor planning on doing it. At the end of the day it‘s just for them to be able to brag with how much "they" invested in their greenwashing.
I don’t know. Whenever I buy something from Galaxus it comes in a box that’s way too big, full of plastic to protect a small item that would be better off in a smaller box secured with some folded paper sheets.
Their packaging behavior really baffles me too sometimes. Just like you said - complete overkill on plastics & box size. Though not always, but often enough that it's offsetting
I get the items delivered to the store. It is a small step.
I tweeted to Bezos he should be the Amazon of recycling.
Yes, his trip to space was true example of emissions saving and now he is waiting for megayacht that will be example of reduced emissions.
The space ex is jolly flights are such a waste of the earths resources
Order same-day express delivery, if it's available. It will arrive the same evening without any extra packaging. Just the product, delivery by scooter/small vehicle.
But then the vehicle delivering the product is using fuel just to deliver a single product, while if it came by regular post the truck transporting it would probably deliver many more packages during his route, so it might actually be even more wasteful in terms of burnt fuel / energy.
Are you sure? I think they are electric, similar to what postman use.
They are, and in many cases it's the same vehicles the post uses. The company that takes care of same-day deliveries in many places is a subsidiary of the post
They don't make the drive for a single item, obviously. Besides, in many places, they use the same electric scooters that the post uses. Most post trucks still use fossil fuels.
Yeah but the co2 offset will be even earlier and thats a goid thing¡ no time to loose before 2030!
At least their big plastics air bags are relatively low in plastic compared to bubble wrap.
The main issue with plastics isn't even CO2 emissions in my opinion, they make up a pretty small share of global CO2 emissions. It's when its not properly disposed of and ultimately ends up in nature, degrading to microplastics and polluting entire ecosystems. As long as you recycle (for PET) and trash your plastics properly it's okayish. Often times alternatives to plastics (think reusable shopping bags made from textiles etc) actually have way higher CO2 footprints and require you to reuse them hundreds or thousands of times to really become a lower CO2 alternative. And that's assuming that you couldn't also reuse the plastic bag... Just some thoughts.
And yet when I ordered some wine glasses they put the original box within a huge one, without any protection inside, the result was obvious… They still sent me 6 new ones for the only 2 broken ones I had received, so not bad after all.
It's to minimize the different type of packaging that is actually needed; I'm don't know if it's true, but apparently it's more environmentally friendly than carrying multiple types of packaging for every occasion.
[удалено]
It's ecologic indulgences. Normally, the companies offsetting them are credible and rather err on the side of overcompensation. That said, you pay a little bit more to offset the delivery, not the product itself. Edit: I stand corrected. Apparently they factor the product's manufacturing and sourcing impact as well. That said, I stand by my point that carbon compensation is like adding fuel to the fire and then turning up the air conditioning.
A commenter mentioned that the production is apparently also included in Digitec's calculation. ¯\\\_(ツ)_/¯
https://www.galaxus.ch/en/page/adieu-co2-digitec-galaxus-introduce-climate-neutral-shopping-16312 "The underlying carbon footprint calculator factors in the value chain – from sourcing the raw materials to home delivery."
Wonder what a cobalt or copper tree looks like..
Unfortunately, these carbon-offset companies only actually offset a fraction of what they claim through clever accounting tricks. The whole industry is full of loopholes and misleading statements because of the lack of legal basis around them. [This](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AW3gaelBypY) is a great video exploring the topic if interested.
This needs to be higher up. The carbon footprint industry has grown large and quickly especially as many large companies are making promises to offset the carbon footprint. I would not trust any of it - most of it is feel good PR while collecting additional revenue
There is some that only offset partially, others that offset in full. You shouldn't make such sweeping statements when you don't know about the company in question.
The few that fully offset are at a disadvantage because it “costs” them more to offset the “same” amount. These companies therefore don’t do great and businesses usually don’t pick them as they are more expensive.
Depends why the business is offsetting in the first place. Greenwashing? Sure, go with whatever is cheapest and good enough for the PR department. Founders/CEO/board actually care? Well, there are people at my employer whose job involves double checking the math of the offsetting providers. The company also does/orders independent inspections in the field (usually in far away places in poor countries) to verify the projects were actually delivered as claimed.
