<![CDATA[Grist - Comment Feed for Carbon offsets and human rights]]> Grist Comment Feed en Comment #1 by bookerly http://www.grist.org/article/we-just-want-our-land-back/ Fri, 12 Jan 2007 19:28:26 -0800 http://www.grist.org/article/we-just-want-our-land-back/1 Thanks!!!


    Very interesting news.  I wonder if many of the advocates of carbon offsets will even notice, or bother to respond.  Alas, it is not clear that many people would care if the government shot all of the protestors.  It would be ironic if selling offsets becomes just as profitable and just as problematic as the industry it claims to be atoning for (oil).

patrick

]]> Thanks!!!


    Very interesting news.  I wonder if many of the advocates of carbon offsets will even notice, or bother to respond.  Alas, it is not clear that many people would care if the government shot all of the protestors.  It would be ironic if selling offsets becomes just as profitable and just as problematic as the industry it claims to be atoning for (oil).

patrick

]]> Comment #2 by SMLowry http://www.grist.org/article/we-just-want-our-land-back/ Mon, 15 Jan 2007 09:21:07 -0800 http://www.grist.org/article/we-just-want-our-land-back/2 It doesn't surprise me

that native peoples are being forced to pay for our excesses and greed. And how ironic when logging proceeds at an incredible pace right here at home. Literally. The landowner next door to me is cutting every tree from his property, from the smallest sapling to huge grandmother maples. Nobody is worrying about those "carbon trees".

]]> It doesn't surprise me

that native peoples are being forced to pay for our excesses and greed. And how ironic when logging proceeds at an incredible pace right here at home. Literally. The landowner next door to me is cutting every tree from his property, from the smallest sapling to huge grandmother maples. Nobody is worrying about those "carbon trees".

]]> Comment #3 by caniscandida http://www.grist.org/article/we-just-want-our-land-back/ Mon, 15 Jan 2007 18:54:07 -0800 http://www.grist.org/article/we-just-want-our-land-back/3 "native peoples"

This is a hugely complex story, ethically.  Ever since I first learned of the carbon-offset business, it struck me as a scam-o-rama opportunity.

We should ask two kinds of questions, on different levels.

First, why has it been so hard to get international transparency, standardization and certification for carbon-offset offers?  My feeling is, most people making these offers are fairly trustworthy thus far.  But, on the other hand, the idea is really too good to waste on sloppiness.  E.g., Why should the idea be allowed to be damaged by the unpleasantness in Uganda which Julia Olmstead mentions?

FYI, regarding native peoples, the backpage of Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth," i.e. the book, says:
<<
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 http://www.nativeenergy.com.
>>

Secondly, more deeply, in Julia's words, "why do we continue to think that we can buy our way out of this mess?"

I have no answer to that question.  Certain green economists, and wonkish types like Al Gore, presumably know what enlightened green buying is all about.  Still, there is a definite sense, however irrational, that "buying," throwing money around, cannot be the answer.

Chickens are our cousins! So are other sensitive animals! Enough is enough! No more factory farms!




]]> "native peoples"

This is a hugely complex story, ethically.  Ever since I first learned of the carbon-offset business, it struck me as a scam-o-rama opportunity.

We should ask two kinds of questions, on different levels.

First, why has it been so hard to get international transparency, standardization and certification for carbon-offset offers?  My feeling is, most people making these offers are fairly trustworthy thus far.  But, on the other hand, the idea is really too good to waste on sloppiness.  E.g., Why should the idea be allowed to be damaged by the unpleasantness in Uganda which Julia Olmstead mentions?

FYI, regarding native peoples, the backpage of Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth," i.e. the book, says:
<<
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 http://www.nativeenergy.com.
>>

Secondly, more deeply, in Julia's words, "why do we continue to think that we can buy our way out of this mess?"

I have no answer to that question.  Certain green economists, and wonkish types like Al Gore, presumably know what enlightened green buying is all about.  Still, there is a definite sense, however irrational, that "buying," throwing money around, cannot be the answer.

Chickens are our cousins! So are other sensitive animals! Enough is enough! No more factory farms!




]]>