I guess the 'big' story yesterday was the generosity and statesmanship of our PM.
Time will tell where this money comes from, where it goes to, whether it is used wisely and well, and what % gets redirected in the name of green if not for it.
I start with a post I made to Newsnight:
Headline: Why micro wind turbines don't work (with relative directions of vanes on weather cock and turbine in telling complement)
Text: In most urban locations in Britain wind turbines simply do not work
And folk wonder why the public are cranking eyebrows. There is what we know, there is what we don't, and there is what we are told. Seldom is this done without a narrative being enhanced or an event being interpreted.
Which becomes pertinent, and key, when it comes to what we are told*, especially about vast amounts of money to be dedicated to 'solving' things, which seem a bit shy on detail as to what, specifically, and how measured to assess enviROI, etc. Numbers do matter, even as science gets settled (if often in creative ways), and passed on by those we pay, and trust to be our guides.
It makes a nonsense of the claim made by the Energy Saving Trust,
But I am glad I persevered, as there was much to ponder of value, and I appreciated the maths lesson. Makes me wonder why such calculations are often beyond those who claim (all dutifully passed on by those copy-typing press releases as 'reporting') that 'such and such 'could' power 1/2 of 'so and so' for 'free' (exc: construction, operation, maintenance, repair and disposal).
And there is also the power of editorial, often, possibly, via omission:
3. At 9:01pm on 11 Dec 2009, simon noble wrote:
You forgot to mention that those big wind turbines are also erratic, so you need a big back-up source of power to manage the lows.
One just has to hope that, when given the massive importance of the basic intent to reduce GHGs, and the vast monies involved in securing that laudable aim, those with the power to take and dispense the funds in securing this, plus those tasked to hold them to account, know what the heck they are doing.
And are guided by honest, unselfish influences and not the lures of personal advancement, ratings, career influence, lobby-influence, bonuses, targets and box ticks.
*Clarified, often, only after the the hyperlink and/or in the small print.
As you'll gather, I appreciate a done deal when I see one; I just express the hope that it will be upfront and accurate.
And.. reported with competence and objectivity. I have this slight concern the media are every bit as much a part of the problem of public understanding and engagement.
guardianeco - Gordon Brown bangs heads and crunches climate figures in Brussels http://bit.ly/4PkeQ1 - as he is so good with numbers here
climatebiz - What's Keeping Climate Investment Out of Africa? http://bit.ly/6EjAcV - maybe that money in Africa often doesn't end up where intended?
UN - UN online tool allows people to track nations’ pledges on climate change http://bit.ly/6xLQpu - as to delivery...?
JaymiHeimbuch - RT @planetenvy Rainforest Nations: We'll Drop Deforestation Targets if Rich Don't Put Money on the Table: http://digg.com/d31Ca8A - Blazing Saddles anyone?
kate_sheppard - Stern: "We have to combine science and pragmatism." That.. would be nice
timesonline - Gordon Brown and Nicolas Sarkozy: banks should pay for climate change http://bit.ly/5YiQS2 - No reward for failure! Thank heavens I have very little in the bank. Mainly due to Mr. Brown p*ssing money away on things that don't work.
DowningStreet - PM: Excellent result in Brussels - got EU up to £6.6 billion for developing countries over next 3 years. Big boost for Copenhagen - like a drunk at an auction trying to impress the girls in the onlooking crowd
wwwfoecouk - Press release: EU barely budges an inch on climate: Commenting on the conclusion of the EU Council today, Friends o... http://bit.ly/8Nc1GF - sometimes twitter can throw up reasons to look around for more...
ThinkPolitics - EU agrees climate pledge that may boost Copenhagen http://tiny.cc/b0EE2 - and end up scratching your head
iaindale - Blogpost: Cost of Insuring British Govt Debt Rises by 1000% in 2 Years http://tinyurl.com/y9fg26h
guardianeco - EU set to double climate aid for developing countries to €2bn http://bit.ly/8L8ULR - Game, set and fudge?
