I've been pretty sceptical about carbon offsetting, particularly after learning about peak oil. I have flown a total of about 3500 miles this year and added just over a tonne of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. I've seen this primarily in terms on fossils fuels burnt, never to be available again but I have now thought I should do some sort of carbon offset.
There's an article (or an advertorial?) in the Guardian today which argues that it is worthwhile. The organisation, "Climate Care" have projects that, for example, get low-energy light bulbs in use in poorer countries. I guess that this would be good thing to support anyway, whether or not one has flown. In a poor country already suffering the effects of high oil prices, switching to more efficient devices should not cause a Jeavon's paradox problem (at and post the oil peak).
Carbon offsetting
Moderator: Peak Moderation
I use Climate Care as a 'better than nothing' option.
I have to use my car for work, no way around that at present. Also I am planning on getting some CDs pressed of my music, and I sometimes play through big PA rigs at parties. I try to persuade the party organisers to use biodiesel in the generators or similar, but sometimes it isn't possible. So I think that getting Climate Care to do something in the world is better than nothing, and putting their logo on flyers or CD covers is a kind of statement that at least I am thinking about it, although of course the best option is to use renewable energy wherever possible.
Or kill yourself of course - that's the ultimate solution to your carbon footprint, although I don't think it's very popular as an option, generally speaking.
I have to use my car for work, no way around that at present. Also I am planning on getting some CDs pressed of my music, and I sometimes play through big PA rigs at parties. I try to persuade the party organisers to use biodiesel in the generators or similar, but sometimes it isn't possible. So I think that getting Climate Care to do something in the world is better than nothing, and putting their logo on flyers or CD covers is a kind of statement that at least I am thinking about it, although of course the best option is to use renewable energy wherever possible.
Or kill yourself of course - that's the ultimate solution to your carbon footprint, although I don't think it's very popular as an option, generally speaking.
Andy Hunt
http://greencottage.burysolarclub.net
http://greencottage.burysolarclub.net
Eternal Sunshine wrote: I wouldn't want to worry you with the truth.
I voted sceptical.
Although I can see the efficacy of a genuine carbon offset scheme and also the morals and principles of people who do carbon offset.
However, I have never paid any money to these organisations for a variety of reasons. The first is the easiest to understand; my father is Scottish. Although he is the most generous of people, the legendary thriftiness must be in the sap and has skipped a generation. Therefore paying more than you have to? No
Secondly, I am all in favour of carbon reduction I can see it makes of sense for multifarious reasons. I have only one self administered rule when it comes to carbon reduction and that rule is that WE ALL reduce our carbons emissions. Being a dyed in the wool alpha male I cannot tolerate someone doing something better or bigger than me. Very egotistic I know, but I cannot see why I should live life in a environmentally sustainable way whilst the man down the road acts like a carbon criminal and undoes in a week what I have saved in a year.
This might sound hypocritical considering I have solar panels and a wood burning heating system, but to be honest, I installed these not for any environmental reasons, but for the alpha male reason of not relying on Putin to keep my family warm and clean and also the fact that energy will become expensive so as an alpha male I WILL decide how to spend my money, not the government or energy companies.
Thirdly, it really grates me the amount of buttock clenching verbal tripe that comes out of some of these schemes. I was flying from Liverpool to Antwerp ( four flights in a day and back home for dinner in Anglesey, how?s that for a climate criminal!) when I was approached by about 5 people trying to get me to sign up to carbon offsets. The first salesperson told me ? 4.17 would negate my flight from Liverpool to city of London airport. When I started challenging her about specifics a supervisor appeared out of nowhere and told her to not to engage with me as people were listening.
When the carbon trust advert appears on the telly saying saving the world equates to switching off the standby light it makes me even more determined not to give a penny to the carbon trust.
Whilst I?m on a role, I was listening to Radio 4?s Today programme a few weeks back when they got some silly cow (god knows who she was) who was saying that as a star she has to fly around the world doing shows but everyone else could make such a difference if they didn?t fly and took showers instead of baths.. ? My youngest daughter had to tell me to calm down as I was screaming at the radio like breakfaster possessed.
