tagged w/ carbon offset
-
While waiting in the train station on my way out of San Francisco International Airport I noticed a group of business-casual people arriving in the city. The group was commenting on the carbon offset poster in the otherwise empty station. “Keep Our Skies Blue,” the poster read, with the message to buy air travel carbon offset credits at kiosks in the terminals. The loud-talker of the group didn’t understand the message of the poster, and it actually made him angry. “What are they trying to do?” he asked, suggesting that he thought it was some sort of San Francisco hippie exaggeration scam. He seemed more skeptical than inspired and I’m pretty sure he wasn’t going to be buying any carbon offsets. Observing the negative interaction between these travelers and the poster got me thinking about how can we better communicate messages of climate change.
British communications company Futerra has spent the past decade thinking about communicating sustainability messages and they’ve developed an approach based on the words of master salesman Elmer Wheeler, “Sell the sizzle, not the sausage.” If climate change is the sausage, then what’s the sizzle?
For a message of sustainability, the sizzle is a narrative that begins with a compelling vision of low-carbon “heaven.” Our communications must create a desirable picture in the minds of our audience of what a low-carbon future can look like. Creating this picture draws viewers into a world rather than alienating them with the typical visions of climate-change hell. It holds their attention long enough to get to the call to action, and doesn’t get immediately shut out by cynicism.
Our train-station poster attempts to sizzle with a lovely visual, but the generic blue-sky image failed to connect the campaign’s message to a personal situation. In addition, standing in the train station looking at the beautiful San Francisco sky, the poster failed to illustrate a clear difference between the reality of today and the potential of a low-carbon heaven.
To be successfully received, we must offer a clear vision of what the audience wants. Only then can we provide an action plan for what can be done in the near future (five years, not 20 or 30) to make it happen. We should make it clear to people that they have a choice—there are two paths to go down, one towards “heaven” and the other towards unmitigated climate change, and it’s up to them to decide.
The train-station poster does present an action item (buy carbon offsets) but it fails to give the viewer a choice of paths, or explain how buying carbon offsets would put them on one path or the other. The poster lacks a narrative and therefore fails to “sizzle.”
Post Continues: http://www.triplepundit.com/2011/05/make-climate-change-sizzle/While waiting in the train station on my way out of San Francisco International... more
-
-
San Francisco’s mayor Gavin Newsom just announced the world's first airport carbon offset kiosk at San Francisco International Aiport. The Climate Passport Program kiosk will allow travelers to calculate the carbon impact of their flights and purchase offsets.
While I like the concept of carbon offsetting, in everyday practice it feels like a scam. It seems like the first place entrepreneurs go to hijack the term “green” to make a buck off off of people’s green conscious (sometimes known as guilt). Not to mention it’s a high-speed vehicle for loopholes in legislation designed to protect against pollution. With that said, not all programs are bunk, and you can check out an old post for suggestions from our community about carbon offset programs they love and trust.
“The Carbon Offsets purchased through the Climate Passport Carbon Footprint Calculator are sourced from the Garcia River Forest, a conservation-based forest management project located in Mendocino County, California. The project achieves multiple goals including: increased sequestration and storage of carbon in native redwood forests, wildlife habitat restoration, and a sustainable supply of certified wood products.”
In this case, The carbon offsets will go towards the Garcia River Forest which (with your purchase) will be supplied with new Redwood and Douglas Fir trees that absorb and store carbon dioxide. A minimal amount of the kiosk's offset sales also go to the San Francisco Carbon Fund, which works on local carbon reduction projects like a publicly-owned biofuel filling station.
It just turns out that my coworker Andrew Fitzgerald mentioned that he and his girlfriend are flying to Boston tonight, so I thought I would help them out and test out the system for them.
I entered San Francisco to Boston, 2 passengers, and Viola! It is ready to accept my credit card payment of $48.77 ($24.38 per person).
"No one is saying this is the silver bullet or justifies air travel; having kiosks at the airport mainstreams the idea that you can contribute to environmental projects. We worked with 3 degrees (one of the most well respected offset providers in the US and abide all of the verification and protocols that have been developed. We wanted to bring basic and easily consumable information to a captive audience (in the airport) where they can contribute. -Wade Crowfoot, former mayor advisor now West Coast Political Director Environmental Defense Fund
Ok, so you’ve got to hand it to them, for the cost of an airport dinner, you can rid yourself of some guilt. But really, when you’re rushing through the airport trying to catch a flight do you have time to feel guilt or socially responsible? Time will tell...
