Comments View as Flat

1. 

   Biodiversivist Posted 10:00 am
   24 Oct 2006

   Wait a minute,

   Trees are a risky form of offset, so risky indeed that forest projects are not allowed in the European Union Emissions Trading Scheme. Investments should be in renewable energy and energy efficiency, with additional social benefits where possible.

   Unless you can pay owners to protect their trees instead of burn them.

   In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Help acquire and protect ecological hotspots, give to a conservation organization: www.saveourbiodiversity.com

   Permalink

2. 

   Biodiversivist Posted 10:08 am
   24 Oct 2006

   and then there is this...

   http://grist.org/news/daily/2006/10/24/5/

   In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Help acquire and protect ecological hotspots, give to a conservation organization: www.saveourbiodiversity.com

   Permalink

3. 

   geosynchronous Posted 6:35 am
   25 Oct 2006

   But the point stands...

   Madden is right though: forestry-related offsets are considered relatively risky because someone may decide to come along and burn them down, because they are subject to wildfire, disease, and effects of climate change, and because they can often turn into monocrop plantation nightmares that offer marginal carbon benefits, but without much to benefit local people or habitat.

   Paying someone not to burn trees is possible, but a difficult way to market improvements, and sounds a lots like extortion ("give me all your money or I'll set this forest on fire!").  Not too popular.  A government could potentially make this kind of payment to its own people to maintain forest stocks counted in its national GHG inventory, but it's unlikey that there would be much in the way of fungible offsets generated by paying someone not to burn down a forest.

   Permalink

4. 

   Biodiversivist Posted 7:28 am
   25 Oct 2006

   So far, I'm not very impressed with Europe.

   I think it is almost comical that they didn't foresee the fact that people would burn down their rainforests to grow biofuels for them. Not real smart, not real smart at all. Monbiot also saw this biofuel nightmare coming.

   Extortion? If someone were willing to pay me for every year my forest remained intact, I would go out of my way to make sure it stayed that way. Letting it burn down would cost me my income. My job would become protecting the rainforest.

   Maybe they should rethink their rules yet again. Europe is already starting to burn biodiesel made from palm oil. Malaysia has already run out of land to grow more.

   The sustainably grown palm oil concept won't work. You need land to make more palm oil. It hasn't worked for the food industry, and it sure won't work when cars start eating a hundred times as much oil. Look at the numbers. Preventing the destruction of rainforest carbon sinks would dwarf renewable energy schemes.

   The rainforests being burned today to make room for more palm oil are in large part the result of Europe's demand for cheap biodiesel. It isn't a hypothetical situation anymore. It is now real and getting worse every single day.
   

   In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Help acquire and protect ecological hotspots, give to a conservation organization: www.saveourbiodiversity.com

   Permalink

5. 

   MSully Posted 9:57 am
   25 Oct 2006

   good Quality carbon offsets work

   Again,

   Carbon offsets are not a way for you to atone for your sins of using fossil-derived energy, for the guilt you feel for driving an SUV (poorly) or sleeping with the stereo on all night, the heat cranked, and the window open in Oregon in February.

   YES, if you are serious about addressing your impact then you should either move to another planet (or country) or modify your lifestyle as much as you can to reduce-reduce-reduce your eco-footprint as much as you can, and then (and only then) offset the CO2 from the energy you have to use.  C'mon, PEOPLE, that's the message that we need to get out there!

   No one (on this site) would advocate we close all the hospitals and schools and stop producing food and medicine and other stuff - but we can begin to transition toward more sustainabile practices, use energy in more efficient ways, and promote new renewable energy projects, like I do with Native Energy to offset my home and my car.  

   Of course, TREES ARE ALWAYS a great idea - just not as a means of tackling the global heating crisis.  That's temporary sequestration, not elimination of the problem - duh!   Trees don't last; they all eventually get harvested or burn, decay, and release their stored carbon into the atmosphere - they are supposed to because they are part of the ecosystem.  The solution to the problem we contribute to remains: we have to stop introducing carbon into the terrestrial ecocycle.    
                And, the only way to do that is to reduce our fossil fuel consumption - and overall resource consumption -- and work to change our sources of energy - to wind, solar, tidal, wave, biomass, geothermal, ch&p, etc.

   High quality carbon offsets are a good first step because they can actually help to push fossil fuel-derived energy off the grid, thus reducing the carbon emissions without reducing energy.  When you combine new renewable energy projects with efficiencies you've got a dramatically reduced carbon footprint, which is a step in the right direction.  Yes, it works that way!

   Again, make your eco-footprint smaller and smaller, and then offset the rest.  And stop planting trees and calling it offsetting your energy impact!!  Plant trees and call it the right thing to do for reforestation, eco-resotration, etc.

   - m.sully
   

   quitcher bitchin'

   Permalink

6. 

   Newsquoter Posted 12:23 am
   27 Oct 2006

   We need to cut emissions, not just offset....

   Frank Ackerman of the Global Development And Environment Institute says we we have to start turning off greenhouse gas emissions now:
   http://www.newsquoter.com/ViewQuote.aspx?QuoteId=353

   Permalink