O, I?ve just remembered another great one from the carbon trust some dopey bint (model I think) saying inter alia ?
?? I?d rather be a role model, than a model??
It is this sort of stuff that makes me switch off the whole carbon offset thing.
I would much prefer some fairness when it came to carbon reduction, the TPTB could send some clear messages about carbon reduction. They will be painful but the public do want some clear guidance on this issue.
Could anyone give some good reasons why we as a family (1 alpha male 3 females) should not spend the money that I have saved on my utility bills on a shopping trip to New York?
Although I can see the efficacy of a genuine carbon offset scheme and also the morals and principles of people who do carbon offset.
However, I have never paid any money to these organisations for a variety of reasons. The first is the easiest to understand; my father is Scottish. Although he is the most generous of people, the legendary thriftiness must be in the sap and has skipped a generation. Therefore paying more than you have to? No
Secondly, I am all in favour of carbon reduction I can see it makes of sense for multifarious reasons. I have only one self administered rule when it comes to carbon reduction and that rule is that WE ALL reduce our carbons emissions. Being a dyed in the wool alpha male I cannot tolerate someone doing something better or bigger than me. Very egotistic I know, but I cannot see why I should live life in a environmentally sustainable way whilst the man down the road acts like a carbon criminal and undoes in a week what I have saved in a year.
This might sound hypocritical considering I have solar panels and a wood burning heating system, but to be honest, I installed these not for any environmental reasons, but for the alpha male reason of not relying on Putin to keep my family warm and clean and also the fact that energy will become expensive so as an alpha male I WILL decide how to spend my money, not the government or energy companies.
Thirdly, it really grates me the amount of buttock clenching verbal tripe that comes out of some of these schemes. I was flying from Liverpool to Antwerp ( four flights in a day and back home for dinner in Anglesey, how?s that for a climate criminal!) when I was approached by about 5 people trying to get me to sign up to carbon offsets. The first salesperson told me ? 4.17 would negate my flight from Liverpool to city of London airport. When I started challenging her about specifics a supervisor appeared out of nowhere and told her to not to engage with me as people were listening.
When the carbon trust advert appears on the telly saying saving the world equates to switching off the standby light it makes me even more determined not to give a penny to the carbon trust.
Whilst I?m on a role, I was listening to Radio 4?s Today programme a few weeks back when they got some silly cow (god knows who she was) who was saying that as a star she has to fly around the world doing shows but everyone else could make such a difference if they didn?t fly and took showers instead of baths.. ? My youngest daughter had to tell me to calm down as I was screaming at the radio like breakfaster possessed.
O, I?ve just remembered another great one from the carbon trust some dopey bint (model I think) saying inter alia ?
?? I?d rather be a role model, than a model??
It is this sort of stuff that makes me switch off the whole carbon offset thing.
I would much prefer some fairness when it came to carbon reduction, the TPTB could send some clear messages about carbon reduction. They will be painful but the public do want some clear guidance on this issue.
Could anyone give some good reasons why we as a family (1 alpha male 3 females) should not spend the money that I have saved on my utility bills on a shopping trip to New York?
-
J. R. Ewing
- Posts: 173
- Joined: 14 Mar 2007, 00:57
-
Eternal Sunshine
- Posts: 776
- Joined: 08 Aug 2007, 13:52
- Location: Preston, Lancashire
- Contact:
Carbon offsetting is just a convenient excuse for people to continue living their lives in the same way & keep guzzling oil, but unfortunatley it doesn't work.
Burning fossil fuels & releasing them into the atmosphere is permenant, whereas trees only store carbon temporarily, before it is releasd into the atmosphere again. Thinking that it's ok to plant a few trees is not going to stop the irriversible changes to the world's climate. The only way to stop what's happening is to stop using fossil fuels.
