CARBON OFFSET - IS THIS A MARKETING PLOY RIPE FOR DISCREDIT?
'..got me thinking...'
You and us, all, mate!
For a start, I first of all defy anyone to come up with a clear, coherent notion of what these 'carbon' prefixed notions (offset, neutral, footprint..) actually mean, much less as tangible, trustworthy measures of positive enviROI when put into 'practice'.
It's such a pity. I am no great fan of targets, but in the great scheme of things some measures of what is happening are needed to get a handle on what is going on... at the very least to figure out what may or may not be helping.
But it has all become such cowboy territory, pretty much the whole lot has become totally tarnished, especially in the key area of consumer awareness. And in so doing has dragged some potentially worthy areas down with it all.
I try and stay objective, and informed. But thanks to all that has gone down so far I find it hard to find greet any initiative/message that has 'carbon' in it, and especially when in marketing materials, with anything but an already well-cranked eyebrow.
It simply conjures up visions of those silly bankers in some Andalusian retreat trying to brainstorm up the next superficial spin, to cover up rather than actually addressing the real issue.
The environment can be a great opportunity to see gold in green, but only if the mindset goes from trying to address it as a 'problem' to be 'dealt' with. Or purely exploit short term.
It can indeed be a great opportunity, but only as part of an overall ethical whole, and not just to score a quick bit of PR or slogan.
There is a crying need for some measure, including gold-standard, peer-reviewed provenance chains, that the individual can trust, to help them arrive at an informed decision (and not just a sop) in their purchasing patterns.
But on past and present evidence, from international governance to national commerce or even media involvement, I am not holding my breath (well, we all might have to soon, but that's another story).
1 comment:
Or, you can but a whole raft of rain forest - such as the Marriott group have done.
But how is it classifiable as off-setting? I though off-sets were to recoup the carbon dioxide that your 'whatever' (inside your own chosen word here) had emitted? As in an equivalent +ve, to balance out the -ve?
OK, saving 1.4Mill acres of rain-forest has got to be good, but am I missing something in pointing out that it was already there doing it's thing, as in absorbing CO2 and emitting O2, long before the concept of carbon offsetting ever came into existence?
Post a Comment