The Middlebury College Nordic Ski Team is starting off the athletic season with a clear conscience. Well aware of how global warming could eliminate their sport altogether, the team is going green to protect the white stuff. After calculating their environmental footprint -- from the eco-costs of travel to the energy used to power coach Andrew Gardner's office -- the skiers decided to go climate neutral.
They've partnered with NativeEnergy, a Native-owned renewable energy company that will use the money from the skiers' offsets to support wind-driven local energy creation.
"NativeEnergy is proud to work with these athletes to help build new renewable energy projects that will help preserve the skiing experience we all enjoy," said NativeEnergy's Thomas Hand, who also happens to be a Middlebury alum and one of my favorite eco-dreamboats.
Update [2006-10-6 14:3:2 by Sarah van Schagen]: I just received an email from Thomas Hand (swoon!) letting me know that the Middlebury Alpine Ski Team has also gone carbon neutral. Here's to a great (eco-conscious) season!
Blowing the green whistle on sports
13 badass greens
Obama calls for cooperation on clean energy and green jobs in Mideast
Comments View as Flat
Bart Anderson Posted 11:22 am
04 Oct 2006
re-thinking sports & outdoor recreation
Good for the Middlebury College Nordic ski team!
Carbon offsets, for a variety of reasons, are not an optimium solution though.
For the next step, I wonder if we shouldn't be rethinking the way that we pursue our sports.
Competitions almost inevitably involve long-distance travel. Perhaps there is another way to engage in sports that is more local.
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 2:46 am
05 Oct 2006
that Albert Gore touch
N.B., inside the backcover of the book (as opposed to the general cultural phenomenon) titled "An Inconvenient Truth":
<<
This is the first book produced to offset 100% of the CO2 emissions generated from production activities with renewable energy. By supporting a new Native American wind farm and a new family farm methane energy project through NativeEnergy, this publication is carbon neutral. For more information, and to offset your own carbon footprint, visit www.nativeenergy.com.
>>
Given that there are now a number of carbon-offset options available, with a goodly menu of options on where the money is going, my guess is Al Gore may have influenced these Frodo-ish fellows, "hoping without hope," expecting death and finality, and not majorly caring if their doomed sport does not provide them with hunkifying gear. (Unlike, say, lacrosse.) (Sarah may very well have a different opinion on the last point.)
I am very interested in Bart's comment, on whether carbon offsets will really be optimally effective. I have asked questions about them in the past, and continue to have difficulty seeing how effective equivalencies of carbon expenditure and carbon offset can be reckoned.
On sports: Excellent subject, Sarah and Bart. All frivolous driving is unethical. Student-athletes traveling to distant athletic events are contributing to pollution and to depletion of the petroleum supply and to GHG emissions. There are lots and lots of buses and other vehicles carrying such student-athletes all the time.
Well, OK, let me put it this way: Whether such driving should be considered frivolous and unethical (I say, Yes it should), is, alas, a rather unfrequently visited front in the US's much lamented Culture Wars.
And then, as though that were not enough -- nay, I am just getting started -- , there is NASCAR, which I happen to think is truly evil, not least because it is so generally (in some regions at least), and very mindlessly, considered not only tolerable, but actually normal, and even positively good. Its destructiveness, linked with the mindlessness of its participants and fans, is what makes it an especially grave example of evil. NASCAR should be blotted from the face of the Earth.
Chickens are our cousins! So are other sensitive animals! Enough is enough! No more factory farms!
Permalink
kmp Posted 3:37 am
05 Oct 2006
Frivolous?
Dear Canis,
Don't you think this is just a wee bit harsh? What exactly is "frivolous driving" anyway? I can see that driving your car 6 blocks to the store is clearly unnecessary (but maybe not if you needed to carry home something from said store that was large, bulky, heavy, etc). Was it frivolous that I drove 4 hours (roundtrip) last weekend to attend a friend's wedding? Or perhaps it is frivolous that I routinely make the 2-hr roundtrip to New Paltz to go rock climbing or hiking?
But what if the rock climbing & hiking were the very things that inspired my love of nature and my passion to protect it? Does that make my driving for those things somehow less frivolous? I suppose there is no way that my trip to Puerta Vuellarta in February, to surf for a week, could be considered anything but frivolous.
Does it matter that I have TerraPass for my car, and that I offset all my plane travel? But even if I didn't do these things, would it still be unethical for me to travel to do the things that I love to do? After all, what is life without a little frivolity?