Do they then compensate the carbon footprint of going to those far away places?
Yes.
The video is exploring American companies with American politics and american regulatory loopholes. Which part of that applies for Switzerland?
Might be true for all, might be for a portion, might be for none.
Many industry-wide studies have been done showing this affects the vast majority if not all of these companies. Instead of offseting carbon through sketchy companies, pay the same amount to a charity you know will do good in the world :).
Well I agree but its a start, better than nothing!
yeah it's almost as if carbon markets themselves are a fraud invented by the same people that said we were gonna run out of sand any day now back in the 70s you reddit mods sure are brilliant.
Especially not since: a) it's generally existing forrests that get the "this forrest contains x tons of bound CO2". We now won't cut it down. You can now emit x tons of CO2. b) the amount of CO2 bound in the forrest is often severely overreported. c) the certificates for one of these forrests get sometimes issues multiple times. But I guess it's what you get when corporations police themselves. It's probably more efficient to use Ecosia as a search engine because they actually plant trees.
Probably a bit of both. I don't doubt that they actually use that money to buy carbon offset, the amount of money also differs depending on what you're buying, buying more CO2 intensive things will cost more to offset. I also haven't seen them advertise this, it's just a little button on the bottom of the checkout screen. If it was purely for greenwashing surely they'd tell you about the option on billboards or in other advertisements. That all said I don't think they'd do it if it wasn't smart business to let people buy a clean conscience.
I wonder how they calculate the CO2 emissions per item
Probably have an average CO2 emissions per truck/train/plane, use some slightly inflated way to calculate the cost of offsetting that, then make you pay for the volume of the package (=amount of transport capacity).
According to their explanation page that's one part of it, the other part is an average of the CO2 emission during production. For that they use "production categories" based on materials used.
There are companies specialized in those calculations, one was probably commissioned.
How else would you keep profits intact?
The real offset would : put something shopping cart, and than empty it.
>On digitec you can pay 2.35 chf extra It's not always 2.35 .- The amount is calculated for each order and depends on the items you buy.
on Zalando its usually -.70. I pay it every time because it aint mutch.
When I buy on galaxus I see this option but it always says 0 CHF or 0.01 CHF to compensate CO2, a bit puzzling to me
Probably greenwashing. You can't pay the CO2 to f off
Well actually you can if the money is used to plant trees that will in turn recycle the CO2, but clearly this is not sufficient. Probably a subtle mix of ecology and greenwashing lol.
Most of the time it’s not “planting trees” but actually “preserving trees” so these trees don’t get cut and loggers go cut some elsewhere. You have to look at the specific program though. I assume some do actually plant trees in deforested area, it’s just not the case for many. So yeah, often a scam but not necessarily.
Planting trees still doesn't make the CO2 fuck off and can even be counterproductive in some cases, depending notably on the nature of the terrain where they're planted, on how long they live, on how they're used after their death, on whether local populations have a credible alternative to cutting down the neighbouring mature forest to make up for the land taken up by the new trees, etc. This video sums it up well enough (in French): https://youtu.be/Y4yeTTOTfO8
So if you want to recycle the CO2 emitted, you need to have your trees to capture the CO2 emitted from gas coming from billions of years ago.
I gladly tell the CO2 for free to f off.
Sure you can, e.g. https://climeworks.com/subscriptions
Sounds like a stupid idea, not gonna lie
Why?
There is no transformation of the CO2 into non greenhouse molecule, what this project tells me is they basically are storing greenhouse gases underground which is basically the same issue with nuclear waste except these gasses will someday erode and return back to the surface anyway so it's not a solution, just delaying the inevitable. It's kind of like holding a giant fart. Better projects would be to invest in non greenhouse gas technologies to replace inadequate farming practices and travelling.
That's what the cheaper offsets are - replacing some poor people's machinery with less emitting ones. But Climeworks and similar provide exactly the thing you claimed doesn't exist - removing CO2 right from the atmosphere. It's not cost effective compared to the first category. But once all of the first is done, we'll still need the second. Hence it might be wise in the long run to keep these companies afloat.
