Is Carbon Offsetting bullshit?

[zoltan]

Wherever capitalism applies its logic, you can be sure that a lack of sincerity is never far behind.

hence the ability to make $ out of the scheme for the big players.yes, I know its wrong, but......

We should know by now that no one has the will to force these fuckers to do anything they dont want to, even if as a direct/ indirect result of their business, we are slowly killing the planet.

 

[nino_savatte]

hence the ability to make $ out of the scheme for the big players.yes, I know its wrong, but......

We should know by now that no one has the will to force these fuckers to do anything they dont want to, even if as a direct/ indirect result of their business, we are slowly killing the planet.

I find it depressing that we live in a world where technology has evolved but our ability to think has not. We still live in a world where binarist thought still holds sway.

 

[GarfieldLeChat]

one way to do it might be to create a situation where you have usuable and tradable carbon points if you suceed in reducing your carbon levels by say 10% then the follwing eyar this gives you an extra 2% of carbon trading points which whilst it cannot go towards your carbon allowence are allowed to be traded with others as a sort of dividend on reduced carbons emmisions. the flipside could be that if you go over your emissions levels you could then have your trading points devauled to say half their worth thus it provides a finacial incentive to actually come in under wieght each year...

 

[GarfieldLeChat]

I find it depressing that we live in a world where technology has evolved but our ability to think has not. We still live in a world where binarist thought still holds sway.

i don't think it's a lack of ability to think it's that there's a lack of actual mechanism to do things in other ways at the moment...

 

[fredfelt]

A huge hole in the concept of offsetting that has not been mentioned is the time lag from emmision of carbon to another party offsetting those emmisions.

For instance you fly and release the carbon in 60 minutes. You fund some offsetting project which have life spans of 30 years. We can't wait that long

 

[zoltan]

one way to do it might be to create a situation where you have usuable and tradable carbon points if you suceed in reducing your carbon levels by say 10% then the follwing eyar this gives you an extra 2% of carbon trading points which whilst it cannot go towards your carbon allowence are allowed to be traded with others as a sort of dividend on reduced carbons emmisions. the flipside could be that if you go over your emissions levels you could then have your trading points devauled to say half their worth thus it provides a finacial incentive to actually come in under wieght each year...

sound good to me..... but "they" wouldnt stand for it

 

[nino_savatte]

i don't think it's a lack of ability to think it's that there's a lack of actual mechanism to do things in other ways at the moment...

Tbh, I think we're just storing up trouble with this mad scheme (hence my assertion that our thought has not evolved to match our technological advances). It's the peculiarly capitalistic tone to this that worries me.

 

[GarfieldLeChat]

sound good to me..... but "they" wouldnt stand for it

they might if they could influence the initially startign point being high enough, the point being is that they'd work out whether it was finaically benifical year in year out to make money on a carbon trading market or via their prinipal method of profit creation, there will of course be some kind of bell curve which the two axis will meet at which point then we will have issues... however at that point the reductions should be significant.

more over it becomes a thing where your continued reduction in carbon emmsisions means you are more profitable in your carbon trading... so the money you spend on that reduction is acutally recovered via the tradable points... (in effect givien tax releif to those with the biggest carbon reductions)

 

[GarfieldLeChat]

Tbh, I think we're just storing up trouble with this mad scheme (hence my assertion that our thought has not evolved to match our technological advances). It's the peculiarly capitalistic tone to this that worries me.

true but then it's a case still of somethign is better than nothing... as long as this isn't the only thing then it's a good startign point it makes companies think for a time at least that eco thinking isn't going to equal reduce profits...

 

[kyser_soze]

one way to do it might be to create a situation where you have usuable and tradable carbon points if you suceed in reducing your carbon levels by say 10% then the follwing eyar this gives you an extra 2% of carbon trading points which whilst it cannot go towards your carbon allowence are allowed to be traded with others as a sort of dividend on reduced carbons emmisions. the flipside could be that if you go over your emissions levels you could then have your trading points devauled to say half their worth thus it provides a finacial incentive to actually come in under wieght each year...