TheIndyNews - UK giving £1.5bn to climate fund http://bit.ly/67eznH - we are a giving sort, apparently
the_ecologist - A toothless cap-and-trade scheme is a planetary wrecking ball http://bit.ly/6bCEW4 - let's see what we get
Meanwhile, in other tweets:
GuyKawasaki - The Six Twitter Types http://om.ly/cxBQ - Modesty prevents me assessing my self
fivenineteen - RT @twitwalk "To invent, you need a good imagination and a pile of junk." ~ Thomas Edison #quote #creativity #green #recycle (via @quotme) - like, I need to explain:)
ChristianaCooke - A man should look for what is, and not for what he thinks should be. Albert Einstein - like, some in science might need that explained to them, before they get too 'settled'
Ecosaveology - Google opens satellite images, tools, to study deforestation: http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2009/12/seeing-forest-through-cloud.html
mickwill - I can't believe it! Just got up at 5.30 to get taxi to BBC Centre & they just phoned to say I'm not on at 7.20 now. GRR! - The joys of dealing with our media
jimpenny - http://twitpic.com/t5fnq - I save and reuse my false eyelashes, I care about the planet! (via @theboygeorge) - every little bit helps? I am presuming irony at play.
guardianeco - A £480 train ticket to Copenhagen makes it hard to care about the climate | George Monbiot http://bit.ly/71rfgg - No, it makes it harder to trust and/or believe in hypocrites who say one thing and do another. It's different. And rubbish pricing on more eco transport options is not mutually exclusive with caring that the bozos making decisions seem to be 'selective at best'.
mickwill - If you want to know if your boiler is g-rated for the Boiler Scrappage scheme, you can check here http://tinyurl.com/y8d7mvg - talk is cheap, knowledge is power, action is golden
wwwfoecouk - Safe #climate news: Helen Baxendale heading for Copenhagen: Actor, mother, campaigner calls for justice http://bit.ly/4rOMGZ - Bless, in so many ways
thegoodhuman - Wondering this morning if all of us writing about environmental issues does anything in big picture. What should we be doing instead? - My shed beckons
LilGreenFingers - New blog post where I get a bit cross with Kirstie Allsopp and her gilded pears... http://tinyurl.com/yctok2a - There's making and mending, and there's buying in posh shops, making and suckering daft luvvies, or not
timesonline - RT @Times_Live Is Man largely responsible for global warming? Join our live debate at 1.30pm today http://bit.ly/5MAzNo - I did. It was a zoo
richardbranson - Have a read of my views on @Virgin_Galactic ethics on @virgindotcom http://bit.ly/7hDqT7 -props for stating his case. Not asked or tasked once by the MSM
futerra - Ed Milliband on C4 using #sizzle message "we need a positive vision, let's sell dreams not nightmares". futerra.co.uk/blog/611 - Now, where did he end up at that notion? Guess we won't be seeing the ASA-referred, inaccurate, scaremongering ActOnCo2 bedtime story ad again, then?
journalismnews - PDA: ‘Algorithms will replace journalists’ http://is.gd/5jqNo - speaking of our mighty 4th estate... Well, it can often seem that much reporting these days is mainly cut and pasting of press releases with little checking or critical oversight.
MoreEco - Eco News - Budget to include electric car tax break: Company drivers who choose electric cars are to.. http://bit.ly/92TLqV - now, about the green 'leccy generation and distribution
Greengamma - 'Dirty' battery cars 'make more CO2 than they save' http://bit.ly/5R7T4P - see the issues, gov...media?
myzerowaste - My Zero Waste is up against Guardian ethical living and You Gen 4 best green site. Please vote 4 us! http://bit.ly/5uYTKH - sadly, Junkk.com nor Junkk Male RE:view were not deemed worthy*. But MZW was, and as she is also a contributor of ideas (and winner) to the site, she gets my vote:)
adamvaughan_uk - Voting is open for the @greenwebawards - go vote before 31 Dec http://bit.ly/5lccMM [disclaimer: I was one of judges who shaped shortlist) - *all comes clearer. he's not a fan of greens who crank eyebrows:)
GlobeGuard - RT @packagingdiva: A perspective about why #Packaging reduction goes out of the window at Christmas @ http://is.gd/5hSey - I find this site great for scoops on ppackaging to help RE:tie
..and finally, as we are a reuse advocate and it's Xmas...
