[editor's note, by David Roberts] Important update to this post here.
It turns out that Climate Care, a major indulgence offset provider, is paying farmers in India to pump water with treadles rather than diesel pumps in order to offset plane flights.
I would hope that supporters of offsets would be as quick as opponents to see what is wrong with this. In case someone is reading this before their morning coffee, I will simply point out that it is one thing for rich, overweight Americans to substitute manual labor for energy use, and another for a poor Indian farmer who already has plenty of manual labor in his life to do so. It is paying poor people to suffer to offset plane rides for the rich.
Incidentally, comparing offsets to indulgences is an analogy. It is not something you prove, or don't. It is an assertion that one thing resembles another -- and we certainly have had some cases lately that resemble the medieval practice.
The comparison is not a meme that originated in a single place and spread. It seems to spontaneously occur to a large number of people the first time they hear about the idea of offsets. "Paying poor people to save carbon so you don't" just doesn't sound like a good thing.
David argued in "Indulgences redux" that a survey by TerraPass showing that the majority of purchasers of offsets are good, green people settles once and for all that there is no validity in the indulgence metaphor./p>
To start with, the survey was conducted online; it was a self-selected sample. Basic statistics guidelines require that for a survey to be valid, it must be based on a random sample. Self-selected samples are by their nature biased. The conclusions don't sound particularly unlikely, but the survey adds no meaningful data on that question.
The assumption that the indulgences analogy refers to the purchase of offsets by insensitive gas guzzlers misunderstands how indulgences work. If you look at stories featuring indulgences (Chaucer, for example) or cautioning against the practice, you will find that most indulgences were not bought as a permission to commit sins. Generally, an indulgence peddler would come and scare people about how their dead relatives were suffering in purgatory. Granny might be boiling in a pot of melted lead at this very minute! Your poor, dead brother may be roasting on a spit! Donate to the church, shorten their time of penance, and hasten their ascension to eternal bliss.
Offsets are possible only as long as the world puts only minor efforts into fighting climate change. If we seek serious emissions reductions, there are not enough potential emissions cuts in the entire developing world for the rich nations to avoid making major reductions as well. A real effort will require big enough changes from everyone that there simply won't be sufficient offsets to make a major difference -- unless, of course, we create a lot of paper offsets without real additionality. That's why it's so important that additionality is hard to document, and that a huge number of counterfeit credits are circulating within both the CDM system and the voluntary markets.
[Update]There is a bit of hypocrisy in my including the poll below. Can you spot it? Please feel free to take the poll anyway.
Sorry, the poll you are seeking no longer exists. If you’re in a voting mood, suggest a poll and you might just see it on the site.
Kerry-Boxer muddies handling of international offsets
Ask Umbra on climate weapons
Ask Umbra on offsetting work trips
Comments
View as Flat
Adam Stein Posted 3:03 pm
04 Sep 2007
Indian farmers are too stupid to decide whether they want to swap treadle pumps for diesel ones.
Survey results I don't like are invalid. Did I mention that offsets are a way for overweight Americans to enslave the world's poor? I'm not indulging in cheap moralism. Honest.
www.terrapass.com/blog
Permalink
Billhook Posted 7:17 pm
04 Sep 2007
I'd actively encourage fraudulent "Offsets"
not merely to allow airhead celebs and their devotees
to do nothing troublesome while having a concerned appearance,
but also for the degree of disempowering disillusionment caused
by the entirely predictable exposure of the offsets' fraudulence.
I think Gar that you address the minor point with regard to the treadle v diesel pump nonsense.
The treadle not only lands the work on the farmer (or more likely on his children)
it also lands that volume of diesel back on the market
where the next bidder will buy and then burn it.
Thus there is no reduction at all of fossil fuel usage.
This is fraud, - obtaining moneys by false pretences - pure and simple.
So when are our supposed saviours, the environmental NGOs,
going to bring a case against this growing class of fraudster ?
Or are they too close to the perpetrators to do so ?