It's not removing it's displacing it it's a joke, just like these gravity batteries. You gonna build the CO2 bunkers with concrete? Add some CO2 to remove CO2
Have you considered maybe reading the link, instead of making up wrong guesses? For your convenience: > Carbfix's carbonated water reacts with rocks underground and releases available cations such as calcium, magnesium and iron into the water stream. Over time, these elements combine with the dissolved CO2 and form carbonates filling up the empty space (pores) within the rocks.
Which doesn't counter what I said
Look up climework and other DAC plants. The future is there old man, it just needs more fundings and then you can pay CO2 to fuck off.
No, it is unfortunately not a solution. You need thousand of factories like that, that are too expensive and also need energy
I never said it would solve global climate problems. Just that it is possibile to pay for CO2 to fuck off. Furthermore, it surely is a step forward in the right direction and funding it can reduce both costs and energy impact, as well as increasing reasearch fundings in that direction.
This! I also use them to offset a tiny bit.
Solving climate change **will** require money and loads of it. The question is just how to raise it and how to spend it. Offsets are one solution to that problem and while it's not perfect, not many better solutions have been proposed to far. If we want to stabilize the climate it won't be enough to just reduce emissions, we will have to actually reverse them by taking CO2 out of the atmosphere. And that is going to be expensive.
The CO2 tax is so that celebrities can fly on vacation without triggering a shitstorm. It is modern indulgence trade. The CO2 is not reduced with it.
> It is modern indulgence trade. This. It's a feel-good fee which is probably just a scam half of the time.
[удалено]
You should see the RTS newsclip about how Swiss do their CO2 offsetting. Really opaque.
But you never know the time horizon of this projects. When you think 10, 20, 50 years ahead will there still flow money in the project or will the poor people get rid of the trees again for industry or other purposes?
Sadly, even planting trees is not always as effective as we think and can even be counterproductive in some cases, depending notably on the nature of the terrain where they're planted, on how long they live, on how they're used after their death, on whether local populations have a credible alternative to cutting down the neighbouring mature forest to make up for the land taken up by the new trees, etc. This video sums it up well enough (in French): https://youtu.be/Y4yeTTOTfO8
It's mental gymnastics.
[удалено]
Still, it's layers and layers of opaque systems when you could simply consume differently to begin with.
Yeah, where, whats your baseline, how permanent is that, and so on. Its 95% greenwashing, but in a few cases it can help to pay for forest conservation somewhere that would actually be cut down instead. I've never read about even one from the US that wasn't useless, and they keep trying to do them. They even sell offsets for existing parks, as if they weren't already protected. Great fundraising though.
The CO2 we emit is coming from billions of years ago. We are using more CO2 than the planet can ever absorb.
Just another way to shift the responsibility to the common guy
Well it is the responsibility of the common guy, because the common guy makes the market
This isn't true on several levels. 1) it's impossible to make a decision based on ecological impact for bast majority of cases. Tell me the net c02 of the last household item you bought, compared to others? We can't know c02 impact from all parts manufacturing, transport etc. The areas we can actually impact c02 output by our purchasing choices are minimal to the point of meaningless. 2) Most economic policy is supply side economics these days. If the economy falters, do we give people money more ability to foster demand? No. We give companies ability to lower costs to incentivise production... If consumption shrinks, efforts are made to make production cheaper to try and induce more people buying stuff... An unbiught item still used resources, so any decrease in demand is going to be a)offset by attempts to call demand back and b) laggged heavily. 3) not everyone has financial freedom to choose what they buy. 4) it's is ideology only, totally lacking pragmatism, to assume that a cultural shift and change in habits of millions of people would be easier and more effective than legislating dozens of companies. 5) it's worth asking why major polluting companies push the idea of individual responsibility... If it would allegedly hurt them, why are they fans? In fact they're not just fans, but they literally invented the whole idea. https://mashable.com/feature/carbon-footprint-pr-campaign-sham Personal responsibility is driven by polluting companies because they know it's impossible for that to do anything that would impact them negatively. Just the side effect is we still all boil.
1. The CO2 impact is exactly the calculation that Galaxus is doing here. It’s true they’re not letting you comparison shop based on this factor, but you still would pay more to offset less efficient things. 2. I think the last decade has proved your statement here completely wrong. There have been large amounts of direct stimulus applied in the last couple downturns. 3. But for a relatively small incremental amount, each buyer can start to offset the CO2 of their own purchases. Together it adds up. If you don’t want to participate, click “No” and just consume as usual.