CAGW - Make a Gift Bow Out of Scrap Paper: http://is.gd/5iZqO
And that's just the retweets in a day. I really can't be bothered to go through all the others I favourited, as they are usually the contentious ones, and really, life is too short.
Showing posts with label CARBON OFFSETTING. Show all posts
Showing posts with label CARBON OFFSETTING. Show all posts
Saturday, December 12, 2009
Friday, July 10, 2009
CATEGORY - Carbon Offsetting (Trading)
I know I discussed this recently elsewhere, but while I search for that to add the topic deserves its own category.
And I know they are different, but as they are most surely related, I lump offsetting and trading here (for now, until they need splitting)
Telegraph - Offsetting your carbon is 'confusing' - at the very least
Reuters - Carbon offset schemes "confusing" - seeing a trend?
Indy - The great carbon con: Can offsetting really help to save the planet? - I recall Sting copping it even then, but he was really a celeb ahead of his time.
Indy Letters - replies to above
Indy letters - more - Reply from Rainforest Alliance
Greenbang - Carbon trading ‘paid for by small business, car users’ - 'So, how do you feel about that Mr. Public? Or may I call you Joe?"
Guardian - Europe's vital step to make carbon markets work - The commenter who made the point about the small war next door might be nearer the mark for now.
Guardian - Can carbon offsetting ever be truly green?
Guardian - A permit to print money - Quite spoils my Friday
Guardian - Carbon trading may be the new sub-prime, says energy boss - Another Friday, and guess what? The phrase 'sub-prime' does not inspire optimism.
Guardian - An environmental market
Which? - Has this online link, but the July '09 magazine has a special feature: 'Which way to reduce your carbon footprint' - where they investigate current schemes... and their claims.
Guardian - NEW - Should we care about the UK's place in plastic bag league tables?
I am with George on this one though, having raised some concerns initially (which I still have, especially on the enviROI of alternatives, more on the consequences of biodegradation than reuse options - too big to go into here) as it stands I am erring on the publicity being basically helpful in shaping public actions.
That said, in matters green I usually view targets and tables a short route to all sorts of pointless and unhelpful consequences, and if box-tickers get involved lord help the planet.
Now I notice an Oz town has now become, Modbury-like, 'the first' to ban bottled water. So, who next will get to be a ban-twin town with Boondoggle or whatever it is, and blow any benefits sending the mayor out Business Class to shake hands with half of Fleet Street and the BBC's Ethical man along for the flight?
Not sure the two are quite equivalent, so how this one might radiate will be interesting. Having lived in Asia, if it works its way to here organically country by country then I rather fear it may have unwelcome consequences as those at the top impose a ban-wagon on those less able to afford it in many countries between here and there.
Honestly, I am not in favour of bans or fines, and am happy that my half dozen hemp efforts seem to get noticed and appreciated at the check-out and might even score me some points at a reward-motivating outlet.
I also appreciate the odd plastic for meats and frozens, which I then find good reuses for around the home.
And I know they are different, but as they are most surely related, I lump offsetting and trading here (for now, until they need splitting)
Telegraph - Offsetting your carbon is 'confusing' - at the very least
Reuters - Carbon offset schemes "confusing" - seeing a trend?
Indy - The great carbon con: Can offsetting really help to save the planet? - I recall Sting copping it even then, but he was really a celeb ahead of his time.
Indy Letters - replies to above
Indy letters - more - Reply from Rainforest Alliance
Greenbang - Carbon trading ‘paid for by small business, car users’ - 'So, how do you feel about that Mr. Public? Or may I call you Joe?"
