Comments for Are Carbon Credits Doing Enough? at http://www.ecogeek.org , comment 1 to 8 out of 8 comments http://www.ecogeek.org Sun, 08 Nov 2009 02:15:55 +0100 FeedCreator 1.7.3 http://www.ecogeek.org/efficiency/634#comment-9771 How many carbon credits is a average tree worth? - bob pederson Sun, 10 Feb 2008 10:02:14 +0100 http://www.ecogeek.org/efficiency/634#comment-5585 Dear Sir, we are manufacturer of Organic Menure yearly 100000Ton. can we get carbon credit if yes please tell us how what is the system. - Manish K. Jain Wed, 26 Sep 2007 12:52:36 +0100 http://www.ecogeek.org/efficiency/634#comment-2849 Does the concept of an "offset credit" even work at all? For example, could Don Imus donate a certain amount to a minority scholarship fund to "offset" the damage done with his "ethnically damaging remarks"? Sounds absurd, right? Why then is it logically acceptable to donate money to "environmentally friendly causes" to "offset" the damage done to the environment by "environmentally unfriendly behavior"? - Joe Levi Wed, 06 Jun 2007 22:08:32 +0100 http://www.ecogeek.org/efficiency/634#comment-2439 Where are the gaurentees that our conscious saving dollars are being put to good use like wind turbines? - Catherine Tue, 22 May 2007 17:32:28 +0100 http://www.ecogeek.org/efficiency/634#comment-2434 I don't agree that carbon offsets are necessarily as useless as implied above. Efficiency and reduction is the first and most important step, but offsets can be a valid contribution as well. Where building a complete renewable energy source is not feasible sending money to someone so that they can erect more wind turbines in another region does at least make some difference. - Dave Smith Tue, 22 May 2007 15:45:59 +0100 http://www.ecogeek.org/efficiency/634#comment-2408 Thanks for the feedback. I'd have to say I'm in your court--the sentimental value of companies' awareness, while exciting to some of us more cynical ecogeeks who never thought even this many corporations would acknowledge responsibility, just doesn't come close to matching what could actually be done to cut back on power, provide one's own power via solar panels and turbines or anything else. - Dave Sat, 19 May 2007 20:31:32 +0100 http://www.ecogeek.org/efficiency/634#comment-2402 I agree with the commenter above. The problem with these schemes is not the fundamental concept, but the way it operates in practice. And always will operate, I'd guess, due to the overwhelming political and commercial pressures for it to work that way. Companies and governments want their carbon credits cheaply - and so long as the public perception is that they work (which of course, everyone would like to believe for their own peace of mind), they couldn't care less about increasing their own costs by regulating them. As it is, far, far too many of these schemes simply involve buying into some kind of already existing - and unthreatened - ecological asset, and attempting to sell its global warming value. For example, I saw an article a couple of years ago about a company which was buying up existing Scottish forests, and selling 'carbon offsets' based not on the promise to plant more trees, but on the promise that it wasn't going to cut the trees down. It was 'protecting them' and 'ensuring 99 years of carbon offsetting'. Ignoring, of course, the fact that no-one was proposing to cut the trees down anyway, and since they were in a scenic area of the Highlands, no-one would have got permission to chop the things down anyway, even if there were any economic benefit to be gained from doing so. We could easily 'offset' the entire world's carbon emissions by this company's logic, simply by promising to 'protect' trees in existing forests. However, this would barely make a shred of difference to the environment, except if the trees were threatened by logging - and since these would be the most expensive for the carbon offsetting company to buy, they would also be the last to be protected. The whole process is merely shuffling bits of paper around and enriching the shareholders of this company. The situation of 'buying' excess carbon credits from Africa and selling them to Europe is mentioned above is equally ludicrous. Even if the companies had not bought these carbon credits, Africa would not be polluting any more or less. It makes zero difference to the CO2 produced by Africa, and zero difference to Europe's emissions either, and so has no practical benefit in global warming terms at all. In fact by allowing corporations and governments to hide behind the green smokescreen generated, claiming to be 'carbon neutral', the whole thing is positively damaging. - Sam Sat, 19 May 2007 09:21:24 +0100 http://www.ecogeek.org/efficiency/634#comment-2388 I have seen several TV programs recently, where a traveller offsets the carbon cost of their flight, by buying carbon credits, usually from someone in the third world, with a small carbon footprint. This is completely pointless, if you are still producing the same amount of waste, it's just salving the conscience of not very bright rich people. It could even make the carbon situation worse, by providing third world people with the resources to buy consumer goods, thus producing even more pollution. Planting a tree is a better method, but no scheme I have seen, plants nearly enough trees for each flight. Bear in mind that few young trees grow to maturity and sequester the required amount of carbon. - rob Sat, 19 May 2007 00:22:19 +0100