tagged w/ Carbon Offsets
-
In July I attended a public debate in London on the potential for REDD (Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation) to make international forestry more just. The debate brought together a wide variety of stakeholders in REDD in order to assess its possibilities and its frailties. The panel leading the discussion included John Vidal from the Guardian and representatives from DFID, ODI, and FERN among others. What became increasingly clear during the debate is that although the international community appeared to be pushing on with REDD, it remains a highly contested and confused idea.
For those still unsure of what the initiative is, REDD is an effort to create a financial value for the carbon stored in forests. It offers incentives for developing countries to reduce emissions from forested lands and invest in low-carbon paths to sustainable development. However, the discussion highlighted fears that REDD may perpetuate, or even deepen, forest people’s historical dispossession from their forests.
The discussion focused on the concept of justice within REDD and the focal point of the evening turned out to be “local justice”. The question was - what is happening to the local people on the ground where these initiatives are implemented? It became increasingly clear, by hearing arguments from members of FERN and from those on the ground, that it is forest people that often are the ones who are most negatively affected by these projects. There is an overriding fear that REDD may not be dissimilar to other big money projects affecting the forests. For instance, a member of the audience, who had worked on a REDD project in Peru, stated that it was seen as more dangerous than palm oil plantations. The fear is that these projects can potentially, and almost by nature, take over entire forests, leaving indigenous people to lose the land earmarked for these REDD projects.
During the evening, several other members of the audience stated it was governments, and not large corporations, who were taking control of the forests. The ODI representative feared that REDD projects will reaffirm the ownership of the forests by the state. For example, as the government controls the carbon it trades, the forests fall under their control. This will go on to reinforce highly centralized, top down decision-making, something GBM works to move away from.
The panel was in agreement about what must be done, forest peoples and local communities must be included and able to make decisions for the future of forests in all REDD projects. Increasing evidence from Brazil and elsewhere indicates that tenure reform, that is placing control of forest resources into the hands of indigenous and other forest-dependent communities, contributes to local well-being and forest protection.
More at the linkIn July I attended a public debate in London on the potential for REDD (Reducing... more
-
-
Cancún, Mexico -- As representatives of Indigenous peoples and communities already suffering the immediate impacts of climate change, we express our outrage and disgust at the agreements that have emerged from the COP16 talks. As was exposed in the Wikileaks climate scandal, the Cancun Agreements are not the result of an informed and open consensus process, but the consequence of an ongoing US diplomatic offensive of backroom deals, arm-twisting and bribery that targeted nations in opposition to the Copenhagen Accord during the months leading up to the COP-16 talks.
We are not fooled by this diplomatic shell game. The Cancun Agreements have no substance. They are yet more hot air. Their only substance is to promote continued talks about climate mitigation strategies motivated by profit. Such strategies have already proved fruitless and have been shown to violate human and Indigenous rights. The agreements implictly promote carbon markets, offsets, unproven technologies, and land grabs—anything but a commitment to real emissions reductions.
The Voices of the People Must be Respected
Indigenous Peoples from North to South cannot afford these unjust and false ‘solutions’, because climate change is killing our peoples, cultures and ecosystems. We need real commitments to reduce emissions at the source and to keep fossil fuels in the ground. Because we are on the front lines of the impacts of climate change, we came to COP-16 with an urgent call to address the root causes of the climate crisis, to demand respect for the Rights of Mother Earth, and to fundamentally redefine industrial society’s relationship with the planet. Instead, the Climate COP has shut the doors on our participation and that of other impacted communities, while welcoming business, industry, and speculators with open arms. The U.S., Industrialized nations, big business and unethical companies like Goldman Sachs will profit handsomely from these agreements while our people die.
Women and youth in our communities are disproportionately burdened by climate impacts and rights violations. Real solutions would strengthen our collective rights and land rights while ensuring the protection of women, youth and vulnerable communities. While the Cancun Agreements do contain some language "noting" rights, it is exclusively in the context of market mechanisms, while failing to guarantee safeguards for the rights of peoples and communities.
The failures of the UN talks in Copenhagen have been compounded in Cancun. From the opening day to the closing moments of the talks, our voices were censored, dissenting opinions silenced and dozens ejected from the conference grounds. The thousands who rallied outside to reject market mechanisms and demand recognition of human and Indigenous rights were ignored.