Guardian - Europe's vital step to make carbon markets work - The commenter who made the point about the small war next door might be nearer the mark for now.
Guardian - Can carbon offsetting ever be truly green?
Guardian - A permit to print money - Quite spoils my Friday
Guardian - Carbon trading may be the new sub-prime, says energy boss - Another Friday, and guess what? The phrase 'sub-prime' does not inspire optimism.
Guardian - An environmental market
Which? - Has this online link, but the July '09 magazine has a special feature: 'Which way to reduce your carbon footprint' - where they investigate current schemes... and their claims.
Guardian - NEW - Should we care about the UK's place in plastic bag league tables?
I am with George on this one though, having raised some concerns initially (which I still have, especially on the enviROI of alternatives, more on the consequences of biodegradation than reuse options - too big to go into here) as it stands I am erring on the publicity being basically helpful in shaping public actions.
That said, in matters green I usually view targets and tables a short route to all sorts of pointless and unhelpful consequences, and if box-tickers get involved lord help the planet.
Now I notice an Oz town has now become, Modbury-like, 'the first' to ban bottled water. So, who next will get to be a ban-twin town with Boondoggle or whatever it is, and blow any benefits sending the mayor out Business Class to shake hands with half of Fleet Street and the BBC's Ethical man along for the flight?
Not sure the two are quite equivalent, so how this one might radiate will be interesting. Having lived in Asia, if it works its way to here organically country by country then I rather fear it may have unwelcome consequences as those at the top impose a ban-wagon on those less able to afford it in many countries between here and there.
Honestly, I am not in favour of bans or fines, and am happy that my half dozen hemp efforts seem to get noticed and appreciated at the check-out and might even score me some points at a reward-motivating outlet.
I also appreciate the odd plastic for meats and frozens, which I then find good reuses for around the home.
Friday, August 01, 2008
Something stinks
And I think it is this:
Auctioning off the right to emit carbon dioxide is likely to net the UK government nearly €2.5bn (£2bn) over the next four years, under plans to be announced today.
Telegraph - Green light for carbon credit sale
And now I know why: 'The Government, which has said the money raised will go to the Exchequer, remains on a collision course with the EU, which has insisted that any monies raised from carbon permit trading should be used to fund projects designed to combat climate change.'
Telegraph - A windfall tax will not solve our energy crisis - 'The Treasury perennially refuses to ring-fence revenues from "green" taxes - thereby undermining its credibility.'
Just thought it was worth repeating for effect:)
Times - NEW - Gordon Brown plans ‘green tax’ on energy firms to help poor
Auctioning off the right to emit carbon dioxide is likely to net the UK government nearly €2.5bn (£2bn) over the next four years, under plans to be announced today.
Telegraph - Green light for carbon credit sale
And now I know why: 'The Government, which has said the money raised will go to the Exchequer, remains on a collision course with the EU, which has insisted that any monies raised from carbon permit trading should be used to fund projects designed to combat climate change.'
Telegraph - A windfall tax will not solve our energy crisis - 'The Treasury perennially refuses to ring-fence revenues from "green" taxes - thereby undermining its credibility.'
Just thought it was worth repeating for effect:)
Times - NEW - Gordon Brown plans ‘green tax’ on energy firms to help poor
Monday, May 26, 2008
Good in theory. Dodgy in practice.
I remain to be convinced on offsetting on many levels. This doesn't help.
Billions wasted on UN climate programme
Yet again, I don't think it's so much what needs to be done that is the issue, but the competencies of those who have taken it upon themselves to do it.
Ina world run by box-tickers, getting yet more box-tickers and their targets into the mix seems a recipe for, well, such as this.
We need to get back to product, not process. And pronto.
Billions wasted on UN climate programme
Yet again, I don't think it's so much what needs to be done that is the issue, but the competencies of those who have taken it upon themselves to do it.
Ina world run by box-tickers, getting yet more box-tickers and their targets into the mix seems a recipe for, well, such as this.
