As I have noticed a lot of the 'stopping asking questions, if it's green it MUST be good' flak I get seems to come from consultants/cies who offer carbon offsets as part of their paid day jobs, this caught my eye: Is carbon offsetting the solution? (Or part of the problem?)
Now, as with a few other eyebrow-tweaking phrases from those on the enviro desk at our major media, the obligatory start or end sentence gets me going every time: 'I feel guilty because as a privileged westerner with an addiction to air travel...' Not to mention all your other buddies, feeling less guilty, flying to wherever to cover whatever (Maddy, the latest fashion), or in the ad department selling space to the airlines. It seems... thin.
Anyway, offsets. That is what he came to Uganda to find out.
Because... he's fond of trees - he once spent two weeks trekking through the Bolivian cloud forest in search of one. Oooooo...k.
So we find out that Tom Morton, Climate Care's managing director, clearly finds criticisms exasperating. He acknowledges that some people in Kibale may have complaints, but says that when he travelled there recently with the Co-op's head of ethics, the community was happy with the way the park was being managed and content with their access to its resources. I am sure a great time was had by all. This is not proving any easy swallow.
I do not deny folk the need to earn a living. Nor do I censure them for it. I do get offside when others do... especially if it seems a little one sided on the sacrifice front between those doing the telling and those being so asked.
Actually in this case it seems a balanced article and we need to allow such journalism to happen.
But in a world without 4x4s, I couldn't help wondering how they would have got their convoy anywhere in a Prius. And I bet they weren't drinking tap water either.
Me, I think I'll stick with not cutting existing forests down for now. It seems more... productive.
No comments:
Post a Comment