The Market Will Not Protect Our Rights
Market-based approaches have failed to stop climate change. They are designed to commodify and profit from the last remaining elements of our Mother Earth and the air. Through its focus on market approaches like carbon trading, the UNFCCC has become the WTO of the Sky.
We are deeply concerned that the Cancun Agreements betray both our future and the rights of peoples, women, youth, and vulnerable populations. While the preamble to the Cancun Agreements note a call for "studies on human rights and climate change," this is in effect an empty reference, with no content and no standards, that will not protect the collective rights of peoples. The market mechanisms that implicitly dominate both the spirit and the letter of the Cancun Agreements will neither avert climate change nor guarantee human rights, much less the Rights of Mother Earth. Approaches based on carbon offsetting, like REDD, will permit polluters to continue poisoning land, water, air, and our bodies, while doing nothing to stop the climate crisis. Indeed, approaches based on the commodification of biodiversity, CO2, forests, water, and other sacred elements will only encourage the buying and selling of our human and environmental rights.
The Cochabamba People's Agreement Points the Way Forward
There is another way forward: the Cochabamba People's Agreement represents the vision of everyday people from all corners of the globe who are creating the solutions to climate change from the ground up, and calling for a global framework that respects human rights and the Rights of Mother Earth.
If any hope emerges from Cancun, it comes from the dramatic demonstrations we saw in the streets and from the deep and powerful alliances that were built among indigenous and social movements. The Indigenous Environmental Network joined thousands of our brothers and sisters to demand real climate solutions based in the rights of Indigenous Peoples, the rights of Mother Earth, and a just transition away from fossil fuels. We will continue to stand with our allies to demand climate justice.Cancún, Mexico -- As representatives of Indigenous peoples and communities... more
-
-
Carbon Could Be No. 1 Commodity: Exchange Chief
Published: Monday, 26 Apr 2010 | 12:49 PM ET Text Size
By: Natalie Erlich
Carbon trading is set to become the world's largest commodity market, Richard Sandor, chairman and founder of the Chicago Climate Exchange, told CNBC.com.
“Carbon, when it becomes worldwide, will be unambiguously the largest commodity in the world,” Sandor said in an interview. “The world emits 35 billion tons; it’s priced at $20; that’s $700 billion. Put a 10-20 multiple like you do on futures, [and] you’re talking about $10 trillion at maturity.”
Sandor, who was a major player in the formation of the interest-rate futures market, created the Chicago Climate Exchange [CCX] as a market-based solution to global warming. Time Magazine named him “Hero of the Planet” in 2002, and the “father of carbon trading” in 2007.
“In ’89-’90 someone came to me and said, ‘you commoditize interest rates, do you think you can commoditize air?’” he said. “You could cap the emissions that any utility has, and if they go below that cap, they can sell their emissions, their rights to emit— and if you can go above it, you can buy someone else’s. So it drives compliance.”Carbon Could Be No. 1 Commodity: Exchange Chief
Published: Monday, 26 Apr 2010 |... more
-
-
Carbon Trading is gradually taking hold around the world. Should America join in? If the answer was yes, why did Richard Sandor sell Climate Exchange Plc to ICE?Carbon Trading is gradually taking hold around the world. Should America join in? If... more
-
-
By Sarah Laskow, Media Consortium blogger
Image courtesy of Flickr user swperman under Creative Commons LicenseOn Monday, climate activists, nonprofit leaders, and governmental officials will gather in Cochabamba, Bolivia, to look for new ideas to address climate change. The World People’s Conference on Climate Change and the Rights of Mother Earth, organized by leading social organizations like 350.0rg, “will advocate the right to “live well,” as opposed to the economic principle of uninterrupted growth,” as Inter Press Service explains. In the absence of real leadership from the world’s governments, the conferees at Cochabamba are looking for solutions “committed to the rights of people and environment.”
The United States certainly isn’t stepping up. Sen. John Kerry (D-MA), along with Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) and Sen. Lindsay Graham (R-SC), were supposed to release their climate legislation next week, just in time for Earth Day. But yesterday the word came down that the release was being pushed back by another week, to April 26.