Regards,
Bill
Permalink
odograph Posted 9:51 pm
04 Sep 2007
"Hardly anyone is doing anything about global warming, so lets fight those who are (as imperfect and incomplete)!"
Permalink
farnishk Posted 10:39 pm
04 Sep 2007
It's dead easy to cut your emissions by 10% - I did this weekend by installing another layer of loft insulation in my roof, but then my emissions are pretty small to start with - it's another matter entirely to cut an entire economy's emissions by the necessary 80-90%. That kind of cut requires systemic change, and that is what governments and their buddy corporations are really scared of.
Gar is spot on. Offsets are great if your emissions are already tiny and there is really nothing more you can do. Offsets are a pile of c*** if they allow the system that created this mess to carry on as it is.
Keith Farnish
www.theearthblog.org
Permalink
odograph Posted 10:44 pm
04 Sep 2007
They seem to know that attacking action is a way to forestall action, to dis-empower the players.
As far as I'm concerned, if you want concerted national (or international) action, carbon taxes or limits ... freakin' go for that.
Don't stand around and fret that someone just kicked in $100 to a carbon fund.
Permalink
Billhook Posted 12:02 am
05 Sep 2007
you appear to miss the point -
Offsets are a growing fraction of global efforts -
see : http://www.reuters.com/article/environmentNews/idUSSYD901920070905
for Reuters' account of Asia-Pacific Businesses' Call for Carbon Pricing -
Thus the present ludicrous offset scams and outright frauds undermine the efficacy of what is, potentially, a vital component of global GW policy.
Thus it is entirely necessary to critique the present fraudulent offsets -
since they may, if not controlled, cause such public disillusionment as to erode both popular and business efforts for change.
As for your $100 dollars, if you haven't already kissed it goodbye,
I'd be careful to find a project that will use it to sequester some tonnes of carbon
at least for millenia, and that will do so this year, not 60 years hence.
Regards,
Bill
Permalink
odograph Posted 12:08 am
05 Sep 2007
You conflate two things and tell me I'm missing the point?
Permalink
Billhook Posted 12:21 am
05 Sep 2007
I don't however confuse the two - I was responding in light of Gar's final remark that :
"That's why it's so important that additionality is hard to document, and that a huge number of counterfeit credits are circulating within both the CDM system and the voluntary markets."
So yes, in rejecting the need to critique dishonest/incompetent offsets, I think, with respect, that you appear to miss the point.
Regards,
Bill
Permalink
odograph Posted 12:37 am
05 Sep 2007
At this point voluntary offsets are a way for civilians to do something positive at minimal cost. You say that I should make sure my $100 will "sequester some tonnes of carbon at least for millenia"
Well, guess what? Median household income in this country is $48,201 (in 2006). For a voluntary contribution, essentially a charitable donation, of 100/48201 * 100 = 0.2% of funds you want "millenia?"
That is a distraction. What you should be arguing, and what I think most offsetters would agree with you arguing, is how you achieve a functional system for worldwide greenhouse gas regulation.
Permalink
odograph Posted 12:50 am
05 Sep 2007
We are probably screwed because the vast majority of the population considers $100 too much, let alone the cost of a real comprehensive (and mandated system).
But go ahead, blame the people who kicked in $100 for that too.
Permalink
mkayser Posted 1:08 am
05 Sep 2007
It seem to me that the business model only "works" for as long as potential abaters don't think about (i.e. don't try to exploit) the existence of the Terrapass-like company.
Suppose in 5 years, everyone has perfect knowledge of Terrapass (and Climate Care, etc.) and suppose everyone is perfectly rational. A rational person in a developing country would plan on doing things that are a little more polluting so they could collect on offset credits once they abate. That is only the logical thing to do.
How could Terrapass ever possibly detect when people are just playing this game with them? Let me ask a darker question: what incentive does a company like Climate Care/Terrapass have to even care whether an abater is playing this game with them? They make money either way, no? (This would be extra bad, if the offset brokers don't even care, but it's still bad if they do care but can't verify anything).
