Is Carbon Offsetting bullshit?
- Thread starter Udo Erasmus
- Start date
Errol's son
Well-Known Member
It is like giving money to the RSPCA so you can keep on beating up your dog...
nino_savatte said:
Carbon Neutral means "that an activity doesn't produce C02, methane etc"
Carbon footprint means "how much C02, methane etc" an activity produces.
Sure we've got machine politicians - but you're a machine-water-muddier.
You're an unwitting agent of professional liars like the Competative Enterprise Institute, Cooler Heads Coalition etc. You're acting on behalf of Exxon and Big Tobacco.
guinnessdrinker said:indeed. I read over the last few days about some announcement by Ruth Kellyeek: ) that all new homes by 2016 will be "carbon neutral"......
I wonder what she means by that.
I expect what she means is that the building of the houses doesn't involve a net-increase in greenhouse gases... and possibly that the energy systems of the houses themselves don't involve increases of greenhouse gases.
That might not actually be true... but that's what she means.
Why? What do you think she means? I mean it's not difficult to understand is it?
Three posts in a row... not like me etc.
The feeling I'm getting here is that various people find it easier to remain cynical over climate change than to face up to it.
crustychick
doo-woop-de-doo
GarfieldLeChat said:
where did you get that figure from??? last time I checked, around 30% of the UK's carbon emissions come from the domestic sector.
crustychick
doo-woop-de-doo
guinnessdrinker said:indeed. I read over the last few days about some announcement by Ruth Kelly
I wonder what she means by that.
I think they've shot themselves in the foot a bit with this one...
the 2007 building regs were meant to be a 40% (?) improvement on the last ones (although they only managed 20%) and the 2010 ones are supposed to be a 25% on the 2007 and so on until they have net carbon emissions of zero by 2016. it could be done.... but it's going to be tough!
crustychick
doo-woop-de-doo
I think the trouble with carbon offsetting is that it is dominated (for people like you and me and the business/industry sector) by a completely unregulated voluntary market.
You could go to one offsetting firm and offset a transatlantic flight for £3.53, and a different one and it could cost you £20+. Why the disparity? Traditionally the voluntary market has been dominated by forestry. The benefits of this have been heavily questioned, and rightly so. It is incredibly difficult to estimate the volume of CO2 that a tree can sequester in its lifetime, dependent on the type of tree, soil quality, end use etc and you cannot guarantee against change of land use, or forest fire. Plus the additional threat of biodiversity loss in mass reforestation projects.
However, most offsetting companies are coming to realise this and are now offereing a portfolio of projects including energy efficiency and renewable energy projects.
I think that if an offsetting project can invest in renewable energy in an area which would not have it without that investment then it can only be a good thing (this is called additionality). Also, current media interest in carbon offsetting is raising awareness of environmental issues and the need to do something about it in the public arena.
However, of course there is a real chance that by offering offsetting people will become complacent and not try to reduce their own carbon emissions. However, it makes financial sense to reduce all possible emissions by being as energy efficient as possible before you offset anyway (for businesses anyway). I think, that as with anything, it has it's place but education needs to be delivered alongside it.
long post - sorry
eta: the government are planning on introducing a voluntary code of best practise in order to regulate the offsetting market. in January they released a consultation document, which you can get from here about the plans for the project. So if you feel strongly about this you should read it and reply. I think it's open until mid-April.
You could go to one offsetting firm and offset a transatlantic flight for £3.53, and a different one and it could cost you £20+. Why the disparity? Traditionally the voluntary market has been dominated by forestry. The benefits of this have been heavily questioned, and rightly so. It is incredibly difficult to estimate the volume of CO2 that a tree can sequester in its lifetime, dependent on the type of tree, soil quality, end use etc and you cannot guarantee against change of land use, or forest fire. Plus the additional threat of biodiversity loss in mass reforestation projects.
However, most offsetting companies are coming to realise this and are now offereing a portfolio of projects including energy efficiency and renewable energy projects.