We need to get back to product, not process. And pronto.
Sunday, April 27, 2008
Nero would be proud
Tory hot air on carbon offsetting
I'd love someone to explain how this offsetting works to reduce emissions and not just redistribute them with an extra cut of City-slicker lifestyle thrown into the mix to reduce the remote chance of a positive enviROI even more.
The only way I can see this working, or any other Carbcon prefixed initiative, other than yet as another a get rich quick obscene green scheme, is that if the whole planet cooperates.
Good luck with that, so to mix a few metaphors, why not make hay on fiddling futures while Rome burns?
I'd love someone to explain how this offsetting works to reduce emissions and not just redistribute them with an extra cut of City-slicker lifestyle thrown into the mix to reduce the remote chance of a positive enviROI even more.
The only way I can see this working, or any other Carbcon prefixed initiative, other than yet as another a get rich quick obscene green scheme, is that if the whole planet cooperates.
Good luck with that, so to mix a few metaphors, why not make hay on fiddling futures while Rome burns?
Tuesday, April 08, 2008
It's not just me, then
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).
'..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).
Sunday, April 06, 2008
Inside the green mind
A piece in the Guardian (where else?).
It's costly having a carbon conscience
And if one of their own can't seem to sort it sensibly, then I despair the rest of us (with a lot less money, connections, etc) doing so.
It's costly having a carbon conscience
And if one of their own can't seem to sort it sensibly, then I despair the rest of us (with a lot less money, connections, etc) doing so.
Tuesday, March 11, 2008
DEFRA .....
..... seems to have been running up some quite extraordinary travel bills over the last few years, as reported in the Western Daily Press.
"The Government agency responsible for leading Britain's campaign against climate change has been slammed by a West MP for spending £2.3 million on exotic trips abroad."
So just why would DEFRA send staff to exotic locations such as the Caribbean, the Cayman Islands, Barbados, the Seychelles, Mozambique, Brazil and Ghana? Beats me.
Oh, but they've been offsetting all the carbon costs involved. "All emissions from Defra ministerial and official flights have been offset since 2005 and from road and rail travel since 2006."
Bless.
Addendum: (12/3/08)
But they ARE going to help local authorities to fight climate change according to DEFRA's own website, by providing monies to "spread existing best practice on climate change among local authorities, and provide training and mentoring to help them reduce emissions and adapt to the already unavoidable effects of climate change." (Sorry, but I'm struggling not to laugh out loud here.)
The programme will "be tailored to local needs and priorities, with delivery being co-ordinated at a regional level." Hahahahahahaha!!! Sorry, I couldn't help it.
Sounds to me like more 'jobs for the boys' and an additional waste of £4 Million!
Coming on top of the DBERR 'committed' proclamation (see post below), I have to say that if it wasn't so ridiculously sad, I'd reckon they've employed a comedy script writer.
Oh, look, eGov Monitor explains it all.
"From April, councils' success in cutting carbon dioxide emissions will be measured as part of a new performance framework. They will also be assessed on their efforts to adapt to the effects of climate change, and to tackle fuel poverty. Many councils are expected to set specific targets to lead the drive to cut back on carbon emissions in their areas."
So, it's all about setting targets, and then measuring performance against them. Yet again! What do you call it when you experience the same 'deja vu' repeatedly? Surely it ceases to become deja vu?
"The Government agency responsible for leading Britain's campaign against climate change has been slammed by a West MP for spending £2.3 million on exotic trips abroad."
So just why would DEFRA send staff to exotic locations such as the Caribbean, the Cayman Islands, Barbados, the Seychelles, Mozambique, Brazil and Ghana? Beats me.
Oh, but they've been offsetting all the carbon costs involved. "All emissions from Defra ministerial and official flights have been offset since 2005 and from road and rail travel since 2006."
Bless.