If you think about the incentives, it seems to me that additionality becomes impossible to verify. Greedy rational actors will account for the existence of offsets, and try to exploit them. The net effect will be an inadvertent subsidy of wastefulness. The net impact on emissions may be zero, or worse.
Permalink
mkayser Posted 1:28 am
05 Sep 2007
...it also lands that volume of diesel back on the market
where the next bidder will buy and then burn it.
Thus there is no reduction at all of fossil fuel usage.
We need to look at the supply and demand curve to know the effect of one person's abatement. A person abating is like a shift in the demand curve-- the quantity demanded at any given price is lower by let's say 1 unit. But this is not the same thing as a reduction in the equilibrium quantity consumed by 1 unit.
Do this on a piece of paper: draw a supply curve with a slope of 1. Draw a demand curve with a slope of -1. Note where they intersect. Now shift the demand curve leftward by 1 unit. See the new intersection point? That is not a reduction of 1 unit consumed.
Now, this logic applies both to the rich potential abater (who is just going to be "lazy" and buy an offset) and the poor abater (who receives money for abating). So the real issue is, we should perhaps pursue demand reduction where it will most strongly affect equilibrium consumption.
Permalink
mkayser Posted 1:42 am
05 Sep 2007
Permalink
odograph Posted 2:01 am
05 Sep 2007
Pfft.
Environmentalists who turn to fight voluntary offsets in an environment like this are like dogs who turn from the hunt to chase their tails.
This is really about what you do (or if you can do anything) to bring those people on-board.
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 2:05 am
05 Sep 2007
Thats still only "nuetral".
And nuetral isn't enough.
Especially when you have leakage/fungibility, and people/companies/countries not in the system.
It's almost like we'd be better off creating a better oversight system first, and then merely instituting a carbon tax domestically, and a carbon tariff abroad.
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 2:06 am
05 Sep 2007
Permalink
Gar Lipow Posted 2:41 am
05 Sep 2007
I'm not criticizing the people who buy the offsets. I'm criticizing the offset providers for spending charitable donations on making the lives of poor people worse.
Permalink
Matt G Posted 3:00 am
05 Sep 2007
Permalink
Gar Lipow Posted 3:13 am
05 Sep 2007
Permalink
odograph Posted 3:18 am
05 Sep 2007
Permalink
Gar Lipow Posted 3:39 am
05 Sep 2007
As I said :
I would hope that supporters of offsets would be as quick as opponents to see what is wrong with this. I
Note that I put more general arguments below the fold: the paragraphs that most readers will see focused on the specific case.
I was really surprised when Adam Stein mounted a defense of this particular offset, rather than sensibly admitting that this was a bad offset, and then opposing my general critique.
If you delve into the linked Times article you will also see that there are also serious questions about additionality in this particular case.
Permalink
wackatalpidae Posted 3:43 am
05 Sep 2007
at least the children working in sweat shops can buy food
at least the abused prostitutes can by food
at least the poisoned villagers melting down computers for scrap metal can buy food
at least the miners crushed by tons of rock so we can have coal or diamonds were once able to buy food
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 3:44 am
05 Sep 2007
It is important because weak environmentalism undermines the entire effort, providing ammunition for critics. We have to place a higher standard on our own.
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world
Permalink
wackatalpidae Posted 3:45 am
05 Sep 2007
it does not matter whether you really accomplish something
Permalink
odograph Posted 3:52 am
05 Sep 2007
Permalink
justlou Posted 4:12 am
05 Sep 2007
And all this of course assumes that there will remain enough water to pump.
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 4:13 am
05 Sep 2007
Forward!
Permalink
eriqa Posted 4:15 am
05 Sep 2007
Ah well.
Permalink
odograph Posted 4:16 am
05 Sep 2007
And if you think attacking me first is going to solve the world's problems, you don't quite understand the nature of the problem, or the nature of that other 99% of industrial consumers out there.
