The "carbon offset" scam

TimBikes · 06-24-2007, 05:06 AM

I never had much confidence in the whole "carbon offset" thing. Seems pretty much like a scam to me - a bit like buying indulgences.

This article is a pretty interesting take on that.

"... a close look at several transactions—including those involving the Oscar presenters, Vail Resorts, and the Seattle power company—reveals that some deals amount to little more than feel-good hype. When traced to their source, these dubious offsets often encourage climate protection that would have happened regardless of the buying and selling of paper certificates...."

Godiva · 06-24-2007, 01:01 PM

Well, I've always believed you should modify your lifestyle as much as possible. Paying someone else to mitigate your carbon footprint isn't much incentive to act differently. While I think Ed Begley Jr. is a little on the extreme, I'd rather live his way than just pay someone to plant trees.

**efusco** · 06-24-2007, 01:28 PM

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Godiva @ Jun 24 2007, 12:01 PM) [snapback]467271[/snapback]</div>

Quote:

Well, I've always believed you should modify your lifestyle as much as possible. Paying someone else to mitigate your carbon footprint isn't much incentive to act differently. While I think Ed Begley Jr. is a little on the extreme, I'd rather live his way than just pay someone to plant trees. [/b]

While I agree with the general concept that just paying someone to plant a tree to allow oneself to feel better about a wasteful lifestyle is a cop out and not really a great benefit to society, I don't necessarily agree with the movement to modify ones lifestyle...hear me out.

I like living in a prosperous country like the USA. I work hard to make enough money to buy the things that make me happy, that make my life more comfortable, etc. While I'm very willing to make changes to my little piece of the world, I'm not really willing to make sacrifices. I want and expect technology to step up to the plate, much like it has done with the Prius, to make the 'things' I want and use more envioro friendly without the element/sense of sacrifice. I think a large segment of the population are put off by the concept of "sacrifice", but they'll respond to reasonable change that doesn't require sacrifice.

Godiva · 06-24-2007, 02:28 PM

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(efusco @ Jun 24 2007, 12:28 PM) [snapback]467280[/snapback]</div>

Quote:

While I agree with the general concept that just paying someone to plant a tree to allow oneself to feel better about a wasteful lifestyle is a cop out and not really a great benefit to society, I don't necessarily agree with the movement to modify ones lifestyle...hear me out.

I like living in a prosperous country like the USA. I work hard to make enough money to buy the things that make me happy, that make my life more comfortable, etc. While I'm very willing to make changes to my little piece of the world, I'm not really willing to make sacrifices. I want and expect technology to step up to the plate, much like it has done with the Prius, to make the 'things' I want and use more envioro friendly without the element/sense of sacrifice. I think a large segment of the population are put off by the concept of "sacrifice", but they'll respond to reasonable change that doesn't require sacrifice.
[/b]

I hear you. But I think some changes can be made that do not fit the definition of sacrifice. Slightly inconvenient, maybe. Less wasteful certainly.

Washing out a can and putting it in the recycling is a change in lifestyle that is inconvenient. It is not a sacrafice. Replacing that burned out incandescent lightbulb with a compact fluorescent is hardly inconvenient or a sacrafice. These are little things that can be done.

We're now putting blankets on our water heaters. Is that a sacrafice?

And as I do things little by little they become habit rather than inconvenient. And I can do more. And as I slowly do a little more and a little more, it will hardly seem like a sacrafice.

It's that....or somewhere along the line we are going to have to make sudden, drastic changes. And *that* will certainly seem like a sacrafice.

**efusco** · 06-24-2007, 02:33 PM

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Godiva @ Jun 24 2007, 01:28 PM) [snapback]467306[/snapback]</div>

Quote:

I hear you. But I think some changes can be made that do not fit the definition of sacrifice. Slightly inconvenient, maybe. Less wasteful certainly.