No matter when it finally arrives, like other recent environmental initiatives, this round of climate legislation falls short. Even if Congress manages to pass a bill—and there’s no guarantee—it will likely leave plenty of room for the coal, oil, and gas industries to continue pouring carbon into the atmosphere. And a wimpy effort from Congress will hinder international work to limit carbon emissions: As a prime polluter, the United States needs to put forward a real plan for change.
Kerry, Graham, and Lieberman
Although the text of the bill is not public yet, it is likely that this attempt at Senate climate legislation will limit carbon emissions only among utilities and gradually phase in other sectors of the economy. On Democracy Now!, environmentalist Bill McKibben called the bill “an incredible accumulation of gifts to all the energy industries, in the hopes that they won’t provide too much opposition to what’s a very weak greenhouse gas pact.”
Climate reform began with a leaner idea, a cap-and-trade system that limited carbon emissions while encouraging innovation. The Nation’s editors document the transformation of climate reform from the Obama administration’s original cap-and-trade proposal to the behemoth tangle it has become. Both the House and the Senate fattened their versions of climate legislation with treats for the energy industry. The Senate’s new idea to gradually expand emissions reduction through a bundle of energy bills only opens up more opportunities for influence.
“Some of these pieces of legislation may pass; others may fail; all are ripe for gaming by corporate lobbies,” the editors write. “Kerry-Lieberman-Graham would also skew subsidies in the wrong direction, throwing billions at “clean coal” technologies, nuclear power plants and offshore drilling, a questionable gambit favored by the Obama administration to garner support from Republicans and representatives from oil-, gas- and coal-producing states.”
Even with these goodies, the climate bill may not pass. The Washington Independent rounds up the D.C. players to watch as the next fight unfolds, including the Chamber of Commerce’s William Kovacs and the Environmental Protection Agency’s Lisa Jackson.
Green leftovers
In theory, the climate bill should not be America’s only ride to a greener future. But the other vehicles for green change choked during start-up. The EPA was going to regulate carbon emissions, but Congress has reared against that effort. The climate bill could snatch away that power from the executive branch.
If companies won’t limit their carbon emissions, individuals still have the option for action. But as Heather Rogers explains in The Nation, carbon offsets, one of the most popular mechanisms for minimizing carbon use “are a dubious enterprise.”
“To begin with, they don’t cut greenhouse gases immediately but only over the life of a project, and that can take years–some tree-planting efforts need a century to do the work. And a project is effective only if it’s successfully followed through; trees can die or get cut down, unforeseen ecological destruction might be triggered or the projects may simply go unbuilt.”
The pull of carbon offsets should diminish as energy use in buildings, cars, food, and flights gains in efficiency and uses less carbon. But if the green jobs sector is any indication, that revolution has been slow in coming. ColorLines reports that “there are no firm numbers on how many newly trained green workers are still jobless. But stories abound of programs that turn out workers with new, promising skills—in solar panel installation and weatherization, in places like Seattle and Chicago—and who nonetheless can’t find jobs.”
Cochabamba’s unique approach
These failures and setbacks don’t just affect Americans; they keep our leaders from negotiating with their international peers. The United Nations led a conference last winter in Copenhagen that promised to hash out carbon limits, yet produced no binding agreement. This coming winter, the UN will try again in Mexico, but if the United States shows up with the scant plan put forward by Kerry, Graham, and Lieberman, those negotiations have little promise.
In Cochabamba, leaders from inside and outside the government will attend a summit to discuss the future of climate change action. In The Progressive, Teo Ballve writes that,
“One of the bolder ideas is the creation of a global climate justice tribunal that could serve as an enforcement mechanism. And conference participants are already working on a “Universal Declaration of Mother Earth Rights” meant to parallel the U.N.’s landmark Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948.”
With U.S. government action paling, it might take outside ideas like these to revitalize the push towards a green future. By the end of next week, we’ll see if the Cochabamba group made any more progress than the bigwigs at Copenhagen.