Addendum: (12/3/08)
But they ARE going to help local authorities to fight climate change according to DEFRA's own website, by providing monies to "spread existing best practice on climate change among local authorities, and provide training and mentoring to help them reduce emissions and adapt to the already unavoidable effects of climate change." (Sorry, but I'm struggling not to laugh out loud here.)
The programme will "be tailored to local needs and priorities, with delivery being co-ordinated at a regional level." Hahahahahahaha!!! Sorry, I couldn't help it.
Sounds to me like more 'jobs for the boys' and an additional waste of £4 Million!
Coming on top of the DBERR 'committed' proclamation (see post below), I have to say that if it wasn't so ridiculously sad, I'd reckon they've employed a comedy script writer.
Oh, look, eGov Monitor explains it all.
"From April, councils' success in cutting carbon dioxide emissions will be measured as part of a new performance framework. They will also be assessed on their efforts to adapt to the effects of climate change, and to tackle fuel poverty. Many councils are expected to set specific targets to lead the drive to cut back on carbon emissions in their areas."
So, it's all about setting targets, and then measuring performance against them. Yet again! What do you call it when you experience the same 'deja vu' repeatedly? Surely it ceases to become deja vu?
Tuesday, February 19, 2008
Take this as a no
Watching over the offsetters - Will a voluntary code of conduct make us any more confident when choosing a carbon offset scheme?
Good original post, and some very worthwhile subsequent ones in reply. Hard to add much more of value.
Speaking personally, in answer to your question at the top, even with a voluntary code the answer will still be a resounding 'no'. And such is my faith in officialdom, frankly a mandatory, gov... er... quango (they'll farm it out to create a whole new set of beholden gravy-boaters, plus extra layer of deniability) - endorsed effort wouldn't exactly reassure me much better.
I can't see how they work or even IF they work. There are too many (I'm talking Coffsetters here, not quangos, but similar duplication, cost/benefit concerns apply) and I have no the time to weigh them up. Plus I have no reason to trust most of them, often with good reason, sadly tarring the possible worthy ones with the negative brush.
But as night follows day, I await the next half dozen to soon be announced by either a compliant media, rudderless government or 'buy-off-a-blip' business to help us 'deal' with the consequences of a growing number of us doing stuff and then wanting to do even more.
That is, IF we can afford it.
DEFRA - Benn announces Government offsetting code
Addenda (as promised to reply posters):
These are a couple of press releases that have come in to Junkk.com from the industry by way of response to the above. Hence read them in that light. They are merely what has been supplied and only from those who seem to have us on their mailing lists. As mentioned on the comments section, I don't know enough to offer much beyond how I feel as a consumer:
Carbon Clear response to DEFRA’s draft carbon offset code:
Carbon Clear has always championed transparency & measurable standards within the carbon offset industry. However, even after 12 months of consultation and deliberation we believe the Draft Code of Best Practice for Carbon Offset Providers issued by DEFRA raises as many questions as it answers.
One area of concern is the lack of definition over what a consumer is; the original draft code (Jan 2007) aimed to protect individuals and remove confusion in a fledgling industry, a move which we applaud. The code has now been extended to businesses in a way that we feel is completely inappropriate. We use an array of emissions factors to calculate and reduce a company’s carbon footprint prior to offsetting unavoidable emissions. Under the draft code we would have to pay an additional £2,000 every time we need to use a new emission factor not included in DEFRA’s current list. This cost could discourage many smaller businesses from participating in the carbon market and taking responsibility for their greenhouse gas emissions.
Furthermore, our experience is that bigger businesses and corporates want a mix of compliance-market CERs and beyond-compliance VERs and prefer to perform their own quality checks to find projects that meet their requirements. CER schemes can be slow, bureaucratic, expensive to administer and limited in variety. Existing quality standards like the highly respected Voluntary Gold Standard and Voluntary Carbon Standard address the need for verified reductions and allow more of the money to go towards projects that help poor communities around the world make the transition to a low carbon future. Thus, while we welcome the Government’s embrace of the quality principles we have long supported, we feel there is still a lot of work to be done before this draft code is fit for purpose.
