> When you switched from burning lignin to solar, you reduced your carbon usage. However, what happened to the lignin that you stopped using?
In my scenario, CarbonCruncher bought the lignin I stopped using and made a road out of it. Crucially, in doing so they claim to have a negative carbon impact because they'd trapped that carbon in the ground. But I already claimed that impact when I stopped buying and burning it myself and switched to a zero-emission energy source.
So my (genuine) question remains: we can't _both_ claim the benefit, so who's right?
In my scenario, CarbonCruncher bought the lignin I stopped using and made a road out of it. Crucially, in doing so they claim to have a negative carbon impact because they'd trapped that carbon in the ground. But I already claimed that impact when I stopped buying and burning it myself and switched to a zero-emission energy source.
So my (genuine) question remains: we can't _both_ claim the benefit, so who's right?