Do Carbon Credits matter? November 28, 2007
Posted by mukundmohan in News.trackback
Hardly a day goes by when we dont read about carbon credits these days. From IT vendors like DELL and HP to new startups like Carbonrally. It as James Kanter says is “fashionable”. Some resources are even very comprehensive like CARMA.
In the most basic terms, carbon offsets allow companies to compensate for their own emission lapses by buying green credits from other companies that have done a much better job at lowering their greenhouse gas output.
Here are the main points of contention:
1. Is it sufficient though to persuade companies to take action to offset their carbon footprint?
Even with the new standard, the industry remains largely self-monitoring, Mr. Kanter wrote, adding, “There are no requirements for sellers to stick to the standards and no single arbiter to decide whether a project should qualify.”
2. Is it merely a short term fix?
Upshot: carbon offsets are a near-term fix to help reduce the aggregate amount of greenhouse gas emissions in the world.
3. Is it for real? I dont think we can question carbon emissions? Just carbon credits to offset.
What do you think?
image credit: NYtimes.
Comments
Sorry comments are closed for this entry
Face the facts!
Yes, a lot of bull talked about Carbon issues. A lot of “paper-shuffling” but just remember this….in about 40 years time the Polar cap ( the one at the top of the Globe) may be gone.
So too may be the Polar bears. It took 25m years for bears to evolve from seals yet, in under 100 hundred years we are ruining their natural habitat.
I’m not an Ecological “nutter” but we have to be aware of what we are leaving our children to deal with.
Carbon offsets are a great tool after you have reduced as much as you can. TerraPass recently examined their consumers they found that they are more likely to have solar power, watch the thermastat and use public transportant. Offsets are great for what you can not reduce.
I think that carbon offsets for businesses–if the offsets were regulated or monitored (who is proving that a business has really reduced their carbon emissions as much as they claim?)–but I think that carbon offsets for individuals is just another way for people with enough money to claim to be helping the environment when they don’t actually look at their lifestyle.
Case in point: Al Gore. Multiple big homes (even if he and Tipper “work” out of ONE of their homes, do they really need 20,000 square feet?), lots of private jet travel, etc. BUT he is “carbon neutral” because he buys offsets. Well, if he lived in a smaller home (using less energy for construction, heating, cooling, lighting, etc.), flew commercial airlines more often, and modified his lifestyle in significant ways, he would need to purchase fewer carbon credits, leaving more for others, and ACTUALLY reducing his carbon footprint (not just “offsetting” it).
If most of the people buying offsets are actually DOING something to change their carbon output, more power to them. But the ones making the most noise about it (celebrities, mostly) don’t seem to be changing much.
Oh, and for a comparision of two “celebrities” who have some impact on the debate, see the urban legends website:
http://urbanlegends.about.com/library/bl_tale_two_houses.htm
Very good points on both sides of the argument. Thanks for all the comments Tom, Matt and Bob. I agree 100% that its goodness to reduce our carbon footprint for the overall good. Reducing consumption is a good thing overall. I am just on the fence on the carbon credits portion.