For example, could alternative terms like “carbon reducing” and “carbon increasing” make it more clear and avoid misinterpreting which means which?

  • w00@feddit.de
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    17
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    I don’t get where you think those terms are confusing.

    • OwenEverbinde@lemmy.myserv.one
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      1 year ago

      Not OP, but I imagine “carbon negative” sounds negative because it has the word “negative” in it.

      When it fact “carbon negative” means you’re reducing carbon, which is generally regarded as a positive thing.

    • OptimusPhillip@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      It sounds like OP has heard people say “carbon negative” to mean that something outputs more CO2 than it consumes, and vice versa, which is contrary to how I hear the terms used.

    • ddh@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      “Our approach to carbon is negative for the planet”

      Though I agree it’s not really used in this way.