Yeah, I suggested similar a few months ago when the whole 'green taxes' thing erupted and the perenially indignant were getting huffy about how it would hit the poor the most as opposed to those who create the largest carbon footprint.

I'm all in favour of a nationally run and government backed scheme that works on these lines and that reduces the actual amount of carbon credits available annually. The big problem is measurement and the level of intrusion people are prepared to accept, for example, I was thinking of how you could directly link car use to a carbon scheme that didn't rely on self-reporting (which without a massive auditing mechanism would be wide open to abuse) or hugely violate people's privacy (everytime you buy fuel you have to register your car VIN or number plate and at the end of each month/year your total carbon footprint is assessed).

 

[TAE]

BBC News - Climate campaign targets offsets

Climate campaigners have occupied the offices of one of Britain's leading carbon management companies to protest against carbon offsetting.
...
Rising Tide has been invited to give evidence to the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Climate Change (APPGCC), which it says has been "privatised", with its operations co-ordinated by the CarbonNeutral Company.

 

[tim]

aye, i think its pretty much bullshit

Bullshit conversion is indeed a fine way of offsetting carbon.

In general off-setting seems like a wonderful scam.

 

[Wilson]

lol

 

[stavros]

so how much time have we got, like?

No one is sure of that, but estimates vary. I don't believe we can risk it by essentially gambling on the 40 or 50 years it takes for a tree to grow being within the allowable time frame, especially as some believe the "tipping point" has already been passed. I don't know if it has or not, but I'm sure as hell going to do everything I can in case it hasn't yet.

 

[GarfieldLeChat]

Yeah, I suggested similar a few months ago when the whole 'green taxes' thing erupted and the perenially indignant were getting huffy about how it would hit the poor the most as opposed to those who create the largest carbon footprint.

oh i still don't think that it should be down to the indivual at home at all... they are totally insignficant when it comes down to it less than 0.01 % of the problem is caused by domestic homes so why force domestic homes or households to foot the bill whilst in effect big business is allowed to fiddle whilst rome burns...

no sorry Big business needs to be beaten with sticks into reforming and facing up to it's reponsibilty after all carbon trading in a domestic setting would be neigh on impossible let alone impractical...

I'm all in favour of a nationally run and government backed scheme that works on these lines and that reduces the actual amount of carbon credits available annually. The big problem is measurement and the level of intrusion people are prepared to accept, for example, I was thinking of how you could directly link car use to a carbon scheme that didn't rely on self-reporting (which without a massive auditing mechanism would be wide open to abuse) or hugely violate people's privacy (everytime you buy fuel you have to register your car VIN or number plate and at the end of each month/year your total carbon footprint is assessed).

not really how much would it be to say charge instead of vat EcoVat for example enviromental value added tax where you in effect paid for your carbon usuage with each liter which went into your fuel tank.

It'd also mean that instead of gorden getting huge windfall taxation each time the fuel price went up ... that instead eco schemes would get a signifcant boost...

 

[GarfieldLeChat]

as for tipping point i think it's more than likely we have hit it and then some.

I figure if we are only know begining to be able to measure the thigns like glacial melt and carbon pollution and predicts it's potential effects then we haven't got anywhere near the level of scientific knowledge or ability to make reasonable porjections predecitons etc and yet we are still even in this essentially monumentally stupid and blind level of ignorence able to calculate that we are in trouble then we have no bloody idea how up to our neaks in it we really are.... in essence i think we have run into the middle of a minefield and suddenly become aware fo the mines...

 

[durruti02]

aye, i think its pretty much bullshit

agree

 

[kropotkin]

It is bullshit.

There is only one way to actually accomplish what schemes like this claim to work towards: ceasing the production of exchange value.

economic growth is coupled to increased resource use = year on year increases in emissions. All hopes are currently pinned on massive investment in tech that attempts to decouple growth from resource use. Not going to happen, but will delay for enough time to feather some nests while the poor drown and/or starve.

 

[ViolentPanda]

YES - it's bullshit.

It's the equivalent of a medieval tract - buy the tract, and keep on sinning, and you're guaranteed a place in heaven.

The words Dorian and Gray spring to mind...