Washing out a can and putting it in the recycling is a change in lifestyle that is inconvenient. It is not a sacrafice. Replacing that burned out incandescent lightbulb with a compact fluorescent is hardly inconvenient or a sacrafice. These are little things that can be done.

We're now putting blankets on our water heaters. Is that a sacrafice?

And as I do things little by little they become habit rather than inconvenient. And I can do more. And as I slowly do a little more and a little more, it will hardly seem like a sacrafice.

It's that....or somewhere along the line we are going to have to make sudden, drastic changes. And *that* will certainly seem like a sacrafice. [/b]

I think we're on the same page. Those are all things I've done and absolutely don't think it's a sacrifice. We're about 70% CFLs in our house (we have a LOT of bulbs...probably over 100), Put blankets on the water heaters a couple years ago, bought a Prius to replace the Expedition. I'm more conscious about turning off lights in rooms we're not using. We have a programmable thermostat. No, I don't consider any of that a sacrifice, but it is a little bit expensive (front end) and that IS a sacrifice for many people. And it's inconvenient. It's a lot easier to buy the cheaper bulbs and keep the 20 year old thermostat that came with the house.

Godiva · 06-24-2007, 03:03 PM

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(efusco @ Jun 24 2007, 01:33 PM) [snapback]467307[/snapback]</div>

Quote:

I think we're on the same page. Those are all things I've done and absolutely don't think it's a sacrifice. We're about 70% CFLs in our house (we have a LOT of bulbs...probably over 100), Put blankets on the water heaters a couple years ago, bought a Prius to replace the Expedition. I'm more conscious about turning off lights in rooms we're not using. We have a programmable thermostat. No, I don't consider any of that a sacrifice, but it is a little bit expensive (front end) and that IS a sacrifice for many people. And it's inconvenient. It's a lot easier to buy the cheaper bulbs and keep the 20 year old thermostat that came with the house.
[/b]

I hear you.

I'm taking a big plunge this year. I've applied for a home equity loan and am putting in solar panels. It's something I've wanted to do for 15 years. Advantage is that the technology has improved in the past 15 years. The cost hasn't. For the current incentives in place, this is the best year so I'm going for it. As long as I'm going that, I'm going to replace my driveway that has needed to be replaced since I moved in to the house in 1987. It has some major cracks and the top has worn/chipped off down to the aggregate. As long as it's being replaced, I'm going to put in "green pavers" rather than just have another slab poured. It will probably be more expensive. But it will add some plants where none were before. Maybe not enough to completely reverse global warming but doing my little bit. It will take a little more water, but I can extend the drip system I already have that is on timers so I doubt I'll see that much of an increase in the water bill. (I have a recycling washing machine BTW.) And when I wash my car, the driveway will now absorb that water. I may have to switch car shampoo to something that doesn't harm the green....don't know yet.

It is a shame that some things we can do aren't going to get done because of the price. Those same people that can't afford to purchase healthcare and aren't covered through their jobs are the same ones that are going to be buying cheap incandescent bulbs instead of compact fluorescents.

The one bright spot is recycling. In my city the recyclers pay for glass, plastic and aluminum so people that need money are more likely to recycle than those that are more affluent. And wha the recyclers don't pay for can be put in the blue bins. I'm rinsing and recycling the metal cans now. I just made $30 on the glass, plastic and aluminum I brought to the recycler last week. I had no idea it would be that much.

nytimez · 06-24-2007, 07:37 PM

Just because some offsets are dubious - and some sure are - doesn't mean the concept is flawed. If you can something you are reasonably sure is legit, I see no reason to compare them to church indulgances. You're not trying to get into heaven - merely undo some of the damage you can't help causing in your daily life. Some people can only reduce their impact by so much, especially people who live in cities or people who have no choice but to fly frequently. It's certainly better than the alternative - doing nothing. You just need to do some research to make sure the contribution you make is really going towards something that will help "offset" your carbon footprint.