I think that if an offsetting project can invest in renewable energy in an area which would not have it without that investment then it can only be a good thing (this is called additionality). Also, current media interest in carbon offsetting is raising awareness of environmental issues and the need to do something about it in the public arena.
However, of course there is a real chance that by offering offsetting people will become complacent and not try to reduce their own carbon emissions. However, it makes financial sense to reduce all possible emissions by being as energy efficient as possible before you offset anyway (for businesses anyway). I think, that as with anything, it has it's place but education needs to be delivered alongside it.
long post - sorry
eta: the government are planning on introducing a voluntary code of best practise in order to regulate the offsetting market. in January they released a consultation document, which you can get from here about the plans for the project. So if you feel strongly about this you should read it and reply. I think it's open until mid-April.
kropotkin said:
Well firstly I'd question if permanent "economic growth" is necessary or even possible within a finite system.
Secondly, there is/will be a huge amount of money in green technology - and if you get away from slash-and-burn mentality then efficiency makes better economic sense than inefficiency.
The problem isn't that environmental responsibility is uneconomic, it's that it's uneconomic for slash and burn industries like the oil industry... who've created this huge raft of propaganda and disinformation (put exxon climate change into google) which has been very effective and has successfully infected a number of posters on these boards.
Funny thing that - the House of Lords Committee report ( http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200506/ldselect/ldeconaf/12/1202.htm )came to a totally different conclusion and was ignored (presumably as it didn't provide the nagoombah that would support a raft of eco-stealth taxes.nick1181 said:
He who pays the piper etc.
Cobbles said:
That conclusion being?
Maybe that's why it was ignored. I spent about 15 minutes reading it and I can't see any conclusions.
It all reads like this :
As far as I can see, the whole thing is a really verbose restatement of George Bush's playing-for-time cop-out "we need to do more research" (so ma' good buddies can carry on burning stuff).
Enough water-muddying.
nick1181 said:
Well, quite.
But this point shouldn't be glossed over as it is of core importance. The system itself creates boundaries to possible choices that bosses can make in the absence of outside pressure.
By "outside pressure" I do not mean pressure groups or "awareness-raising" campaigns- but actual internal threats to the continuation of the system.
What you are suggesting is that there is a possible path that the system can follow that can lead to reduced emissions- I do not believe that that is the case. There are many future paths that the system can evolve along, but one where the average rate of profit decreases to zero is simply not a path that capitalism is capable of following.
I think that this is the reason for the "green" lifestyle choices currently being promoted- part asceticism (workers! forgo your irresponsible use of aeroplanes in your meagre holidays!), part "ethical" consumerism ('Green' insurance policies, cars, houses etc etc). Production for profit- the subordination of human need to the needs of capital- must survive- consequently the costs associated must, as always, be transferred to us.
You tacitly admit yourself that further economic growth will lead to further resource use and carbon emissions. This must be the baseline from which further understandings flow and strategies must be measured. What you seem to be advocating does not address this- in fact it continues to cloud a clear understanding of the nature of the problem and which solutions have the capacity to actually change things.
'Efficiency'
This is not a neutral term. This is not a term that can be applied without a clear understanding of where its use leads. You are quite right that 'efficient' market behaviour leads to 'slash and burn' environmental consequences while the environment is a market externality and short termism prevails. Can 'slash and burn' be avoided while the production of profit remains? Note- the question is not "Can slash and burn be avoided if the 'green' economic sector grows?".
It ultimately doesn't matter if the green sector grows to it's maximum size- it is all just fiddling while Rome burns, and attempting to make the tune go on for as long as possible. Business as usual.
How serious is the potential threat? How many people must starve, how many houses must be washed away, how many plagues before the extraction of surplus value is questioned?
On the contrary, it is extremely economic.
nick1181 said:
nick1181 said:
I am perfectly able to understand english, thanks very much. I am just rather cynical when it come to this mob. it's probably just another good excuse to tear down council housing and replace it with privatised housing associations.
as I understand it, no carbon neutral homes have been built yet.
Similar threads
