Would you buy carbon offsets?

[Puppycow]

On my commute this morning I was listening to the BBC daily newspod and a bit about carbon offsets. A fellow was angry that British Airways had not made it very easy for its passengers to voluntarily buy carbon offsets. Personally, I would not buy carbon offsets because I am not sure if it would be a good use of my money. If I'm going to give to charity, I would rather give to one that I can understand well enough to be certain that it would actually benefit somebody.

 

[quixotecoyote]

I feel the same way. If we can figure out a way to do it that actually accomplished the intended goals, I have no objection to it on principle.

 

[Rolfe]

When I first came across the idea (in following up a local estate agent's surprising claim to be "the UK's first carbon neutral estate agent") I thought it was a scam. I still think so, though I'm open to persuasion.

Rolfe.

 

[WildCat]

Buy your way out of the guilt that comes with owning a McMansion and a fleet of automobiles! Then you can still drive your SUV to the global warming rally and cluck about the poor people who can't afford to strip every wall in their 1,000 square foot home to insulate it properly, while you use enough power in your life to power a small city!

It's the American way!

 

[Puppycow]

Buy your way out of the guilt that comes with owning a McMansion and a fleet of automobiles! Then you can still drive your SUV to the global warming rally and cluck about the poor people who can't afford to strip every wall in their 1,000 square foot home to insulate it properly, while you use enough power in your life to power a small city!

It's the American way!

What's the use of being wealthy if it makes you feel guilty? I suppose that if it makes people feel better, it could be argued that it is worth the money. Of course, the same argument could be made for psychics or homeopathic remedies.

I find it somewhat liberating to realize that it is not my fault that there is suffering in the world. It's too bad, but I didn't create the problems.

 

[Bikewer]

Although I have heard some evidently-reputable individuals promoting "carbon trading" and offsets and such, I must admit that it all sounds like a big shell game to me.

I'm a polluter, and it's vastly expensive for me to clean up say, my coal-fired power plant. So I pay for my pollution by giving money to an appropriately "green" industry.
This supposedly motivates me to clean up at some point....

Are these offsets and carbon-trading fees sufficiently painful to motivate me to clean up, or can I offset the "offsets" by a bit of price-raising and book-cooking?
(not to mention paying lobbyists to "work" with congress...)

 

[Overman]

History has seen something like this before...

 

[Overman]

on a sidenote...

Hoth makes a good planet X.

 

[chulbert]

When I first came across the idea (in following up a local estate agent's surprising claim to be "the UK's first carbon neutral estate agent") I thought it was a scam. I still think so, though I'm open to persuasion.

After reducing your carbon output as much as reasonably possible you compensate for what's left by either planting trees or paying others to reduce their carbon emissions.

It's not a long-term or complete solution but it will in principle reduce net global carbon emissions. Some have doubts regarding its practical implementation but that's a different issue. Others have ethical objections but that too is a different issue.

History has seen something like this before...

Carbon offsets are not at all similar indulgences. To see why, start with a proof of God's existence.

 

[MilwaukeeMike]

Hoth... Yes, maybe we can use Hoth instead of planet X from now on.

 

[Overman]

Carbon offsets are not at all similar indulgences. To see why, start with a proof of God's existence.

To see why they are similar, start with proof that buying a carbon offset actually improves the environment.

 

[chulbert]

To see why they are similar, start with proof that buying a carbon offset actually improves the environment.

That's a different issue entirely.

 

[Overman]

Not in my metaphor.

 

[MilwaukeeMike]

Someone answer me this; does buying the carbon offset actually reduce carbon emissions? Or does it just make somebody feel good about themselves?

 

[Overman]

^Depends what you buy...Most of the companies doing this are frauds, and then the science on it is difficult to judge, because of the indirect effects they may cause...

Either way it is a mute point, because people are buying carbon 'offsets', which supposedly just 'offsets' the persons negitive effect. It does not improve the enviroment.

 

[MilwaukeeMike]

^Depends what you buy...Most of the companies doing this are frauds, and then the science on it is difficult to judge, because of the indirect effects they may cause...

Either way it is a mute point, because people are buying carbon 'offsets', which supposedly just 'offsets' the persons negitive effect. It does not improve the enviroment.

That's what I thought. Thanks.

 

[chulbert]

Not in my metaphor.

Yes, it is. You're confusing two related issues. (I should not have called the "entirely" different. I'm sorry.)

The first is whether or not carbon offsets reduce total global carbon emissions. It should be plain to see that they do. If you plant enough trees to soak up the carbon you emit, your net output is zero. The fact that those trees might be on a different continent, professionally sold and managed by a company, is not relevant. Additionally, the fact that one or more of those companies may be fraudulent does not have bearing on whether carbon offsets work in principle.

The second is whether reducing global carbon emissions will "improve the environment." While this is an important question it is separate from the first.

 

[chulbert]

Either way it is a mute point, because people are buying carbon 'offsets', which supposedly just 'offsets' the persons negitive effect. It does not improve the enviroment.

If one compensates for their own negative effect with an equal or greater positive effect, how does that "not improve the environment"?

P.S. - Points can be moot, not mute.

 

[BPSCG]

Why can't I just plant a tree in my back yard and be done with it?

Here's a thought. We have a huge oak tree in our front yard. It's really nice to have until about mid-July (which is right now), when it starts dropping acorns, which signals the end of walking barefoot outside season. Then in October, it starts dropping leaves. Last year, I counted the number of leaves that it dropped and stopped around the third or fourth time I got to infinity. Those leaves have to be raked up, a job Mrs. BPSCG and I have not quite come to blows over, yet.

Plus, when I mow the lawn, I have to mow around it, instead of doing one nice long row after another.

So we're not sure this big old oak tree is worth it to us. We could cut it down and chop it up and have lots of wood for the fireplace, which we've never used.

I suppose cutting it down and burning it a little at a time would be bad for the environment, though, 'cuz it probably takes a lot of CO2 out of the air and burning it would put a lot of CO2 into the air.

So, since the net benefit of keeping this tree is greater for y'all than it is for me, I'm going to set up a PayPal account called SaveBPSCGOak@PayPal.com. If I don't see $500 in that account by September 30, when the leaves will probably start coming down, I'm getting the chain saw out. You want to save that tree and save the Earth? Make it worth my while. There's your carbon offset for you.

 

[Overman]

The first is whether or not carbon offsets reduce total global carbon emissions. It should be plain to see that they do. If you plant enough trees to soak up the carbon you emit, your net output is zero. The fact that those trees might be on a different continent, professionally sold and managed by a company, is not relevant. Additionally, the fact that one or more of those companies may be fraudulent does not have bearing on whether carbon offsets work in principle.

On comparing Carbon Offsets to Indulgences...

'It should be plain to see that Indulgences offset sins. If you do enough good deeds to counteract all of the sins you have done, your net output is zero. The fact that those good deeds might be done on a different continent, professionally sold and managed by a company or church, is not relevant. Additionally, the fact that one or more of those churches may be fraudulent does not have bearing on whether indulgences work in principle.'

And now you can understand how I was using my metaphor. It seems the same right down the line to me.