Surely thou doth mean an indulgence rather than a tract, Sirrah?

 

[Cobbles]

Is Carbon Offsetting bullshit?

Only when the Government gets involved.

Air passenger Duty has been doubled from a fiver to a tenner (£10->£20 in business class) on domestic flights.

It's gone up from £20 to £40 on long haul flights and from £40 to £80 in thpremium cabins.

On the basis that this is supposed to be for environmental reasons, why is it that I can offset the CO2 on a flight from the Edinburgh to Bristol for 20p, when the Government wants to charge me a fiver/tenner without even pretending to use any of the dosh they collect for any thing that will directly affect CO2 absorbtion.


Well done BA for challenging this hypocrisy:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/main.jhtml?xml=/money/2006/12/16/cnba16.xml

 

[fredfelt]

Is Carbon Offsetting bullshit?

Only when the Government gets involved.

Air passenger Duty has been doubled from a fiver to a tenner (£10->£20 in business class) on domestic flights.

It's gone up from £20 to £40 on long haul flights and from £40 to £80 in thpremium cabins.

On the basis that this is supposed to be for environmental reasons, why is it that I can offset the CO2 on a flight from the Edinburgh to Bristol for 20p, when the Government wants to charge me a fiver/tenner without even pretending to use any of the dosh they collect for any thing that will directly affect CO2 absorbtion.


Well done BA for challenging this hypocrisy:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/main.jhtml?xml=/money/2006/12/16/cnba16.xml

Oh Cobbles

You miss understand. Carbon ofsetting is a way to raise money for private business. People pay so they go about their own business without changing their behaviour and without feeling any guilt.

Tax is about raising money for the goverment - as it seems that we have no choice but to reduce carbon emmisions then why make carbon intensive activities more expenive?

Just because a tax is based up a carbon intensive activities it does not mean it should be invested in "environmentally friendly projects".

 

[stavros]

The idea of "environmentally friendly projects" is often a red herring. For example; "we took our first skiing holiday this year, but it's OK because we travelled over land in an environmentally friendly way". Now unless they physically walked or cycled their way to the Alps, they would have, at some point, relied on motorised transport as they do with ski lifts, whereas before they stayed at home and so the overall carbon output was increased, sugar-coated if you will. As I try to explain to children when I teach about percentages, you earn more interest with £100 in the bank at 2% APR than with £10 at 10% APR. Proportion needs to be considered.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

Sinkswatch is a useful resource on this.

I can see how non-corrupt intelligently managed carbon trading might put a marginally worthwhile sticking plaster on a fundamentally fucked up situation.

A lot of the offsetting schemes in practice though cause a great deal of damage, especially when, as is often the case, they seek to get investment from gullible well-off westerners for horribly unsustainable commercial monoculture forestry projects in third world countries.

 

[guinnessdrinker]

there is no real mechanism for carbon dioxide creating global warming.

can you explain that?

 

[Bernie Gunther]

can you explain that?

Only with piles of thread-clogging cut and paste gibberish that he doesn't understand.

 

[guinnessdrinker]

I'm deeply suspicious of it.

I, as a dangerous ecoanarchist, am as well.

 

[guinnessdrinker]

It's an accountancy trick - the carbon is still produced.

chaemically speaking, I strongly suspect it is not being produced but comes under a different form. do you mean it is released into the atmosphere?

 

[guinnessdrinker]

Wherever capitalism applies its logic, you can be sure that a lack of sincerity is never far behind.

indeed. I read over the last few days about some announcement by Ruth Kelly eek: ) that all new homes by 2016 will be "carbon neutral"......

I wonder what she means by that.

 

[nino_savatte]

indeed. I read over the last few days about some announcement by Ruth Kelly eek: ) that all new homes by 2016 will be "carbon neutral"......

I wonder what she means by that.

"Carbon neutral" like "carbon footprint" is just another meaningless catchphrase. Machine politicians like Kelly rely on rhetorical flourishes, brand names, slogans and catchphrases because they lack ideas that have real meaning.

 

[nick1181]

so how much time have we got, like?

According to the Stern Report (11/2006) about 10 years.