Do you do carbon offsetting of your travel and transportation?

[FabianPattberg]

Do you offset your carbon emmisions?

If not, tell us why not or what we can do differently if you think offsetting does not work?


Fabian

[Chris Mason]

I'm lucky enough to be able to only travel by train, bike and foot. I think there's some serious issues with offsetting, especially tree planting (using up water tables, monoculture forests, effects on local communities etc). Also, i think people sometimes get the idea that if they offset, it's OK to create as much carbon emissions as they like. But if I ever REALLY have to go a long distance by car or plane I'd consider offsetting.

What does everyone think of the idea of a carbon ration? This could include a market system, whereby heavy carbon users buy credits from light users.

Chris


Check out the national carshare database::
http://www.carshare.com/

[Martin]

I started offsetting my carbon emissions in 2004 using a scheme which used the funds for a mixture of third world projects and tree planting.

Offsetting is a worthwhile thing to do provided you're happy with the projects being funded. Some projects deliberately seek to prevent 'known' future emissions and may therefore be considered genuine offsets, e.g. funding for more efficient stoves in indian villages etc. Others really offer more of a social or environmental good that unquantifiably 'offsets' the damage done by your personal emissions, e.g. buying livestock for african farmers. Tree planting as an offset option really falls more into the latter category since it doesn't necessarily sequester carbon in the long term but can offer a boost to biodiversity and help provided migratory pathways between isolated populations. The key is not the quantity of trees planted but the quality of the project, so native tree planting and preservation of ancient woodlands rank highly.

Offsetting should not be used to relieve guilt but rather to supplement changes to behaviour. Did i really need to fly out of the country 7 times last year? No. Does offsetting my emissions make it okay to fly so often? No. But 'offsetting' does provide funds to worthy causes so I'd say it's worth doing anyway.

[Neil]

I agree with both Martin and Chris on the offsetting question. I may be wrong but ultimately I believe that you are both talking about the same thing. Whilst Martin talks of the supplemental nature of offsetting, Chris notes the use of offsetting for those times when emissions are unavoidable. Fundamentally I think the key to an effective personal contribution to combat global warming must have emissions reduction as the primary concern. Instead of spending a proportion of your income on a carbon offsetting scheme, which may or may not deliver the necessary savings, why not invest the money where you can see a guaranteed benefit; from low energy bulbs and loft insulation to micro-generation. Investing in your own emission reductions is not only economic but also acts to promote personal action from friends, relatives and neighbours. The unavoidable emissions can then be offset if you feel that you can find a trustworthy scheme.

In terms of Chris's other point about a personal emissions scheme I have to admit I am extremly enthusiastic about this idea. Whilst I would like to give a great deal more thought to how it could be done, I have given a little thought to a potential taxation approach which could pave the way to an eventual cap and trade scheme;

In order to get a decent level of sign on a personal carbon scheme will need a powerful carrot and stick(financial push and regulatory pull). For me the best way to achieve this is to place a new/additional carbon tax on the chosen products (including gas, electricity and petrol) from the outset. Everybody would then recieve a card (similar to a phonecard for instance) which has a set level of carbon allowance installed. To get the carbon tax removed from the product the card would be scanned by the retailer or removed from your carbon account remotely by your supplier. Whilst there are a number of technical issues which would need to be addressed it is clear that the technology exists. However, by taxing all covered products at the point of sale (regulatory pull) all citizens would be automatically involved, like it or not. It would also reward those who proactively used their carbon allowance card and reduced their consumption of carbon intensive products.

[wongoz]

well, I think most people on this forum are generally like-minded, so it's not surprising if we all tend to agree.

Regarding offsetting, I haven't started to offset yet, though i will belatedly account for my flights from last year. I've started to make it a point to not fly anywhere unnecessarily, but then I won't be as extreme as some people I've met who have ruled out flying altogether (such as the one guy who missed his son's wedding in the US).

Ultimately, I don't think it's up to the general public to start changing behaviour. Either companies will begin to make it a selling point whereby it's a competitive advantage to be offering offsets with their sales, or the government will penalize emissions to the point that people will change. To call it 'incentivizing' or whatever misses the bigger picture - most people are too lazy or apathetic to care.

[Chris Mason]

"most people are too lazy or apathetic to care."

Where's your faith in humanity man? (or woman)? Although research has shown that environmental awareness only has a minimal impact on environmental behaviour.. Providing the infrastructure and economic incentives is gonna have the biggest impact, but i think for sustainability to really work everyone has to be involved - no more relying on our leaders to do something - everyone has to take responsibilty for their own actions, be involved and participate.

Well, thats what i reckon anyway - call me a fascist if you will.

As regards to the offsetting thing - I'm sure everyone saw it, but the government brought in some guidelines and only 4 of the offsetting companies met the standards.. I'm sure all the others will catch up soon though - nice work government! Maybe people (like me) will stop doubting the benefits now.

CM

[GarethKane]

I offset AND reduce. It isn't impossible!

I've always considered offsetting as a voluntary carbon tax, ring fenced for low carbon projects - see here. If people use offsetting as an excuse to pollute, then if they didn't offset, they'd find another excuse to fly or whateverAND then spend that offset cash on a high carbon alternative instead, so IMHO offsetting is almost always better than not.

That's my tuppenthworth!

Gareth

PS I should declare that I am a trustee of a charity that does offsetting as part of an activity.