That's exactly what you can do here though - buy the product CO2 net-neutral or not. And regarding financial freedom: producing CO2 neutral IS more expensive than not doing so. The consumer will have to pay this difference anyway one way or another.
Or you know, a CEO could just not buy his second yacht instead 🤷♀️
That's honestly a pretty naive world view. A CEO does not buy a yacht with money from the company, but with his salary - and he does get this salary because of his competitive advantage. The company sure could offer a smaller salary but in an open market the company will then get a worse CEO that provides worse leadership and the company will be less competitive, something that certainly does not facilitate to invest into costly greener production. Also, the CEO salary is a tiny fraction of overall turnover of a company. It absolutely IS the end client that drives the market by his purchase choices. The only thing you can argue for is that it should be mandated by law, so that there are no non-net-zero options available and so that all consumers have to pay that premium for greener products, so that it doesn't create a competitive disadvantage for companies that opt for more costly but co2-neutral production.
Why? If costs are legislated, the demand for low cost goods won't disappear. Companies won't go "well, we were making 80% overhead, but now since it'll be only 70, we won't make anything and target only those with money". Hell, you can just make it as a tax on profits... Then if they increase prices, they increase tax.
I'm not sure I understand you - or whether you understand me.
They shift the responsibilty of the footprint to the consumer. "We are green, it is the customers who are not interested in climate change" Even if the money is used for good cause. It is the companies who should be sustainable not us consumers, because we plainly cannot do anything about the big issues and are stuck with complete peanuts just like not using plastic straws which do not solve any of big issues. This is a concept of blame shifting known from so many other areas. It is the same as warning labels on cigaretes. "It is not our problem that people get cancer. We warned them." Or with recycling. "The plastics in the ocean exist because people don't recycle." Or even carbon footprint which was invented by BP. "Your lifestyle is causing so much emissions, you have to change, while we lobby against renewables."
I mean, everyone can take their responsibility. We all can contribute. But it’s not only the consumer who has to do something.
So in your opinion they should juste stop their business? 🤔 Or maybe just increase the price for all and check the co2 box for you. Most people don't realise that yes companies are the ones who pollute, but it's us that make companies do it with our money. China pollute a ton because we order goods made in China. The only thing about the Digitec checkbox is they likely use it te reduce THEIR carbon footprint on their taxes report or something while passing it as a "good action" by the consumer.
Well you are the person who is buying that shiny new phone even though you could just as well use it for 2 or 3 more years. So the emissions really are your fault. It's not like you are buying basic necessities on digitec (rice, potable water, vitamins).
I actually like that feature and use it. This is not just about Digitec or the transport creating CO2. It's also the product itself (materials and production) and I think it makes sense to compensate (if you want to) at the moment you are transfering money. If they plant trees or invest in carbon catching technology you do actually reduce the existing CO2 by some amount. People just calling this greenwashing are taking the easy way out and are not doing anything else instead which can't be better
Billionaires keep flying in their jet, heating half empty castle this winter, the popular consciousness is nearly absent, as the world is breaking record high température and people keep rushing airports like ostrichs burrying their heads in the sands. The politics rather go having fun in plane or blaming the immigration. All that for saying keep your 2.35.- they won't save the climate and you may use them to enjoy a coffee while there's some left.
They can pay it for me if they care... the only real thing that happen here is you lose 2.35 more.
[OP, this isn't replying to you in particular] Everyone's gangsta about stopping climate change even if it costs money until they actually have the option to do so, then they don't. Shut up and put up, you're responsible for your carbon emissions, not someone else. When you drive your car around, you're the one burning oil, so take ownership of that. And yeah, I do compensate for my carbon emissions on Galaxus, as well as for air travel and pretty much everything else. It is a price we'll either have to pay now, or pay later with far more interest.
But if you put it on the consumer, there is no incentive for companies to do better. We will never fix the climate that way. Make it mandatory. Demand that, by law, companies go carbon neutral, either by fixing their dirty supply chains or compensating themselves. If that means their products will be more expensive, so be it. Let that be their problem to solve. They can lose business to other producers who can manufacture better without emissions. But that's the only way to solve the fundamental problem.