SSimon · 06-25-2007, 12:49 PM

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(efusco @ Jun 24 2007, 12:28 PM) [snapback]467280[/snapback]</div>

Quote:

While I'm very willing to make changes to my little piece of the world, I'm not really willing to make sacrifices.
[/b]

I look at sacrifices a little differently in that I'm hoping that the sacrifices I make now will help mitigate those that I may be forced to make down the road, should predictions about global warming become realized. But I guess it all comes down to what one considers a sacrifice. I don't like "stuff" anyway and I can't stand shopping.

I think carbon offset programs could be very important for people that don't have access to renewable energy for their homes, such as myself. In this case I don't see the purchase of these offsets as a cop out. I see them as being a potential important mechanism to provide demand for clean, renewable energy. These programs are still in their infancy, so I'm hoping that they work out the kinks so that I can be assured of the degree to which my footprint is offset and be assured that I'm not participating in a scam.

Suburban600 · 06-27-2007, 08:34 AM

I'd like to add a slightly different perspective to this conversation. While carbon offsets may be viewed by some as a scam they may provide a useful tool for slowing urban sprawl.

What do I mean? In my coastal community landowners are often land rich and cash poor. As real estate prices continue to rise many landowners are seduced into selling their land. The subsequent development usually means pavement (increased runoff), houses (increases in community energy construction), habitat loss, wildlife corridor loss, species reductions...etc, etc.

I personally see a utility in carbon offsets as one possible cash source for landowners. What does this mean? Carbon offset payments added to other sustainable agricultural methods may decrease the economic pressures on landowners to sell land and thus begin to slow the ecologically erosive effects of urban sprawl.

In our case we have invested in land and have held it for over 20 years. I have included a link to my website which shows aerial photos from 2001 and 2006.
http://www.oldtramroadfarm.com/Carbon_Offset.html
The 2006 aerial photo shows the residential development adjacent to my property. My property is circled. I estimate that the carbon offset sequestration loss due to development is roughly 70 tons per year while the carbon pollution produced by each household is at least 15 tons per year. (If you do go to my site you'll see some google ads. Some are anti carbon offset and some are pro. Whatever your perspective on carbon offsets, I think it is undeniable that a forest is more environmentally friendly than a parking lot).

I am sure that some of you think I am promoting my website, a business model or perhaps even a scam?

Yes and no. There is no scam on my part. I am simply promoting the concept of private parties working together to preserve land. I encourage you to support local landowners/farmers, private nature areas, the preservation of public woodlands and the development of blighted urban areas instead of forests/farmland. By becoming involved in this way you can maintain or increase local carbon sequestration and help slow urban sprawl.

Thanks,

KMO · 06-27-2007, 08:59 AM

http://www.cheatneutral.com/

Seriously though, although I'm skeptical about offsetting generally, I think that more specific schemes like Cool Earth Action are a good idea - stopping endangered rainforest from being flattened - one of the biggest CO2 hazards at the moment. This is of course the sort of thing that should be done on an intergovernmental level: carbon trading schemes should be paying these countries squillions to protect their forests.

