Would you buy carbon offsets?

[Darth Rotor]

The first is whether or not carbon offsets reduce total global carbon emissions. It should be plain to see that they do.

That they might, if no one cheats and we have an effective global measuring/monitoring system that tracks the actual emission rate.

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.

There is some question on that, given wind pattern variation. A few months ago we had a neat discussion on Global Warming and Oceanic CO2 absorption the pointed to some curious variation between hemispheres, and the Indian Ocean in general. (Or I mixed it up with a Sci Am article, brain fuzzy.)

Additionally, the fact that one or more of those companies may be fraudulent does not have bearing on whether carbon offsets work in principle.

How they might work, in theory, versus how the implementation does or does not work, in practice. How often do theory and practice match in human endeavours, particularly when there is a monetary incentive to cheat?

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

Yep. A tough nut to crack. Cutting global human population by 50% might be easier than implementing carbon offsets on a global scale without cheating, as horrific a thought as the former may be. However, in defense of the offset idea, not trying solves nothing.

DR

 

[Darth Rotor]

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.

*Clevon Little voice*

"Don't nobody move, or the oak tree gets it!"

DR

 

[Ziggurat]

Either way it is a mute point,

I presume you mean a moot point.

 

[Overman]

^I do.

But maybe a muted point is near the same? j/k...

 

[fuelair]

No! But, I would happily sell some to the credulous wealthy.

 

[MilwaukeeMike]

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.

That sounds good... I’m going to set up a pay pal account also in which I will decrease the fart output of myself and my dog by an additional 10% starting at $100, and in $100 increments... I warn you, once I reach 90% flatulence reduction that last 10% will be hard..

 

[Miss Anthrope]

I moved to a town where we could walk everywhere and my hubby could use the commuter train. Our town consistently wins awards from "green groups" because of how many trees we plant, and these are paid for by my property taxes. Since I'm now down to using one tank per month in my gas guzzling truck--rather than two tanks per week--I'd say I've done my part. I don't need to pay someone to do more for my guilt.

 

[MilwaukeeMike]

Since I'm now down to using one tank per month in my gas guzzling truck--rather than two tanks per week--I'd say I've done my part. I don't need to pay someone to do more for my guilt.

How do you pull that off?

 

[BPSCG]

I moved to a town where we could walk everywhere and my hubby could use the commuter train. Our town consistently wins awards from "green groups" because of how many trees we plant, and these are paid for by my property taxes. Since I'm now down to using one tank per month in my gas guzzling truck--rather than two tanks per week--I'd say I've done my part. I don't need to pay someone to do more for my guilt.

But what about the poor people who can't afford to buy trees? Don't you have an obligation to help your fellow man?

Some of the property taxes I pay to The Democratic People's Republic of Alexandria goes to provide "affordable housing" to people who work in Alexandria but could not otherwise afford to live here, on the apparent rationale that having a poor underclass is good for a town. Maybe there should be an "affordable CO2 offsets" tax, too, to help people buy CO2 offsets, who couldn't otherwise afford them.

 

[Overman]

I moved to a town where we could walk everywhere and my hubby could use the commuter train. Our town consistently wins awards from "green groups" because of how many trees we plant, and these are paid for by my property taxes. Since I'm now down to using one tank per month in my gas guzzling truck--rather than two tanks per week--I'd say I've done my part. I don't need to pay someone to do more for my guilt.

What about the previous X years of your life?

 

[Miss Anthrope]

What about the previous X years of your life?

I didn't own a car until I was 26, it was public transit until then. I rarely fly, have always been good about the thermostat.

 

[Fnord]

IMHO, "Carbon Offsets" are just one more way that the Government has of separating people from their money.

Follow the money wherever it goes. If it is invested in ways to improve or protect the environment, then it is a Good Thing. If instead the money goes into a campaign fund, lobbyist organization, or a bureaucratic grease pit, then it's a Major Scam, which is a Bad Thing.

 

[Number Six]

I moved to a town where we could walk everywhere and my hubby could use the commuter train. Our town consistently wins awards from "green groups" because of how many trees we plant, and these are paid for by my property taxes. Since I'm now down to using one tank per month in my gas guzzling truck--rather than two tanks per week--I'd say I've done my part. I don't need to pay someone to do more for my guilt.

The town where I live sounds similar. People that live in town can walk or bike or take the bus where they need to go and they keep lots of green and trees in town and everyone feels good about it all. But the problem is that the number of jobs in the town is larger than the number of people that can live in the town and as a result many people that work here are forced to live farther away and have longer commutes. So while the people in town can say they're helping the environment directly, they're hurting it indirectly (although they don't talk about that part).