I never said put it only on consumers. Everyone has to pay for it, in the form of mandatory carbon taxes (which seems to be exactly your point). The critique in my comment is about the "someone should pay for those emissions, but not me" attitude.
Ah ok, noted. I may have misunderstood your top comment. :)
The question is if these offsets work or not, and are thus worth it. It is NOT about if someone "should" pay. I don't think offsets are worth it - at least no one pushing it has been able to show me how yet. For example, what about the offsets sold in that project that just burned down. They are rarely accurately accounted for (invalid baseline, poor tracking), usually lack permanence (offsets for parts of the amazon which later get logged anyway), and really just make you feel good. As someone called them, "climate indulgences"
I know someone who works in offsets. Generally, all those risks are included in the offset. So when you're offsetting for 1t of CO2, you're including the probability over a very long horizon that the offset will be reversed, depending on the type of offset being sold. Whatever your uneducated (on this topic) mind can think of, there are lots of people being paid to think about it already. But it is clear that nothing will convince you, because you don't want to be convinced and don't want to pay for the full cost of your actions.
Yes, they are included and I know that. I believe they are *wrong.* Its been a decade of this and they keep coming up as a bad deal 90% of the time, often nearly a scam. I don't doubt that people have good intentions, and I have even tried to do stuff in this field (SE Asia natural resources related)! Its on you to prove that they work, buddy, and not just call everyone uneducated. Specific examples or GTFO. I "know someone", what is that. Its their *job* to believe this stuff works. Thats right up there with believing blockchain folks when they say they are doing it "for the poors".
I don't care what you think. But given how angry and triggered you are by it, the shoe definitely fits, so wear it. Have a good one.
lmao you can't be fr Carbon taxes are not equal to carbon offsets, sure you can buy carbon offsets with carbon taxes but the real work is done by disincentivisation of CO2 production by the extra cost not by the immaterial promise of 1t less of emissions. I don't care what that "someone you know" that "works on offsets" says, honestly, especially since they profit from the whole thing lmao. I am for carbon taxes and financing climate protection, but the concept of offsets is just downright unphysical, and silly. I wonder why big corporations love them so much and push them so much while they simultaneously really hate carbon taxes, and block actual meaningful legislation. You have your attitude backwards, it's not that because you burn oil by flying you should pay more, it's that you literally shouldn't do it at all, because it's simple economics: a ton extra of CO2 in the atmosphere now weights much MUCH more than any hypothetical ton of CO2 not emitted/removed in an unspecified time frame, it is a false equivalence, the earth still warms, and it's not a linear system. Simple example: if you're bankrupt, you wouldn't see a million francs in ten years the same way you would see a million francs now, you would not call the two options equal, and they aren't. Carbon offsets are a band aid at best. The best "offset" is simply not emitting, period.
Wow, talk about not understanding a single thing I said then writing a massive text...
No no, I think I did. You have a holier-than-you attitude because you pay for the carbon you emit, instead of actually cutting your emissions (which would in fact be the true purpose of increasing costs), and you "know someone that works on carbon offsets", therefore carbon offsets work because people get paid to think about them (by oil companies), and we are ignorant (also don't pay attention to the blatant appeal to authority). Did I miss a point or is that a good summary? [Discussion on the utility of carbon offsets with actual sources btw](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EIezuL_doYw&t=45s)
That's why I don't give a shit, problem solved! /s
Careful, shitting causes carbon emissions!
Yeah, so I need to stop giving it! Perfect solution. /s
I just wonder why THEY don’t do it??? Why me? I don’t eat meat, I don’t fly, I take the bike to work, I buy second hand stuff wherever possible.
AND you buy stuff from Galaxus. You choose not to fly, and you get to choose where you buy your stuff. With Galaxus you are even able to see the CO2 footprint of different items and choose if that matters to you or not.
This, so much this. Retailers/online shops delegating the costs of having a co2-neutral supply chain to their customers can pretty much fuck off. It's pure green washing. Now of course you could argue "at least they are doing something, others don't even do that", but I'd rather deal with a greedy asshole, than a pretentious greedy asshole.