Kaela
Permalink
willa Posted 3:54 am
05 Oct 2006
NASCAR
Geez, Caniscandida, talk about cultural insensitivity (to cross threads)! You got something against hicks? :)
But in seriousness, yes, NASCAR is an incomprehensible and totally unnecessary thing in the world, and I'm not sure why we have to have it. The best answer I've come up with is, at least it stops people from being horse- and dog-racing fans, since those sports not only use petroleum products (not as much as NASCAR, but the critters have to get shipped from one track to the next, etc) but also lead to vast and largely under-the-radar animal abuse. I'd just as soon we not have either NASCAR or horse racing (or ski racing, for that matter--I was on an alpine ski team for ten years, and it's about the dumbest sport imaginable, in retrospect), but people are unimaginative and must be entertained, so what are you gonna do?
As for hicks--don't tell Umbra, but my Prius is parked right next to the 1969 Ford truck I use to pull my horse trailer for the infrequent occasions when I need to trailer horses somewhere. One of said horses was my partner in crime when, many years ago, we won a big engraved belt buckle in a 4-H show series. I grew up a mile from the paved road, so I can say what I want about hicks. :)
Permalink
milosonthemoon Posted 4:42 am
05 Oct 2006
Offset what exactly?
Can someone explain how exactly investing in renewable energy projects constitutes an offset?
If it's just investing in new wind power projects, say, then it's NOT offsetting the club's emissions, just helping them feel better about flying around the place skiing.
To be an offset there has to be some verifiable reduction in emissions - a demonstrable emission that would otherwise have taken place.
So does each Native Energy MWh replace a unit of coal electricity or wot?
Milo
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 4:53 am
05 Oct 2006
Americans and their cars, etc.
Dear Kaela,
oh gosh, I have no doubt you are the most carbon-wise responsible person sitting behind the wheel of a car anywhere. There is absolutely nothing that I would call "frivolous" about the examples of travel that you mention, and I am puzzled that you thought I might call them that. I was just amusing myself by stylistically channeling Peter Singer and Jason Scorse.
But I am serious too, even if I am not ready to give a perfect legislationese definition to "frivolity." Recreation, such as fun and games and travel to distant places, is an important part of what many people -- many American people, certainly -- include in their conceptions of what makes for a "good life." (I read a quote recently, by a South American I think, to the effect of, "Americans are an oppressed people, living under the tyranny of the idea that they ought to be happy.") And recreation involving travel will probably result in the consumption of some energy source.
What I mostly have in mind, when I condemn frivolous driving, is that arrogant, thoughtless American sense of entitlement, that we should be able to travel wherever we please, for whatever reason, with no sense whatsoever that all travel has an environmental/ethical cost; and that, by contrast, if we were denied such utterly unchecked pleasure and facility, we would feel personally awfully affronted.
How in the world could you ever think I might be willing to condemn your traveling to a friend's wedding, or your traveling to go rock-climbing or hiking?
I observe, though, that, regarding your routine rock-climbing and hiking, you bring up how those activities inspire your love of nature. That is an important consideration, and it is helpful in coming up with a definition of "frivolity." What should we say about the experience of many Americans who, like you, travel to natural or naturalish settings, but unlike you do not go to climb rocks or hike? Instead they go forth, consuming yet more carbon by bopping around in snow-mobiles or on jet-skis. Wholesome recreation? My immediate reaction is, this sort of activity is most definitely frivolous. It is environmentally destructive in a number of ways. And whatever pleasure these Americans are deriving from this activity is often enough based in their own self-regard, which in turn is based in their consumerism, their materialism, their sensationalism, and their society-encouraged competitiveness. But suppose there are some who, snow-mobiling in Yellowstone or jet-skiing in Chesapeake Bay, contend afterwards that this experience inspired them with a love of nature. Is that an ethical "offset" of whatever environmental damage they may have done?
I am not asking that question rhetorically, and I do not claim to know the answer, and I am most certainly not challenging you, whom, you should know very well by now, I greatly respect. I am just trying to think through this one part of how Americans habitually, mindlessly, have become the hugest consumers of energy and the hugest emitters of GHG in the world.
Chickens are our cousins! So are other sensitive animals! Enough is enough! No more factory farms!
Permalink
kmp Posted 5:57 am
05 Oct 2006
Don't worry,
Canis, I still love you!