This post features links to the best independent, progressive reporting about the environment by members of The Media Consortium. It is free to reprint. Visit the Mulch for a complete list of articles on environmental issues, or follow us on Twitter. And for the best progressive reporting on critical economy, health care and immigration issues, check out The Audit, The Pulse, and The Diaspora. This is a project of The Media Consortium, a network of leading independent media outlets.By Sarah Laskow, Media Consortium blogger
Image courtesy of Flickr user swperman... 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
- |
-
A bit long, but very informative. And while I am not an advocate of carbon credits, if it begins the processes of NOT cutting down forests and paying people to keep healthy forests alive, then go for it. Later, other methods can begin.
Excerpts:
To kick off the project, the team partnered with the Bolivian government and Fundación Amigos de la Naturaleza (FAN), a local conservation organization that would spearhead most of the on-the-ground work. Next, the group tracked down three energy companies interested in purchasing carbon credits to offset their corporate emissions. The companies — American Electric Power, BP Amoco and PacifiCorp — put up a total of $8.25 million in exchange for a promise of half the carbon offsets from the project (the Bolivian government would get the other half to sell on the international market).
Seed money in hand, the coalition paid $1.6 million to buy back the logging rights to the 2-million-acre forest. The Bolivian government then added the land to Noel Kempff, doubling the size of the national park to 4 million acres, and making it the world’s largest forest-carbon project.
Not everything at Noel Kempff has gone according to the original plan, however. Some business ventures created by the project have struggled. Newly constructed ecotourism lodges with red-tiled roofs have not seen many visitors. A company set up by the project to market products made from local plants went bankrupt. And the local community has not received any income from the carbon credits, as the Bolivian government has not sold its share of offsets yet.
International climate negotiations have broken down several times after rich and poor countries squared off over who should take what steps to reduce emissions. Countries such as China, India, Brazil and Indonesia have been reluctant to accept rules that might slow their development.
In recent years, logging and the rapid growth of palm oil plantations have carved away huge swaths of the region’s forests. In fact, deforestation in Indonesia is so widespread that it releases around 80 percent of the country’s greenhouse-gas emissions.
Why, they ask, should developing countries restrict industry, limit logging, lock up lands and risk losing local jobs to absorb the emissions of European countries, the United States and other nations that have already exploited their own natural resources? Legitimate or not, this international blame game has stalled attempts to address the threats of global warming.A bit long, but very informative. And while I am not an advocate of carbon credits, if... more
-
-
Hey folks...we are interviewing an...unusual expert...on carbon offsets today. Now is your chance to ask every question you ever wanted to ask...so tell me your question by 2pm today and I'll make sure we get the answer for you!Hey folks...we are interviewing an...unusual expert...on carbon offsets today. Now is... more
-
-
leahl
-
added this
-
2 years ago
- |
-
C.R.O.C. was created to promote the benefits of carbon offsets to folks like you. Just like a pollution-belching corporation, you too are now able to wreak environmental destruction when you earn a sufficient amount of carbon offset points. If you do something good for the environment, it just makes sense you get to do something bad to it. Or vice versa. Keep the logic circular, is what we say. Spin baby, spin!
Check us out at www.thecroc.org and on Twitter at twitter.com/itsacrocC.R.O.C. was created to promote the benefits of carbon offsets to folks like you. Just... more
-
-
C.R.O.C. was created to promote the benefits of carbon offsets to folks like you. Just like a pollution-belching corporation, you too are now able to wreak environmental destruction when you earn a sufficient amount of carbon offset points. If you do something good for the environment, it just makes sense you get to do something bad to it. Or vice versa. Keep the logic circular, is what we say. Spin baby, spin!
Visit us at thecroc.org or on Twitter at @itsacrocC.R.O.C. was created to promote the benefits of carbon offsets to folks like you. Just... more
-
-
A controversial new report says carbon offsets are a dangerous gimmick.
From the international Kyoto Protocol to the recent energy bill that passed the US House of Representatives, carbon offsets have been a centerpiece of policies designed to make countries responsible for the amount of CO2 they’re allowed to produce.
The general idea behind carbon offsets suggests US polluters send money overseas in exchange for promised - and often pretend - pollution reductions elsewhere.
Michael Despines, Climate Resilience Campaign Coordinator for the US chapter of Friends of the Earth.
For example (in) the United States, our per capita emissions is still about 19 tons per person. The world average is only 4 tons per person and in the developing world, it’s only about 2 tons per person. So we’re still emitting much, much higher than our fair share and with offsetting, it sort of locks that unfair ratio in place.