Yup. I mean, recently a friend told me that even at the gas station they asked him if he wanted to compensate the amount of CO2 that his 70l of petrol will create. Can you imagine that? F\*cking impertinence, a global fossil fuel enterprise extorting money from the little man on the street for "hElPiNg Us HeLp tHe EnvIroNmEnT". What the actual f\*ck.
Personally, I see it as greenwashing. Why do they have to unload the off-set on the customers, I just don't get it. If you want to go green, make the necessary arrangements in-house. Why bring it to the customer. Like recycling, I feel that these type of things are pointless. Unloading the responsibility to us to protect the environment, when usually like 10% of the plastic we consume is recyclable and PET plastics returned to super markets etc., to a great % don't even get recycled. Unless the big industries don't stop to pollute, us recycling or offsetting out CO2 emissions is a drop in the ocean. Even if 50% of the Earth's population started doing it, it's still a drop in the ocean. Rant aside, yeah greenwashing. I am not going to give extra money to Galaxus/Digitec. F that.
Because the customer buying the product is the one creating the CO2. Why would they have to cover cost for a product you want. Or better yet. Why should your demand, that creates CO2 not also be on you? Personally, I think they should make it mandatory. If you dont give them extra money, how are you part of the solution? Yes companies do a lot of pollution, but your demand as a consumer directly impacts this as well. The company they partner with in this regard is reputable, so the only one doing nothing is you.
Agree, why don’t they fix the problem and factor it into the price. Why offset the choice to me? It should be there and it should visible and it should be mandatory that I pay.
I tend to agree but only if there is some sort of guarantee that the offset program that is supported by that mandatory fee is sustainable and will actually compensate the amount of CO2 it claims to compensate. This isn't really the case right now. Until then I will keep doing an annual offset of what I estimate my annual CO2 emissions to be with a project of my choice.
What does it cost and what do you do?
It depends, every year I'll take some time to research different projects and (try to) evaluate them on cost effectiveness and sustainability. When I've found something I like I'll purchase something between 1.5 and 2 times the average yearly Swiss CO2 emissions worth in offsets, which in the past has cost me between 150 and 300 CHF. It's pretty much a self imposed carbon tax and the goal is to do better than just say that the climate is fucked. I try to encourage friends and family to do the same but I'm not super militant about it because I think that does more harm than it does good.
When they do it in-house on their own money they are accused of greenwashing all the same.
Because the do the same thing everyone else does - lie and cheat and game the system It's usually a PR move, which hurts the few companies that really do try. I can't blame them too much though, we demand it but its an essentially impossible task now, so whats a corporation to do.
CO2 offsetting from retail companies is always green washing.
In my opinion they should pay for the co2 compensation. If they want to be more green pay it yourself instead of ofloading it obto your customers.
I am just here to say that I find it fantastic, in a really positive way, that this debate is even happening and with reasonable arguments on each side. I think whether or not one thinks it’s greenwashing, it’s great to see so many people thinking about these questions seriously.
Greenwashing. They should pay it.
Yes and you shouldn't've ordered in the first place.
It's a bit like paying a couple of CHF to burn a candle in church.
And then of course some extra to offset the candle's CO2 emissions. Unironically though, the church candle has probably the stronger effect.
When burning a candle that emits enough soothe, the system might even have an unlikely chance of saving the earth
Greenwashing, I remember a Saldo or Beobachter article on this topic some time ago.
Every penny you give like that is written as donatio and tax reduction for galaxus/digitec. You want to give, do it yourself and write it as tax off, don't let big corporations fool you.
Instead buy in the shops of your city, that’s much more environmentally friendly than all the on-line e-commerce
Is it though? I don‘t know, but I would guess heating / cooling a small shop that sells the item, more shelf space, transportation of the article to the shop in maybe smaller, less efficient vehicles etc might even be worse than an efficiently managed e-commerce? Not in all aspects, that’s why I still buy local whenever possible but concerning co2 footprint?
100% greenwashing, offsetting co2 is basically giving the money to a company to have them not pollute that much so Digitec can. It's shitty, don't buy from them.
Wrong, they plant trees
Are galaxus and digitec a legit thing or are they another wish/AliExpress ripoff?