Somebody else asked how, if s/he makes sure his own carbon footprint is offset, how can s/he possibly be harming the environment. Well the example above is one way of indirectly doing so. If you live in such a way as to completely offset your own carbon footpring but that has the effect of making it harder for others to do so, then it hurts the environment rather than helps.

 

[Miss Anthrope]

How do you pull that off?

I walk to the grocery store. We walk to the commuter train. I walk the kids to their doctor's office. We walk to the park and the local activities for the kids. We made this decision deliberately. We lived in a suburb that required driving for everything. Even for my husband to take the bus downtown, I had to drive him to the transit center.

We found a place with a low cost of living (our house cost less than half what it would have in our old neighborhood), a great quality of life where we were not car bound. Instead of living in a Microserf riddled suburb that required driving for everything, we moved further away, to a small town on the commuter line.

The sad irony is the house we left had many, many trees on it's acre. Now those have been cut down, and townhouses will soon replace it. While we lived there, there was lots of green, and only one house using resources.

So once again, I don't feel guilty. I've never been big on polluting. I bring my own canvas bags to the grocery store. I recycle. I've gone from driving every single day to driving once per week. This ability to walk, and the "green" mentality of the town was the number one factor in my decision.

Some people buy "offsets". I actually changed my situation, and am raising my kids by example.

 

[Number Six]

The sad irony is the house we left had many, many trees on it's acre. Now those have been cut down, and townhouses will soon replace it. While we lived there, there was lots of green, and only one house using resources.

The people that will live in those townhouses were living somewhere else before. The comparison shouldn't be between one house on one acre with trees vs one acre of no trees and all townhouses. Rather the comparison should be between 2 people living on one acre with lots of trees and 48 people living elsewhere vs 50 peopl living on one acre of townhouses with no trees. I don't know how the comparison would come out, but I'm just saying that the comparison of fewer people vs more people isn't a fair one because if people don't live here then they have to live somewhere else.

It's a common theme where I live for people to fight any kind of housing development on the basis of saving the environment, as if preventing the development will mean those people simply won't exist. I don't get it.

 

[Overman]

I didn't own a car until I was 26, it was public transit until then. I rarely fly, have always been good about the thermostat.

What about electricity? Did it come from coal or some other type of power plant?

Do you eat meat? Gases released from Cows stomach's are a pollutant!

Do you buy your groceries local? Your other goods? Transportation of goods and services takes its toll as well.


I'm not calling you out or anything. In fact I'm saying that you shouldn't feel guilty. None of us should.

The world will always be changing, future generations will face different problems than us. We may be able to predict their problems from time to time, but even in large numbers it still is near impossible to change everyone on the planets habits. You can't stress it, or feel guilty about it.

 

[Earthborn]

IMHO, "Carbon Offsets" are just one more way that the Government has of separating people from their money.

You are thinking of carbon credits, which is an entirely different cup of tea.

 

[WildCat]

The sad irony is the house we left had many, many trees on it's acre. Now those have been cut down, and townhouses will soon replace it. While we lived there, there was lots of green, and only one house using resources.

IMHO many people living in a small space is better than a few people living on a giant plot of land, environment-wise. If everyone in Chicago lived on a 1 acre plot of land we'd be sprawled all the way to Iowa. It'd be like... Los Angeles!

 

[Puppycow]

Here in Japan, I don't even own a car. I can get everywhere I need to by train, bus or walking. If I need a car I rent it, but I actually haven't done that in years. The idea is to save money more than to prevent global warming, I damit. The Tokyo area is pretty dense (I live in Yokohama, but the two urban areas are contiguous (there's no country in between.) Lately they've been building a lot of tower condominiums (they call them "mansions" in Japan), which are quite space-efficient and usually conveniently located. A bit like living in a hotel. Personally I live in a house because my wife wanted a garden, but it's a small plot of land. Land prices are really expensive here.
I think this is due more to geographical necessity than choice, although the country areas of Japan have been suffering from depopulation. Everyone young it seems wants to live in Tokyo or at least a major city. All the good jobs it seems are in Tokyo.

 

[gnome]

You are thinking of carbon credits, which is an entirely different cup of tea.

I am BEGGING for an explanation of this...

I think half the problem is some people don't know what "carbon offsets" actually are... so they make up their mind based on what they SUPPOSE it is... some envision a bureaucratic morass that sucks in money... some envision a shell game that doesn't really change anything... and some imagine something practical that creates a market for carbon reductions. So they'll comment based on what they imagine.

I am guilty of this myself... I need to know more.