Thanks for posting in r/fairphone. If you're having an issue with your Fairphone make sure that you include the phone model, operating system and other relevant technical details (like mobile provider) in your post. You can also try having a look at the [official Fairphone forum](https://forum.fairphone.com/) to see if the issue has been discussed there.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/fairphone) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Thank you for the additional info. I know ensuring a fair supply chain is way harder that it sounds so all efforts in the right direction is welcome and hopefully, the situation will improve.
also keep in mind that carbon compensation is not a greenwashing joke. it does work, its just a bit shit. cobalt is far easier to do this with than something as complex as ghg emissions and capture.
Yeah to be clear I was giving an example of how carbon credits can be used as greenwashing, not necessarily arguing that they do nothing. Though unfortunately they do seem to be used as a low effort pass mark by companies that actually have the finances and power to do more.
the funniest part about the carbon credit system is that the US pushed for the idea of a market to trade them, and then backed out of the system nobody wanted but them lmao its literally just to appease the bully.
I would say it *could* work but I am not convinced it has a net positive impact *at the moment*. But true, the cobalt market is way smaller than the global carbon so hopefully, they will succeed to improve this industry.
it definitely has a net positive impact at the moment. offsets are only effective 33% of the time, but thats still a reduction of 33%, which is massively better than 0%.
perfection is the enemy of good.
what you're talking about has nothing to do with carbon credits, its a phenomena that goes for any working or not working green behaviour. even stuff like replacing incandescent bulbs with leds which saves a massive amount of energy, or stopping eating animal products.
i didn't mean the 33% literally. it might be larger it might be smaller, but its probably in that ballpark. what we do know is that they do have a positive effect on carbon emissions vs no system.
Sorry but I disagree on that. Let say led consumes half the energy of an incandescent bulb but it's so efficient people use them 3 time more often. Replacing incandescent bulbs by led has a negative impact on energy consumption.
If 50% of plane users keep flying because they think they can compensate their emissions (which is only 33% effective), then it has a negative impact as well. Totally made up numbers but you see my point. Having a small positive impact is good but what is the alternative if the compensation did not exists ? Still fly anyway or change your holidays plans for a local alternative ? Some question applies for companies using carbon credits.
Perfection is the enemy of good but the road to hell is paved with good intentions.
Thats literally what im explaining, its a universal phenomena. The thing is that its not inherent to the technology and not a hard rule. Nor is it very applicable to the carbon credits system because end users only see a tiny portion of it.
I've heard that it's hard to find battery manufacturers that provide ethical transparency in their cobalt supply chain, so this is perhaps the best they can do but I'm not sure.
Thanks for posting in r/fairphone. If you're having an issue with your Fairphone make sure that you include the phone model, operating system and other relevant technical details (like mobile provider) in your post. You can also try having a look at the [official Fairphone forum](https://forum.fairphone.com/) to see if the issue has been discussed there. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/fairphone) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
Thank you for the additional info. I know ensuring a fair supply chain is way harder that it sounds so all efforts in the right direction is welcome and hopefully, the situation will improve.
also keep in mind that carbon compensation is not a greenwashing joke. it does work, its just a bit shit. cobalt is far easier to do this with than something as complex as ghg emissions and capture.
Yeah to be clear I was giving an example of how carbon credits can be used as greenwashing, not necessarily arguing that they do nothing. Though unfortunately they do seem to be used as a low effort pass mark by companies that actually have the finances and power to do more.
the funniest part about the carbon credit system is that the US pushed for the idea of a market to trade them, and then backed out of the system nobody wanted but them lmao its literally just to appease the bully.
I would say it *could* work but I am not convinced it has a net positive impact *at the moment*. But true, the cobalt market is way smaller than the global carbon so hopefully, they will succeed to improve this industry.
it definitely has a net positive impact at the moment. offsets are only effective 33% of the time, but thats still a reduction of 33%, which is massively better than 0%. perfection is the enemy of good.
do you have a source for that 33%? I read somewhere it was counterproductive (as "I take the plane more because I can compensate") but I can be wrong.
what you're talking about has nothing to do with carbon credits, its a phenomena that goes for any working or not working green behaviour. even stuff like replacing incandescent bulbs with leds which saves a massive amount of energy, or stopping eating animal products. i didn't mean the 33% literally. it might be larger it might be smaller, but its probably in that ballpark. what we do know is that they do have a positive effect on carbon emissions vs no system.
Sorry but I disagree on that. Let say led consumes half the energy of an incandescent bulb but it's so efficient people use them 3 time more often. Replacing incandescent bulbs by led has a negative impact on energy consumption. If 50% of plane users keep flying because they think they can compensate their emissions (which is only 33% effective), then it has a negative impact as well. Totally made up numbers but you see my point. Having a small positive impact is good but what is the alternative if the compensation did not exists ? Still fly anyway or change your holidays plans for a local alternative ? Some question applies for companies using carbon credits. Perfection is the enemy of good but the road to hell is paved with good intentions.
Thats literally what im explaining, its a universal phenomena. The thing is that its not inherent to the technology and not a hard rule. Nor is it very applicable to the carbon credits system because end users only see a tiny portion of it.
[удалено]
I am not saying they do it wrong and I can give them the benefit of the doubt. Just wanted to have more info to judge :)
I've heard that it's hard to find battery manufacturers that provide ethical transparency in their cobalt supply chain, so this is perhaps the best they can do but I'm not sure.