You might blame a leading carbon-offset provider of forcing poor kids to work, according to The Times of London. Or not.
Carbon credit firm Climate Care pays families in India to use human-powered treadle pumps to get water out of the ground for drinking and farming. As a result, half a million foot pumps have replaced diesel ones, which pollute and cost a lot to fuel. Unfortunately, Climate Care doesn't ensure the diesel pumps are retired instead of finding new life with other owners.
Nor does it stick around to make sure that kids aren't doing all the pumping. It probably never crossed the minds at the British nonprofit that this would come into question. Children have done backbreaking farm work for eons in regions where sustaining an income in the field is a family necessity. And the foot pumps are supposed to be easier to operate than hand pumps.
This could raise potentially thorny problems with other people-powered technologies. Inventors and social capitalists are promoting such simple tools to help people stuck with the fuzzy end of the world's lollipop to learn and earn more. I'm thinking of bicycle-powered computers in Laos, for instance, the Q-drum water wheel in Africa, or even the small hands cranking MIT's XO laptop (also used, oops, for XXX).
The Times didn't explore any side effects of using pumps with combustible diesel, like how many accidents that might cause -- perhaps few next to flammable gasoline or kerosene, but still. What are the alternatives? Do affordable solar or wind pumps exist? And who might gain something from the child labor charge?
The only source in the article blaming Climate Care for child labor seems to be clean-tech consultancy Emergent Ventures India. These are heavy accusations against Climate Care, which maintains that the only children working the water pumps are on family farms -- not urban dungeon sweatshops.
Carbon offsetting plans may be vain and useless at worst, but are they really evil? No matter your answer, expect to see more scrutiny of carbon credits.
People are suspicious of the notion that they can magically shop away their polluting habits. But high-profile, "lite-green" consumers, like presidential candidates, continue to adopt offsetting with fanfare.
There's likely nothing wrong with paying programs to fund renewable energy projects or plant more trees -- in fact, spill as many beans there as you can afford -- as long as you examine potential unintended consequences. Those remain hard to measure. I give up.
But wait, instead of trying to pay penance for our climate-changing customs, more of us will try to cut carbons at the source. That might mean doing more manual labor in our own lives -- like putting one foot in front of the other, instead of pressing that pedal to the metal.
The U.S.-India climate ‘partnership’
Top 25 reasons to give a damn about climate change
Global boiling declares war on Thanksgiving
Comments
View as Flat
Elsa Mary Posted 9:49 am
25 Sep 2007
Buick also clarifies that Climate Care helps to fund the work of groups including International Development Enterprises India, which has been promoting treadle pumps and other tools to fight poverty for many years. Studies have shown that the foot pumps help children by relieving some poverty in the family.
Wired examines the lopsided arguments of Brendan O'Neill, author of the Times' piece:
http://tinyurl.com/2p59f6
Permalink
Delay And Deny Posted 2:16 am
26 Sep 2007
Carbon offsets are nothing new.
People have always carted their garbage across the tracks.
John Bailo
Sutext:
Permalink
mihan Posted 4:27 am
27 Sep 2007
Permalink
nedruod Posted 7:15 am
29 Sep 2007
If the family gets monetary payments, then maybe the child will work 4 hours at the pump instead of 8 hours in the field (which is likely more dangerous). Also, perhaps that child will be 5% less likely of starving to death.
If it was as simple as a child being in school, or operating a pump, it'd fully agree. But we all know it's not, so face reality here. Don't give up, and don't assume the best way to help a child in India is to ignore them.
I have no idea what your job is, but more manual labor is probably not the best option you have. If, for example, you're a researcher who might invent a better way to produce water (any of the examples you gave), is it really better to spend 4 less hours per day doing "non-manual labor", so you can have a back yard garden? If you work at a job that has no positive effects, perhaps you should consider changing that first, and using the opportunity (education), rather than trying to do the only job a rural farmer has been trained for.
Lastly, if you find it impossible to change that job, possibly because you can't find an opportunity you're suitable for, you could support that farmer in the only way left, money.
Permalink