What is Carbon offset?
“A Carbon Offset, also known as a Verified Emission Reduction (VER), represents one ton of greenhouse gas (GHG) carbon equivalent prevented from being emitted into the atmosphere. Carbon Reductions allow you to “balance” your emissions by supporting GHG reduction projects across the U.S.”
Related Content:
Guilt for sale! World's First Airport Carbon Kiosks in San Francisco
Artificial Trees To Cut Carbon Emissions
Eco-Question: Carbon efficiency or carbon offsetting?
In addition to that offset program, we are working to create a localized carbon fund, so you can contribute to a fund that affects carbon rates in your local region. Earlier in the year we passed an ordinance that all city travel must purchase or contribute to 13% of the cost of the trip to the carbon fund." -Wade Crowfoot, former mayor advisor now West Coast Political Director Environmental Defense FundSan Francisco’s mayor Gavin Newsom just announced the world's first airport... more
-
-
leahl
-
added this
-
2 years ago
- |
-
"They are supporting a system they know will lead to ecocide, because more revenue will run through their accounts, for a while, as the collapse occurs."
"Groups like Conservation International are among the most trusted "brands" in America, pledged to protect and defend nature. Yet as we confront the biggest ecological crisis in human history, many of the green organizations meant to be leading the fight are busy shoveling up hard cash from the world's worst polluters--and burying science-based environmentalism in return."
Two more excerpts:
"To take just one example, when it was revealed that many of IKEA's dining room sets were made from trees ripped from endangered forests, the World Wildlife Fund leapt to the company's defense, saying--wrongly--that IKEA "can never guarantee" this won't happen. Is it a coincidence that WWF is a "marketing partner" with IKEA, and takes cash from the company?
Likewise, the Sierra Club was approached in 2008 by the makers of Clorox bleach, who said that if the Club endorsed their new range of "green" household cleaners, they would give it a percentage of the sales. The Club's Corporate Accountability Committee said the deal created a blatant conflict of interest--but took it anyway. Executive director Carl Pope defended the move in an e-mail to members, in which he claimed that the organization had carried out a serious analysis of the cleaners to see if they were "truly superior." But it hadn't. The Club's Toxics Committee co-chair, Jessica Frohman, said, 'We never approved the product line. Beyond asking a few questions, the committee had done nothing to confirm that the product line was greener than its competitors' or good for the environment in any way.'
The green groups defend their behavior by saying they are improving the behavior of the corporations. But as these stories show, the pressure often flows the other way: the addiction to corporate cash has changed the green groups at their core. As MacDonald says, 'Not only do the largest conservation groups take money from companies deeply implicated in environmental crimes; they have become something like satellite PR offices for the corporations that support them.' "
"But on Capitol Hill and at Copenhagen, these groups have been some of the most passionate defenders of carbon offsetting. They say that, in "political reality," this is the only way to raise the cash for the rainforests, so we will have to work with it. But this is a strange kind of compromise--since it doesn't actually work.
In fact, some of the big groups lobbied to make the protections weaker, in a way that will cause the rainforests to die faster. "
http://www.alternet.org/environment/145954/how_some_leading_environmental_groups_are_putting_profit_before_planet_
Companies like Shell, BP, Clorox and many others are funding these supposedly environmental associations.
The lobbying activities of the corporations are seen everywhere leaving us with a few uncorrupted people truly fighting for the health of our world and the human race.
Join the Organic Movement:
http://current.com/groups/organicgreen/"They are supporting a system they know will lead to ecocide, because more... more
-
-
Bonneville Environmental Foundation (BEF), a non-profit organization, uniquely funds its renewable energy and watershed projects through the sale of energy offsets to individuals and companies nationwide. Learn more about our watershed program by watching this video. For more information, please visit www.b-e-f.orgBonneville Environmental Foundation (BEF), a non-profit organization, uniquely funds... more
-