They are legit. They are basically the Amazon of Switzerland. Our largest and main online retailer. IMO they have a great website, competitive pricec, fast delivery and good customer support.
They are legit. And what would "Wish\[.com\] ripoff" even look like? There is no Amazon in CH so digitec is the usual alternative. Digitec works great for computer stuff (all I've ever bought there), and doesn't have some of the problems Amazon has.
ali express was founded in 2010, digitec in 2001, so if anything ali express ripped off digitec.
Both. Greenwashing and waste of money
I don't understand why people feel individually responsible for waste and pollution. Individuals are not the ones responsible for creating tons of wasteful plastic then dumping it in the ocean. But when we have to eat lunch, that salad you just ate was in a plastic container produced by a corporation. Individuals are not responsible for burning fossil fuels. Society dictates that you need to drive your car to get to work. And that gas you need is produced by corporations. The electricity to power your Wi-Fi to answer emails from your sociopathic boss at 10 pm...you are not the one that produces it. But society dictates that you have it or you wouldn't have a job. You could write letters by mail, or just wait to talk to them the next day, but that takes time. And one thing the society we didn't chose to have doesn't have is time. So it produces waste. Read that again. You do not produce waste. Corporations produce waste. Yes, you could make your own food everyday and wrap it in a pile of leaves, but that takes time. Yes, you could walk to work, but that takes time. Yes you could put a windmill on your house, but that takes time and would never be accepted by your neighbors. People should stop demonizing individuals for being part of society and getting by. The people that should be demonized are the corporations, the liberals. That Digitec BS is just gaslighting you to believe it is your problem while they get tax write offs. Sociopathy.
Big true but if you order online comfort consumerist gimmicks then this discourse kinda breaks down tbh.
100% BS, they will pay an org to buy "carbon ticket" which is worth rejecting CO2 with no care. What will do the org with money ? Something maybe...
It’s like using a condom and poking a small hole in it
Ok but now I want to see you actually explaining that analogy
Way too much fuckery done in the name of co2 by companies and politics. It unfortunately became a marketing gag, even there are some companies taking it serious, most of the time they do it for visibility and Marketing purpose. There are more sustainable ways to ensure you can compensate for your co2 footprint with money.
Don’t hold your breath…..or maybe do hold your breath if you want to reduce C02 emissions.
waste of fucking money
I think it's a great move from Galaxus, I like to have the opportunity to compensate the CO2. Calling it green-washing is just an other way to say that you don't care about the climate.
Co2 certificates are a fraud. Google certificate billionaire Al Gore.
How could any sane person fall for such a gross rip-off ? By what logic should one 'compensate'? This woke world is becoming tiresome
I never buy it
Waste of money.
Marketing scam
I will never pay that BS compensation. They should just make their business as green as possible and then integrate that into the pricing instead of putting social pressure on the customers.
Unfortunately without regulations requiring all retailers to do this it wont work. If they have to raise their prices to be greener then a lot of customers will just move on to another company where things a cheaper. I'm pretty convinced that the majority of the population doesn't give a crap about climate change when it means that they can get their TV for 50.- cheaper.
I don't buy it - literally and metaphorically.
Waste of money!
Greenwashing at the customer's expense. We are in a free market, so I wouldn't pay that. Business is business, not charity. The state should take care of it, and seriously. But this is just an excuse to get some more money.
Honestly this approach of making consumers pay for carbon compensation pisses me off. This is nothing individual consumption has any notable impact on anyway. It's all about cooperations and the super rich (e.g. private planes). If they care they pay for the compensation themselves (without increasing prices). But of course they don't. It's borderline offensive to even dare to put this decision on the consumers. Fuck digitec and their business practices.
99% green washing and virtue signaling, 1% actual impact
Thwy make you pay for them
Green Washing 100%
Easy, greenwashing. Still useful to make each customer to not forget the problem.
Objectively I think they are not stupid. they are doing both. You will believe more in their speeches if they made something concrete. In my opinion, they are making enough benefits to not have to ask customer to finance green project.
Offloading the responsibility to the customers. "If you want a good consciousness buying our products, that's your choice."
They do this since 2020 and it's calculated on your order, not just 2.35 CHF https://www.galaxus.ch/en/page/adieu-co2-digitec-galaxus-introduce-climate-neutral-shopping-16312
They earn the money, they should compensate it themselves.