Permalink
odograph Posted 4:19 am
05 Sep 2007
Yer nuts. The problem is how to move the center, not to worry that people already far on the reduced footprint side of the curve might not be quite perfect enough.
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 4:22 am
05 Sep 2007
And someone who does LESS than 12K miles in the most energy-efficient SUV they could find is the least of YOUR worries.
If you think attacking them is going to solve the world's problems, you don't quite understand the nature of the problem, or the nature of the other 99% of consumers out there.
Forward!
Permalink
Adam Stein Posted 4:29 am
05 Sep 2007
It strikes me as a bit shameful to put words in the mouths of Indian farmers in the service of your pet issue, but, hey, if it allows you to compare offsets to kidney farming, what's the harm? "What about the children?" style arguments are Gar's stock in trade. Remember when offsets were responsible for Apartheid-era environmental injustices? How about when offsets were responsible for
destroying the Galapagos? Or when offsets were beating and shooting Ugandans? Those were good times...
www.terrapass.com/blog
Permalink
odograph Posted 4:30 am
05 Sep 2007
I did not say the "weak environmentalism" of public transportation riders was blocking real solutions.
I said, that you all are chasing your tails by focusing on people already doing a little to help ... as the world runs buy unconvinced that any sacrifice is needed.
Go ahead, bring out the surveys ... how many Americans are ready for another $1 per gallon on gas (as a tax, or to satisfy caps)?
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 4:55 am
05 Sep 2007
Who brought up bike riders?
I thought we were talking about commuters. And it is quite amusing for one commuter to attack another commuter as part of the problem! I really have to laugh. Clean up you own life before you start attacking your neighbors.
And who said the "weak environmentalism" of public transportation riders was blocking real solutions? There are more reasons for using public transportation vs. automobiles... convenience, less expensive, faster, one can read while riding a bus or train. I suspect there is no correlation between awareness of environmental problems and use of public transporation. It is an economic (money and time) decision.
Finding ways to help or positively motivate people to replace their SUVs will be more productive than harassing them, especially if you too are using an automobile, even if it is not an SUV.
The Prius is more efficient, but it still contributes to global climate change. Would it really be okay if everyone in the world chose a Prius instead of the supposedly coveted SUV? (I don't think everyone really wants an SUV; they want personal transporation.) Would your commute no longer be amusing if there were thousands of Priuses next to you? Would it be okay if everyone in China decided that, like "responsible" Americans, they would drive Priuses? Would that halt global warming? What if they all bought TerraPass stickers?
Regarding the "chasing your tails" remark, it seem those skeptical about TerraPass or carbon offsets or any other voluntary scheme are concerned that people will adopt the easy feel-good measure -- toss a few bucks to charity to ease the guilt -- and never get around to really solving problems. I happen to agree with that view. My experience as a volunteer for a non-profit organization suggests that people are far more inclined to send in their annual donation than actually participate and work to help the organization achieve its goals.
I surveyed all the computer users in this office and 100% of them are American and prepared to pay an extra dollar per gallon for gasoline if it will break OUR addiction to fossil fuel and not replace it with an addiction to another non-sustainable source of energy that harms the environment.
Forward!
Permalink
Adam Stein Posted 5:04 am
05 Sep 2007
The general contention of offset haters -- sometimes implicit, sometimes explicit -- is that what we really need to be doing is dramatically changing people's behavior to deal with the problem of climate change.
There are two problems here. The first is that this prescription is wrong on its face. Energy efficiency and renewable energy are the primary pillars of any realistic climate change mitigation strategy. Sweden hopes to wean itself completely off of oil in 15 years. They aren't doing this by haranguing citizens to cut back. They're doing it through efficiency and renewables.