According to their report, Friends of the Earth recommends the US clean it’s own house by reducing emissions by 40% by the year 2020 before paying for the cleanup of our neighbors.
For a look at the full report and extended interview with Michael Despines, click here.
Illustration by Will Etling.A controversial new report says carbon offsets are a dangerous gimmick.
From the... more
-
-
Carbon Offsets Daily has compiled a list of 71 top brands that are using carbon offsets are part of their business day-to-day models. The list is categorized by categories of Airlines, Auto, Bottled Water, Consumer Products, Credit Card, Energy, Events, Facebook, Fashion, Online Retail, Publications, Shipping, Shopping Malls, and Travel.Carbon Offsets Daily has compiled a list of 71 top brands that are using carbon... more
-
-
Actually, I don't know if the title should read giving too much away to the "farm" sector as much as it should read, giving too much away to big ag. Personally, I think the emphasis of this bill as it now stands is more about profit than in reducing climate change emissions, and handing enforcement of it over the USDA is just another way for the fox to guard the henhouse. It won't be the Monsantos that will be hurt by this. It never is.Actually, I don't know if the title should read giving too much away to the... more
-
-
It seems a gentleman from Rochester, MN has chosen not to drive for an entire year and a half, and instead sell the "offsets" from his personal choice on ebay for $100 (or more). Now it is your turn to cash in - for just $100 you can feel good about doing all of your driving knowing that someone else has not driven for an entire year.
The owner estimates that since 1997 (when he started) the 1995 Ford Taurus should have driven around 19,000 miles. Using a carbon offset calculator from Conservation International, they decided that 19,000 miles equals $288 in offsets. Should this person get a bid, the money will be used to purchase a new bicycle (to replace the one that was recently stolen - he's currently walking to work) and allow him to keep selling offsets for more years of not driving.
Neat!It seems a gentleman from Rochester, MN has chosen not to drive for an entire year and... more
-
-
Sustainable Industries is predicting that in 2009, companies "going green" will decrease because, well, everyone’s done it. The greenwashing of 2008 has made it increasingly difficult for companies to garner attention when they do, or pretend to do, something green, while consumers have also become more knowledgeable about greenwashing marketing ploys.
Now that everyone has delivered their pre-packaged press releases detailing the greenness of their company, we'll start to find out who is for real and who is not.Sustainable Industries is predicting that in 2009, companies "going green"... more
-
-
The Greenwash Brigade brings you [their] favorite greenwashes of 2008. Some good, some bad, some just plain funny — and in no particular order. (Vote for your favorite in the comments.)
Fiji Water’s new green campaign: Yes, shipping water in container ships from a pristine aquifer in paradise is somehow green. Really? (Heidi)
Big Three CEOs Drive Hybrids to DC: Taking a more economical and less carbon-intensive mode of travel on the second trip was an obvious choice, after the roasting they got for taking private jets. However, anyone who has done serious carbon footprint analysis on their travel has learned one thing — there’s not much difference in CO2 per mile, unless you up your passengers per vehicle. Using TerraPass, I did a quick round-trip calculation of a first-class ticket on Northwest from Detroit to DC and a 35mpg hybrid (slightly better than the Chevy Malibu Hybrid) and… the flight was 578 pounds and the car was 560. Fiscally and environmentally, it would have been better to fly a commercial carrier — even first class — than drive, because who wants to pay their CEO to spend two days driving to and from meetings? If they really wanted to show serious fiscal (or environmental) responsibility, they would have flown economy or carpooled with each other. The only reason I can think of for them to drive hybrids is to make the companies look green. (Janne)
Clean Coal? - The ultimate oxymoron. Have a low-fat glazed donut with your clean coal. Burning coal is the leading source of global warming emissions. Burning coal isn’t clean. Mountain top removal isn’t clean. Carbon Capture and Sequestration is a pipe dream at this point. And the 2008 presidential candidates fell for it. Do they seriously think we think they believe it? (Jim/Janne/Dennis)
Democrats and Republicans both have green conventions to cover for their lack of green policies. I don’t want to make the claim that the two parties have equally bad environmental policies, as a matter of fact I argued that one had acceptable policies (except for the coal thing) and the other had an astonishing lack of policies here. Neither party has policies that come anywhere close to equaling the efforts they put into greening their conventions. (Here’s a less-than-positive report from the Democratic convention, but hurricane Gustav and Sarah Palin seem to have drowned out any post-game news from the RNC, and all I could find was this analysis.) (Janne)