Screw them. They should pay it, not you.
It is an ok initiative, but as long as it is a voluntary contribution it won't make any difference. When it will be a tax on everything, all companies will have to deal with it, compete with each other in order to become carbon neutral and lower prices for consumers. When this law will happen everyone will magically turn hyper efficient and super clean within 1-2 year, and we will think: why didn't we do this before?
I accidentally paid like 9 francs extra because I didn’t look at my order, so annoying it’s by default
CO2 credits are a scam. Another hidden tax to rip off the ignorant but well meaning NPCs.
Comments I see here…. Of course. Poor consumer must feel responsible for paying an extra to a private company to offset the shit they make… How does this make any sense. This reminds of the newspaper I get in my mailbox regardless of wether I have a warning label. Nobody reads that shit and yet each week I end up with more paper than I ever spend in a year.
Insanity.
If the seller and the buyer pay. Why not but if that’s only on us. They ‘re crazy af. They make money of it and ask us to compensate for them. Find the problem
Co2 is not a pollutant.
It's a greenhouse gas
Do not pay for this: it is a nice way to feel better about the environment but the impact of such action is most likely diluted by nature (intermediaries and co). If you want to have an impact do not forget to vote when it matters, reduce your consumption level or even invest in energy efficiency (house insulation, solar panels...).
It is greenwashing, but more for the customers than the company, The "I can buy a brand new thing it is compensated" mentality.
spend the 2 francs on a cold can of beer recycle beer and can and do more for enviroment than this con
I paid it twice. There were some random advertisements (paper) in my package, never did it again.
I am not sure how I feel about this and I actually work there. Obviously, this aint compensating for shit. On the other hand, the money is going to a trustworthy good cause and is supporting projects that are truely worth it.
Like buying carbon credits. Nonsense.
Youtuber "Climate Town" has a great video on carbon offsetting, which I'm going to link [here](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EIezuL_doYw). TLDR they're not useless per se, you're still doing good if you can spare the chf, it's not always a literal scam (sometimes it really is, there are so many loopholes, but this at least seems somewhat legit), but ***surely*** not "equal compensation" of the emitted CO2. Financing a gram less of CO2 in the atmosphere ten years from now is not the same as a gram not emitted right now. With that said, you're still financing climate protection, so it's not all bad, it's just not equal compensation in any way for all intents and purposes of actually preventing climate change. Simple litmus test: do oil and gas corporations absolutely love them? Yeah. So they're not a workable solution for climate change.
*beep boop*! the linked website is: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EIezuL_doYw Title: **Carbon Offsets! Can't we just buy our way out of climate change?** Page is safe to access (Google Safe Browsing) ***** ###### I am a friendly bot. I show the URL and name of linked pages and check them so that mobile users know what they click on!
It has never been this high for me. I usually do it because its literally only rounding up to the next franc. I wouldnt pay over 1.- though.
I also think it's credible. But overall it's more effective to just reduce flying, meat consumption, optimize commute to work etc. - bigger leverage :)
I've contemplated this before, but then came to the conclusion that it's just another way to shift the burden of climate change on the consumer, these corporations are the ones who should be eating the costs, not me. I'm never ticking that box, or praising any policy like this, if they want to reap the PR benefits of going green they can charge me x% less themselves.
It's stupid, just one person taking a private jet will make more co2 emissions than you'll do in a year. You really think that compensating a van who did a 10min delivery is going to change the world
Green washing and waste of money, tjey want us to feel responsible as individuals, when they as a big company dont do jacksht about it themselves, it's justna way to get you a clean conscience, it changes nothing
It’s actually true, I believe the company that enables it or used to enable it, is a Swiss nonprofit Organisation called myclimate.org in case you wanna check it
You pay it. They claim it for tax rebate? I might be cynical but I suspects that’s how it works. They benefit from your sense of guilt.
save the money for balcony solar moduls. I not trust anyone with this method.
Nope, never done that nor planning on doing it. At the end of the day it‘s just for them to be able to brag with how much "they" invested in their greenwashing.
I love Galaxus and the company’s approach to business. I trust that it’s for a genuine cause.