[Martin]

Hi Gareth

Just thought i'd write a congratulatory post regarding your eco living blog. Many a sound comment to be found. I'd thoroughly recommend that others take a look too!

<rockon>

[Corey]

Truth behold its a scam to use carbon offsetting.
first of all is:
1. How many of you actually know how the ecosystem works??
I may know better than most but even I don't know everything.
I want to make reference to bio dome 2 in the USA it was to study ecosystems on a small scale to see viability on other planets. What I wanted to point out is theses scientist thought they had all the answers so when the oxygen was being depleted in the bio-dome when there were no leaks they were stumped. The project failed for they kept loosing oxygen but a valuable lesson was learned they forgot to factor the microorganisms which are vital to any and all ecosystems.(Point out these were scientist who screwed up who knew what they were doing) The micro-organisms consumed biomass and oxygen to created fertilized dirt. As part of the overal life cycle of the ecosystem. Most likely It was a big business who devised the carbon offset to take some unwanted attention away from there environmental unfriendly actions and practices for it would be cheaper for them to create a scam than to actually reform there practice. Since it takes a relatively smart person in the USA to see through the smoke screen it was widely accepted. Hate to say this but majority of city folks especially those who were born to a city (not stereotyping typing since I said most not all) don't know much about how the real planet works thus people with misplaced passions on what they think is right on bad input by less than honest people. who are not giving them all the information needed to come to a proper conclusion. (bad input in bad input out)
You can't just plant a tree and expect it to grow. I KNOW I use to plant seedling which most of these tree plantings for carbon offsetting rely on.
Soil type has to be proper, enough light? too much light? soil type sandy? rocky? wet land, north slope, south slope?. ground nutrient? is there enough, too much? Poisons put off by burning coal and such kill plants by preventing the plants from absorbing light and such. Reality is less than 80% of seedlings survive for a number of reasons. It takes time to plan and try to diversify the plant life so we don't loose all the trees as seen in Alaska when the boring beetle got to them. It takes about 25 years for the trees to do its fastest growing so to see the benefit that tree has to survive 25 years before it becomes a viable co2 reducer and I doubt that the trees are going to remove the co2 type equivalent (These are not carbon dioxide its more like poisons such as mercury and nitrous oxide among others.) So you are still compounding the problem by continuing to use dirty fuels that no amount of offsetting can replace. Sure trees should be planted but for a different reason to try to replace the ones being cut down such as rain forests or trees dieing of because of the rapid climate change. Hey I think I hit the nail on the head we need to look at this as not global warming but as rapid climate change since its the rapid nature that does not give life on earth enough time to adapt to the new temperatures. Thus killing everything in the process.
Another factor missed or misdirection by those in power is the fact that we have 3 times the population that earth can sustain so unless we want to all die we need to get the consumption of those humans under control so as the total foot print of all of us combined is = to 1/3 the population. Don't go thinking that means all you have to do is reduce 1/3. we have to undo the damage we have already caused for(IN USA one person average consumption = 4 people its been like this for the last 25 years! We have to make up for that excessive consumption in order to balance out the ecosystem which might already be to late for every animal plant or insect great and small go extinct they are gone and that is another link in the ecosystem gone. New ecosystems need to be created in order to prevent the whole chain from unraveling.

2. Carbon off setting is a form of washing your hands to free a guilty conscience or misdirection from extreemly damaging actions which is creating upheaval. Example Is Pepsi bottling company donated trees to be planted to offset the emissions of there trucks. What most people don't know is that Pepsi is over in India right now Stealing the Ground water from the local residents and farmers leaving them without access to fresh water. When you have a bottling company taking water from one source to distribute to the population of the world you are going to deplete the water source extreemly fast. If the water is taken faster than it can be recover in coastal areas salt water will rush in to contaminate the fresh source making it undrinkable for ever without having the ability to remove the salt.

2a.carbon offsetting is also a big business gimmick to get us to consume more so someone can profit off the whole scam. Reality is, unless, you plant those trees yourself it is most likely not going to get planted at all and where are you going to put all those trees?? Red pines don't grow in Africa as an example. As We increase the urban sprawl it is taking away from tillable soil which most plants need. To reduce consumption would slow the sprawling(live with several families in a house rather than just one family or person especially in the USA ) (my apartment would hold 3 if using same standards as the UK.)

3.you can plant as many trees as you like but excessive consumption and burning all fossil and plant fuels is damaging the ecosystem period.

4. Simplify is the only true solution to the problem. Drive less If you have to go great distance to get to work then move closer to work or find work closer to home. Consume less you might find that some of the stress you deal with is how do I pay the bills or get the money for this and that. when you simplify you are making decisions to not buy the junk that you really don't need such as game counsels, big tvs, Cell phones ect. You will also find that by not buying these unnecessary things you have more money to eat healthier you have more time to get out and socialize, more time to exercise be healthier and you might find that you are actually happy for your not stressed out trying to figure out how to get more money for junk you don't need.

[Corey]

CARBON OFFSET DOES NOT WORK!!!!!

BBC News | SCI/TECH | Tree planting warning over global warming
BBC NEWS | UK | UK Politics | Carbon offsets 'harm environment'
BBC NEWS | Science/Nature | 'No solution' found in more trees
BBC News | SCI/TECH | Forests 'only temporary carbon absorbers'

Simplify is the only answer
Consume less is the only answer
At least till thing stabilize out that is.