Personal conservation can also be a useful source of emissions reductions, but it will never be the primary or the most important source. Gar's concern for Indian farmers is incredibly touching, but I'm concerned about the billions of Indians and Chinese whose energy consumption is going to skyrocket over the next few decades as their quality of life (deservedly) improves. Personal conservation clearly isn't going to help here. There's more room for improvement in the developed world, but not at a scale that even begins to justify the attention paid to, say, suburbanites in station wagons.
The second problem with this critique is that offsets are a general mechanism for funding any type of emissions reductions we might wish to encourage. You want structural changes? OK, how do you propose to achieve them? Offsets are a form of carbon tax, and it's very difficult to see how any large-scale societal changes are going to take place in the absence of some sort of carbon price signal. The alternative -- hectoring people to stop being so selfish -- is clearly very satisfying to blog writers, but not so effective from a political or environmental standpoint.
So, yes, by all means let's have a conversation about weak environmentalism. My definition of weak environmentalism is a) any proposed solution to climate change that prioritizes lazy moralizing over efficiency and renewables, or b) any proposed solution that lacks plausible legal or economic enforcement mechanisms.
www.terrapass.com/blog
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 5:20 am
05 Sep 2007
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world
Permalink
odograph Posted 6:40 am
05 Sep 2007
Without that the status-quo will stay where it is, and fringe eniros will nip at each others heels forever.
Would-be arbiters of what is "green" and what is "wash" do much to kill that momentum, which is why, again, they find themselves in common-cause with right-wing think tanks.
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 6:51 am
05 Sep 2007
Killing momentum can be a good thing, specifically when you discover you are heading in the wrong direction. Take the brakes off your bike and you will see what I mean. I would love for a right-wing think tank or talking head to quote one of my critiques of other enviros so I can rip into them on other issues.
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world
Permalink
odograph Posted 7:10 am
05 Sep 2007
And yet the game here today is to break out people based on support of one category of efforts, brand them as "weak environmentalists" in all their other efforts, and without any proof whatsoever claim that these offsets are slowing public appreciation of the problem.
I mean doesn't that slow you down at all to realize that you are playing a classic game of division and marginalization? "Offset buyers are 'weak' enfironmentalists, and therefore 'not real environmentalists at all'"
Congratulations. Maybe by the end of the day you'll have a few fewer environmentalists.
Permalink
David Roberts Posted 9:12 am
05 Sep 2007
Even bracketing the question of offsets' effectiveness, the notion that small, imperfect efforts to tackle global warming, undertaken by active, well-meaning greens, are the problem ... it just defies belief. It honestly leaves me agog.
In a world where 99% of people don't know the first thing about energy or climate, don't spend a second of the day worrying about the environment, wouldn't know an offset if it bit them in the ass, are perfectly content to consume to the maximum of their means ... in that world, the notion that the 0.001% of people who are trying their imperfect best to do something ... the notion that the top priority of environmentalists should be to bash those people ... I don't know what to say to that. It's just fantastical.
Engage in tribalism if you want. Banish the "fake" environmentalists from your midst all you want. Purify. It's satisfying on a visceral level. But please, don't pretend that you're engaging in some sort of important environmental mission. You're acting like every movement zealot in every movement throughout history, banishing heretics. How much more clear could it be?
grist.org
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 9:18 am
05 Sep 2007
By weak environmentalism I was referring to the dubious offset being discussed, not the entire idea. "What we have here is a failure to communicate..."
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world
Permalink
spaceshaper Posted 9:31 am
05 Sep 2007
Should we add that the offsets provided by such companies as Terrapass are VOLUNTARY taxes, paid in minute quantities ($80M/year globally) by a tiny percentage of the population, as and when they feel like it?
The true meaning of life is to plant trees, under whose shade you do not expect to sit.
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 10:03 am
05 Sep 2007
"... the notion that the 0.001% of people who are trying their imperfect best to do something ... the notion that the top priority of environmentalists should be to bash those people ... I don't know what to say to that. It's just fantastical."
I stand corrected.