06-27-2007, 08:34 AM	#9
Suburban600 Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 45 My Car: Model: Package: Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts Friends: 0	I'd like to add a slightly different perspective to this conversation. While carbon offsets may be viewed by some as a scam they may provide a useful tool for slowing urban sprawl. What do I mean? In my coastal community landowners are often land rich and cash poor. As real estate prices continue to rise many landowners are seduced into selling their land. The subsequent development usually means pavement (increased runoff), houses (increases in community energy construction), habitat loss, wildlife corridor loss, species reductions...etc, etc. I personally see a utility in carbon offsets as one possible cash source for landowners. What does this mean? Carbon offset payments added to other sustainable agricultural methods may decrease the economic pressures on landowners to sell land and thus begin to slow the ecologically erosive effects of urban sprawl. In our case we have invested in land and have held it for over 20 years. I have included a link to my website which shows aerial photos from 2001 and 2006. http://www.oldtramroadfarm.com/Carbon_Offset.html The 2006 aerial photo shows the residential development adjacent to my property. My property is circled. I estimate that the carbon offset sequestration loss due to development is roughly 70 tons per year while the carbon pollution produced by each household is at least 15 tons per year. (If you do go to my site you'll see some google ads. Some are anti carbon offset and some are pro. Whatever your perspective on carbon offsets, I think it is undeniable that a forest is more environmentally friendly than a parking lot). I am sure that some of you think I am promoting my website, a business model or perhaps even a scam? Yes and no. There is no scam on my part. I am simply promoting the concept of private parties working together to preserve land. I encourage you to support local landowners/farmers, private nature areas, the preservation of public woodlands and the development of blighted urban areas instead of forests/farmland. By becoming involved in this way you can maintain or increase local carbon sequestration and help slow urban sprawl. Thanks, __________________ Suburban600 Buy Land, Plant Trees, Enjoy Life www.oldtramroadfarm.com 2007 Seaside Pearl Touring Edition Pkg #1

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
17" wheel offset	prius2go	Gen II Prius Technical Discussion	3	10-18-2007 07:17 PM
The other side of "carbon trading"	TimBikes	Fred's House of Pancakes	0	08-31-2007 01:08 AM
Top 100 Toxic Polluters in U.S.<img alt="" src="chrome://easygestures/skin/xLink.png" style="border: 0px none ; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; display: in	ghostofjk	Environmental Discussion	0	05-12-2006 10:09 PM

06-24-2007, 05:06 AM	#1
TimBikes Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: WA Posts: 1,915 My Car: 2005 Prius Model: Package: #5 Thanks: 13 Thanked 53 Times in 30 Posts Friends: 0	I never had much confidence in the whole "carbon offset" thing. Seems pretty much like a scam to me - a bit like buying indulgences. This article is a pretty interesting take on that. "... a close look at several transactions—including those involving the Oscar presenters, Vail Resorts, and the Seattle power company—reveals that some deals amount to little more than feel-good hype. When traced to their source, these dubious offsets often encourage climate protection that would have happened regardless of the buying and selling of paper certificates...."

06-24-2007, 01:01 PM	#2
Godiva AmeriKan Citizen Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: San Diego, CA Posts: 10,342 My Car: 2005 Prius Model: Package: #1 Thanks: 0 Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post Friends: 7	Well, I've always believed you should modify your lifestyle as much as possible. Paying someone else to mitigate your carbon footprint isn't much incentive to act differently. While I think Ed Begley Jr. is a little on the extreme, I'd rather live his way than just pay someone to plant trees.

06-24-2007, 07:37 PM	#7
nytimez Member Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 84 My Car: Model: Package: Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts Friends: 0	Just because some offsets are dubious - and some sure are - doesn't mean the concept is flawed. If you can something you are reasonably sure is legit, I see no reason to compare them to church indulgances. You're not trying to get into heaven - merely undo some of the damage you can't help causing in your daily life. Some people can only reduce their impact by so much, especially people who live in cities or people who have no choice but to fly frequently. It's certainly better than the alternative - doing nothing. You just need to do some research to make sure the contribution you make is really going towards something that will help "offset" your carbon footprint.

06-27-2007, 08:59 AM	#10
KMO Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Cambridge, UK Posts: 936 My Car: 2009 Prius Model: Package: T Spirit Thanks: 0 Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post Friends: 0	http://www.cheatneutral.com/ Seriously though, although I'm skeptical about offsetting generally, I think that more specific schemes like Cool Earth Action are a good idea - stopping endangered rainforest from being flattened - one of the biggest CO2 hazards at the moment. This is of course the sort of thing that should be done on an intergovernmental level: carbon trading schemes should be paying these countries squillions to protect their forests.