Carbon Clear is the first full-service carbon management firm with ISO 14001 certification to be listed in the United Kingdom Register of Quality Assessed Companies, which includes entries for over 100,000 organisations. The ISO 14001 is a global environmental management standard. The Register includes companies both within and outside the UK.
Carbon Clear is a carbon management company that works with businesses and individuals to reduce their carbon footprint. In addition to advising on emission reductions Carbon Clear also invests in projects to cancel out the pollution that is generated by everyday activities such as driving, home and business energy usage, flying and even nappy use. Corporate customers include Eurostar, Innocent Drinks, and 3M.
All of the projects Carbon Clear invests in are selected based on both carbon reduction and a wider social benefit for the communities implementing them. A great deal of care is taken to ensure money is directed to activities that genuinely improve the environment and the lives of real people and all projects must meet the following criteria:
Our projects must make verifiable pollution reductions over and above their normal level. We follow the guidelines developed by the Clean Development Mechanism and Voluntary Carbon Standard.
Projects must provide additional, long-term benefits to the communities that undertake them; these range from better health and improved incomes to job creation and the protection of endangered plants and animals.
Projects must be efficient; funds should support the projects, and not be diverted to unnecessary bureaucratic overheads, waste or middlemen.
Carbon Clear is supporting a wide variety of emissions reduction projects that produce clear development benefits. These range from improved cookstoves in Sudan, to wind farms in India and energy efficient brick kilns in Nicaragua.
Carbon Capital Markets Welcomes Defra's Offset Code of Conduct
Commenting on today's launch of Defra's Code of Conduct for Carbon Offsetting, Lionel Fretz, CEO of Carbon Capital Markets®, a leading trader and fund manager in carbon and clean energy markets, said:
"We welcome this strict code from Defra for the carbon offset markets. We have always taken the position that offsetting should only use credits from the regulated market as it is only these that have been through such a strict process of auditing and verification to guarantee their worth.
I would urge anyone purchasing offsets to make sure they are buying regulated credits only, using an FSA authorised and regulated supplier to ensure that both the offset supplier and the offsets they provide, are subject to the highest standards of regulation."
Carbon Capital Markets is involved in all aspects of the regulated, Kyoto-compliant carbon markets. It was recently cited by Point Carbon, a leading provider of news and analysis, as an industry leader for its management of the Carbon Assets Fund, which invests in Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) Projects.
DEFRA Government Offsetting Code to remain open to quality VERs (Verified Emission Reductions).
Eight leading international carbon offset companies, together supplying both CERs and VERs to the beyond-compliance market, have today welcomed the UK Government’s Offsetting Code and its recognition of the important role played by Verified Emissions Reductions (VERs).
When Defra in the UK published its draft version of the Code (Jan 2007) ‘Kyoto-compliant’ carbon credits only were included. However, following a twelve month consultation that saw support for VERs from experts as varied as NGOs and academics through to Parliament’s own Environmental Audit Committee, Hilary Benn stated yesterday that “we recognise that credits from the unregulated market may be innovative and of a very high standard”.
As a group of eight leading carbon offsetting companies, representing most of the leading suppliers by volume in the beyond-compliance carbon (voluntary) market, we welcome the government’s adoption of the key principles already used by the market for selection of VER and CER emission reduction programmes – from additionality and leakage through to permanence and verification. It’s appropriate and welcome that Defra has listened to the market and is taking a lead from it.
The beyond-compliance carbon market, which kick-started carbon trading in the mid-nineties, is global, cross-sectoral and growing extremely fast. The industry has professionalised over the last 5 years, and has seen in the launch of new quality standards for VERs including the Gold Standard (GS VER) and the Voluntary Carbon Standard (VCS), with registries for the VCS and GS in development along with a planned project database linking the two. (see Notes below)
We firmly believe that there is increased interest from people and business in acting beyond compliance, i.e. reducing emissions because they want to not because they have to. This is the carbon market coming of age, and we look forward to working with the UK Government to keep them informed participants in the global development of this innovative and fast-paced emergent market – one that is already generating important investments and innovative solutions towards tackling climate change.