Mr. Roberts presents an excellent point... even if the carbon indulgences don't accomplish much. From now on, no one visting this website -- if they REALLY care about the environment -- should criticize anyone engaged in promoting...
corn ethanol
biodiesel
sustainable meat production
GMOs
nuclear power
clean coal
photovoltaics
planting trees
cutting down trees
cellulosic ethanol
organic agriculture
industrial agriculture
responsible suburban living
more cities
fewer cities
carbon taxes
carbon trading
carbon offsets
geoengineering
sustainable forestry
dumping iron in the oceans
sustainable hunting
globilization
protectionism
... and a myriad other efforts underway. Everyone means well and really really wants to preserve the Earth's natural environment. How about letting them try their best and put an end to all of this divisive discussion?
Only the positive folks! Reinforce each others ideas. Stop cutting down your allies in the war against global climate change.
Forward!
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 12:55 pm
05 Sep 2007
My idea of weak environmentalism was paying Indians to pump water with treadles. My point was that critique of something like that is best done from inside, thus cutting the conservative talking heads off before they can get started. Somehow that got extrapolated into an anti offset stance ...and even generated a call to stop being critical of anyone paving the road to hell with good intentions, or at least that is how I misinterpreted it.
Wiscedea,
I could not have asked for a more timely post to make my point. That is quite an extensive list you put together:
Mr. Roberts presents an excellent point... even if the carbon indulgences don't accomplish much. From now on, no one visting this website -- if they REALLY care about the environment -- should criticize anyone engaged in promoting...
...anything and everything. "Only the positive folks."
http://www.nuclearnow.org/
http://www.biodieselnow.com/
and on, and on...
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world
Permalink
trock Posted 8:58 pm
05 Sep 2007
Not every idea is good. Not every criticizism is correct, but it helps me get to doing a better job with the environmental problems and what I can do.
I'm going to criticize offsets. In the 1960's, the United States and countries around the world had an enormous smog problem in cities. If the only solution was to have people choose to not drive their cars or people could have voluntarily reconfigured their car to not create smog, nothing would have been accomplished. Not enough people would have voluntarily changed to smog reduced cars. Smog offsets would not have worked. We would still be living in smog full cities, worse than they are now.
the only thing that worked was the clean air act of 1970 and others, which made laws so that 100 percent of all new cars would have antismog devices attached. If the activists of the 1960's had only concentrated on smog offsets or even pursued it and that took some of the political power away on this issue so that the clean air act did not pass, we would have much worse smog in our cities.
What would happen if carbon offsets were wildly successful at bringing in money, like 10 billion dollars a year. In the trillions of dollars of carbon usage, it would be ineffectual.
However, if the money that would have been donated to offsets, was instead donated to environmental NGO's and political parties, that might have an effect. 300 million dollars to buy a presidential campaign, 1 billion to buy congressional campaigns.
The only thing thing that will work with reducing carbon from our economy is getting the political will to do the things that will reduce everybodies carbon dioxide release.
"Government is force." George Washington. we don't have a choice.
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 12:12 am
06 Sep 2007
"... the notion that the 0.001% of people who are trying their imperfect best to do something ... the notion that the top priority of environmentalists should be to bash those people ... I don't know what to say to that. It's just fantastical."
Something else was bothering me about this remark, but I couldn't exactly identify it until now. Mr. Roberts appears to be suggesting that the top priority of those criticizing the sale of carbon indulgences -- I assume that is who Mr. Roberts is referring to in his remark -- is to bash people tryng to do their imperfect best to do something.
The suggestion IS truly "fantastical". I regret to inform you, Mr. Robert, that my few negative comments regarding carbon indulgences -- and other "bashing" I engage in here -- are not the bulk of my efforts to preserve and restore our natural environment. I can't speak for others, but it looks like they are also engaged in much more activity than is immediately apparent here.
Indeed, were I more sensitive, I would be deeply offended that you consider my visits to your website the primary contribution I make toward protecting the environment. I find the Grist website valuable and informative. It is interesting to watch and particpate in -- in my crude way -- discussions focused on working out the details of how we can address the problems of climate change... or, I dare say, whether it really is a problem. But this is not the be all and end all.