Shell gets in trouble for greenwashing — though in the UK, not the US. I’m thankful that somewhere, someone has first determined that lying to customers is not acceptable, and that someone with the authority to enforce that law has bothered. (Janne)
A Greener Apple? - Don’t eat that apple. Despite previous commitments to phase out the use of these chemicals by year’s end, it appears that the latest 3G iPhone’s ingredients include polyvinyl chloride (PVC) and brominated flame retardants (BFR). Sony Ericsson and Nokia have PVC & BFR-free product lines. (Jim)
GM’s “gas friendly to gas free” campaign: The company begging for money from American taxpayers spends far more on its SUVs than on investing in fuel-efficient vehicles. And like its brethren, it continues to spend millions opposing CAFE standards. How about “gas free to full of gas”? (Heidi)
Beyond Petroleum — BP recognized the public demand to move to a post-fossil-fuel economy. While most of their advertising message has been updated with images of wind turbines and solar, 97% of their investment is still unfortunately in oil and coal. (Jim/Dennis)The Greenwash Brigade brings you [their] favorite greenwashes of 2008. Some good, some... more
-
-
The producers of the show "24" are going carbon neutral. They're helping to fund a wind farm in India and burning some biodiesel in the production trucks to try to precisely balance the carbon dioxide emitted from all those klieg lights with the amount avoided by generating Indian electricity from the breeze rather than burning coal.
Only problem? The accounting doesn't quite work.
To truly offset CO2 emissions, a project like a wind farm must be in addition to projects already in the works. If not, such so-called offsets aren't displacing the emissions from fossil fuel burning, they're simply adding more electricity to the overall system. That's the wrong kind of additionality.
This kind of tricky carbon accounting is what led the U.S. House of Representatives to abandon its pledge to go carbon neutral after determining that there is no way to verify that purchased offsets would make a difference. Too bad they already spent $89,000 on them.
Some say offsets are merely a way for the rich to buy their way out of environmental guilt. Whether it's offsets from no-till farming that would have happened anyway from the Chicago Climate Exchange or offsets from hydropower dams in China that would have been built anyway under the terms of the Clean Development Mechanism of the Kyoto Protocol, it's all a bit of a shell game at present.
Keep your eye on total emissions, which rise year after year. And remember: offsets may play a role in any upcoming cap-and-trade scheme to curb CO2 emissions. We may figure out a way for offsets to be more than a marketing ploy, but the numbers have to add up.The producers of the show "24" are going carbon neutral. They're... more
-
-
From fuel-efficient stoves for displaced Congolese families to drought-resistant cashew trees in Brazil, some aid agencies offering carbon offset schemes want to marry emissions savings with help for people living with climate change.
A London-based coalition is launching a new funding scheme to address concerns about existing trade in carbon credits -- primarily that this excludes the world's poorest communities, which are most at risk from the impact of global warming.
"This is very much not a minor absolution for your carbon sins, but is honestly a compensation payment for the impact you know your personal carbon emissions will have," said Andrew Simms, policy director at the New Economics Foundation (NEF), coordinating the initiative with the International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED).
The consortium says its scheme differs from conventional carbon offsetting -- which has focused mostly on promoting renewable energy -- because it will also help vulnerable people cope with phenomena such as more severe droughts and floods.
From fuel-efficient stoves for displaced Congolese families to drought-resistant... more
-
-
lecoke
-
added this
-
3 years ago
- |
-
Carbon Offsets and Renewable Energy Certificates are not “the cure”, but they are a great way to reduce your net carbon impact. Aside from offsetting your own personal environmental impact, these credits are funding projects that bring us closer to energy independence as a nation and a world. To learn more about Carbon Offsets and RECs check out the Huddler Wiki on, well… Carbon Offsets and RECs.
You may also want to check out Village Green Energy and Terrapass if you are ready to start offsetting!Carbon Offsets and Renewable Energy Certificates are not “the cure”, but... more
-