Quite apart from this, even the carbon offsetting companies can't agree how many trees need planting to offset the journeys we make. Also, most of the air travel is done by developed Northern hemisphere countries, but most of the tree planting is done in less developed countries. The plantations often displace local people in these areas, leaving them nowhere to scratch a living but allowing us to fly to Paris for ?29.
Also I read somewhere (probably the New Internationalist) that some of the plantations simply aren't maintained properly & most of the trees die not long after being planted. I think the article I read gave Coldplay's album as an example - they had a load of mango trees planted in India to offset the emmissions resulting from the making of the album. When someone looked into the scheme though, apparently only a few hundred trees had survived because there had been nobody to water them, etc. There was something about no one particular link in the chain from Coldplay themselves through to the offset company down to the local people who could be held responsible for the failures.
Rant over.
Burning fossil fuels & releasing them into the atmosphere is permenant, whereas trees only store carbon temporarily, before it is releasd into the atmosphere again. Thinking that it's ok to plant a few trees is not going to stop the irriversible changes to the world's climate. The only way to stop what's happening is to stop using fossil fuels.
Quite apart from this, even the carbon offsetting companies can't agree how many trees need planting to offset the journeys we make. Also, most of the air travel is done by developed Northern hemisphere countries, but most of the tree planting is done in less developed countries. The plantations often displace local people in these areas, leaving them nowhere to scratch a living but allowing us to fly to Paris for ?29.
Also I read somewhere (probably the New Internationalist) that some of the plantations simply aren't maintained properly & most of the trees die not long after being planted. I think the article I read gave Coldplay's album as an example - they had a load of mango trees planted in India to offset the emmissions resulting from the making of the album. When someone looked into the scheme though, apparently only a few hundred trees had survived because there had been nobody to water them, etc. There was something about no one particular link in the chain from Coldplay themselves through to the offset company down to the local people who could be held responsible for the failures.
Rant over.
I don't do "Carbon Offsetting" as such, but make investments into getting away from fossil fuels (e.g. Sustrans, Soil Association, Small Woods Association etc). I call it "fossil fuel offsetting" 
Olduvai Theory (Updated) (Reviewed)
Easter Island - a warning from history : http://dieoff.org/page145.htm
Easter Island - a warning from history : http://dieoff.org/page145.htm
-
Eternal Sunshine
- Posts: 776
- Joined: 08 Aug 2007, 13:52
- Location: Preston, Lancashire
- Contact:
Re: Carbon offsetting
Sending them mercury packed light bulbs now? Sounds just great.Adam1 wrote:The organisation, "Climate Care" have projects that, for example, get low-energy light bulbs in use in poorer countries.
I think it's worth it as it puts a value on carbon but only
> If it is seen as a short-medium term method to kickstart low carbon solutions.
> At a national level via legally binding targets.
As for personal carbon offsets, any assumption that the general public will voluntarily offset their carbon emissions is a non starter IMO and also perpetuates the false vision that ppl can continue with BAU and someone else will clean up the mess.
> If it is seen as a short-medium term method to kickstart low carbon solutions.
> At a national level via legally binding targets.
As for personal carbon offsets, any assumption that the general public will voluntarily offset their carbon emissions is a non starter IMO and also perpetuates the false vision that ppl can continue with BAU and someone else will clean up the mess.
The most complete exposition of a social myth comes when the myth itself is waning (Robert M MacIver 1947)
-
RenewableCandy
- Posts: 12780
- Joined: 12 Sep 2007, 12:13
- Location: York
I can't understand why they have to plant said trees in the 1/3 world, where (it is far more likely) they'll get hacked down by desperate people or run over in somebody's war. I can see why this needs doing for its own sake (they need the trees more than we do) but as part of a scheme whre you can say you've 'bought your way out', it would be more reliable to plant them in, say, Canada or Scotland.Also, most of the air travel is done by developed Northern hemisphere countries, but most of the tree planting is done in less developed countries.