This website appears to be an opportunity for us to express our concerns about issues we hear about but might not be fully informed about. It is an opportunity for "experts" to learn how "the rabble" is processing information and coping with new problems. It is also an opportunity for "experts" to discover potential holes in their reasoning, work out the bugs, and refine their ideas. Do you think this is useful?
biodiversivist wrote...
"... critique of something like that is best done from inside, thus cutting the conservative talking heads off before they can get started."
A fine idea, but not practical. How would one decide who is included and excluded from the "inside"?
I thought the Grist website was intended as a public forum to present information and gather information from all concerned citizens, providing us with maximum opportunity to address environmental problems. It is a market place of ideas.
I suppose, Mr. Roberts, you could turn most of us into observers at the touch of a button and retrict discussion to include only those who are supportive of your view of environmentalism. You might even have a private area, so your opponents cannot watch you hammer out the details of policies the select few do not agree upon. But I believe this would severely weaken the practicality, strength, and sustainability of the ideas you finally present as solutions to environmental problems. It would be far better to have a fully airing, so flaws can be addressed early on.
So what if anti-environmentalists have a chance to watch and then use your own arguments against you? If you've catalyzed a real and honest discussion of policies, tossing out the bad or not-so-productive ideas, identifying and addressing flaws, refining approaches so they really work, the anti-environmentalists will have no ammunition. Do you think that if you keep quiet about a flaw or some form of hypocrisy no one else will notice?! Absued! Better to get it out ASAP and deal with. Don't wait for your opponent to be the first to bring it to the public's attention.
You are in the driver's seat. What sort of forum is this? What sort of forum do you want it to be? Should us skeptical folks go away and allow the rest of you to heap praise upon one another's ideas? Will it make you feel better? Will it result in better ideas? Will it create real and sustainable change?
Now I'm off to put time into my one of my top priorities, not one of which is "bashing" those trying to do their best.
Forward!
Permalink
odograph Posted 12:26 am
06 Sep 2007
I tried early on (above) to contrast the small money "kicked in" for offsets with the bigger problem of how you get the mainstream to do anything.
And I don't think we (from our subjective reality) can really answer that. You've got to ask the buyers of new V-8s or turbos what their thinking is.
For me the combination of Iraq and GW takes all the fun out of mass energy consumption ... but I'm not one of those still buying.
Permalink
ids Posted 2:30 pm
06 Sep 2007
Helping poor Indian farmers gather water is a good worthy endeavor. Getting donations by calling them GHG offsets is a bait and switch. It could be that saving 30 hrs./yr of diesel engine pollution extends the life of the farmer, making his whole family's GHG contribution greater over their lifetimes. However, if the idea is living with less pollution makes one happy, it can be turned around. Offsets are a tricky matter and should not be thrown around haphazardly. Those that believe in them should be the most vigilant against their abuse. Since they are not, offsets are now an indulgence.
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 7:20 am
17 Sep 2007
Well, here's my theory...
I dislike carbon indulgences because they are not a sustainable solution. You can sell carbon indulgences to all 6 billion people inhabiting the planet, but it won't put an end to the behavior actually causing the damage. Encourage people jet around the globe, drive SUVs, chow down on cows, chill their homes to 65 degrees in the summer and heat them to 75 degrees in the winter, and compensate for their behavior buy buying a few carbon offsets and the problems will never go away... even if you sponsor wind farms, distribution of CFLs, and plant trees. Carbon offsets are just another limited resource. Go ahead an ask people to donate money for projects, but it just seems wrong to encourage people to include this in calculating their carbon footprint.
However much I object to those who say true environmentalist must behave one way or another, I wonder if there should be a minimum expectation that those who care about our natural world at least try to strive for SUSTAINABLE solutions, not more temporary ones.
Another victim of Jean-Paul Marat's ghost and his virtual guillotine?
Permalink