I take the word "unethical" very seriously, so I guess it just touched a nerve. And maybe (just maybe) I have some residual guilt about my driving habits, even though I do try my hardest to be as responsible as possible. I guess I just have to take a page from Al's book and make sure to offset all the travel I can't, or don't wish to, avoid.
As for American entitlement, you said a mouthful. I condemn the most the people who are actually aware of the damage they do, yet argue to protect their "God-given American right to guzzle gas." (Yes, this is an actual quote). I condemn basic laziness in most of it's incarnations; not curling up on the couch with a good book on a Sunday afternoon - that is not lazy, that is relaxy - yet driving as a matter of course instead of walking, biking, etc., electric knives and can-openers and bread machines (really, is there anything more satifsfying than kneading bread dough by hand?), living off of frozen dinners because you are too lazy to shop for food and learn to cook. These things make me crazy.
As for people who drive to beautiful nature spots - sigh. I am of two minds. One side of me can't stand it; can't stand the roads they build in these beautiful areas, so that people can drive their honking vehicles in. Can't stand the noise, the litter, the screaming children, the ice-cream stands. Can't stand the fact that wildlife are driven away, and can't stand the fact that I sweated & suffered for 4 hours to get someplace that is filled with overweight American tourists. Hence, I usually avoid these types of spots. There is still plenty of wilderness for the adventurous, plenty of spots that your run-of-the-mill "nature lover" will never see. My other mind is purely practical; I know that far, far many more people drive to the top of Mt. Washington every year than hike there. Yet the people who drive there are spending money in the gift shop, buying photographs, buying bumper stickers and T-shirts.. and essentially keeping the weather observatory functioning and donating money to the Park. That money benefits the whole Presidential Range, of which I can choose many less popular peaks to explore.. but I might not have that opportunity if people were not able to drive to the top of Mt. Washington and spend their money there. It's a bit of a double-edged sword, no?
As for the ATV, ski-doo, snowmobile crowd... I have to admit I hate those things. Loud, belching vile fumes, driving away all the birds & wildlife - they completely ruin the outdoor experience for me. I'm all about human-powered outdoor entertainment. But one day, probably last Spring, I was up in the Hudson Highlands, mountain biking. There we crossed paths a couple of times with a (presumably) father & son, riding ATVs. The boy was maybe about 10 years old, the father, I would guess early 40's. They were exceedingly polite, always pulling over to let us pass, nodding hello each time, going fairly slowly on the trails, not a lot of engine-revving, etc. The boy's face contained a heart-breaking mixture of pride, fear, and joy.. the father's a similar mixture of pride in his son, watchfulness over his handling of the bike and pleasure at being able to share this with him. Like everything else, once you put a human face on a thing, it is hard to stereotype, and hard to hate. Now, when I hear ATVs back in the woods, and it instantly gets my hackles up, I try to remember the father and son. If everyone were to enjoy the woods as responsibly as they did, I think there would be room for all of us.
Permalink
Tom Stoddard Posted 6:20 am
05 Oct 2006
Offset what exactly
Hi - NativeEnergy here. "Investing" really isn't the right word, and we try to discourage our customers from describing what they do that way. Investing really means buying an ownership interest in an income producing asset with the hope of earning money on the investment. That's not what our customers do.
Our customers buy a commodity produced by the wind farms - called renewable energy credits, or green tags - which represent the rights to claim the environmental attributes of the power generated by the wind farm (which is then treated on the grid as "generic" or "null" power). Among those attributes are the reductions in CO2 emissions that result when the power is put on the grid. The grid can't have more power going in than is being used at the time, so when the wind blows, the grid operators turn down other generators (fossil generators) to compensate for the wind power. That reduces CO2, in quantifiable amounts, based on public data (google EGRID). If you want to learn how we estimate the amount of CO2 reduced per kWh, paste this URL into your browser http://www.nativeenergy.com/popup-windbuilders-emissions.....
On another point, Milo is dead on raising the issue of "would not have happened otherwise." That's the issue of "additionality." To produce bona fide offsets, the project must have been undertaken to reduce CO2 emissions, and must have faced a barrier to its implementation that was overcome by the prospect of receiving revenues for the offsets (or the green tags).
We go beyond that. We work with projects for which the "prospect" of CO2/tag revenues is not enough, and our agreement to buy their life-of-project green tags up front is what gets them over the hump. By buying shares of that long-term output, our customers collectively help bring a new project into being. "Additionality" becomes "causality."
Permalink