Jonathan Shopley, Executive Director,The CarbonNeutral Company
Jamal Gore, Managing Director, Carbon Clear
Edward Hanrahan, Chief Operating Officer, ClimateCare
Steve Green, Carbon Strategy and Partnerships Manager, Climate Friendly
Mike Rigby, Director,co2balance
Tom Stoddard, Vice President, NativeEnergy
Kerryn Schrank, Programme Director, targetneutral
Adam Stern, Vice President of Policy and Strategy, Terrapass
Good original post, and some very worthwhile subsequent ones in reply. Hard to add much more of value.
Speaking personally, in answer to your question at the top, even with a voluntary code the answer will still be a resounding 'no'. And such is my faith in officialdom, frankly a mandatory, gov... er... quango (they'll farm it out to create a whole new set of beholden gravy-boaters, plus extra layer of deniability) - endorsed effort wouldn't exactly reassure me much better.
I can't see how they work or even IF they work. There are too many (I'm talking Coffsetters here, not quangos, but similar duplication, cost/benefit concerns apply) and I have no the time to weigh them up. Plus I have no reason to trust most of them, often with good reason, sadly tarring the possible worthy ones with the negative brush.
But as night follows day, I await the next half dozen to soon be announced by either a compliant media, rudderless government or 'buy-off-a-blip' business to help us 'deal' with the consequences of a growing number of us doing stuff and then wanting to do even more.
That is, IF we can afford it.
DEFRA - Benn announces Government offsetting code
Addenda (as promised to reply posters):
These are a couple of press releases that have come in to Junkk.com from the industry by way of response to the above. Hence read them in that light. They are merely what has been supplied and only from those who seem to have us on their mailing lists. As mentioned on the comments section, I don't know enough to offer much beyond how I feel as a consumer:
Carbon Clear response to DEFRA’s draft carbon offset code:
Carbon Clear has always championed transparency & measurable standards within the carbon offset industry. However, even after 12 months of consultation and deliberation we believe the Draft Code of Best Practice for Carbon Offset Providers issued by DEFRA raises as many questions as it answers.
One area of concern is the lack of definition over what a consumer is; the original draft code (Jan 2007) aimed to protect individuals and remove confusion in a fledgling industry, a move which we applaud. The code has now been extended to businesses in a way that we feel is completely inappropriate. We use an array of emissions factors to calculate and reduce a company’s carbon footprint prior to offsetting unavoidable emissions. Under the draft code we would have to pay an additional £2,000 every time we need to use a new emission factor not included in DEFRA’s current list. This cost could discourage many smaller businesses from participating in the carbon market and taking responsibility for their greenhouse gas emissions.
Furthermore, our experience is that bigger businesses and corporates want a mix of compliance-market CERs and beyond-compliance VERs and prefer to perform their own quality checks to find projects that meet their requirements. CER schemes can be slow, bureaucratic, expensive to administer and limited in variety. Existing quality standards like the highly respected Voluntary Gold Standard and Voluntary Carbon Standard address the need for verified reductions and allow more of the money to go towards projects that help poor communities around the world make the transition to a low carbon future. Thus, while we welcome the Government’s embrace of the quality principles we have long supported, we feel there is still a lot of work to be done before this draft code is fit for purpose.
Carbon Clear is the first full-service carbon management firm with ISO 14001 certification to be listed in the United Kingdom Register of Quality Assessed Companies, which includes entries for over 100,000 organisations. The ISO 14001 is a global environmental management standard. The Register includes companies both within and outside the UK.
Carbon Clear is a carbon management company that works with businesses and individuals to reduce their carbon footprint. In addition to advising on emission reductions Carbon Clear also invests in projects to cancel out the pollution that is generated by everyday activities such as driving, home and business energy usage, flying and even nappy use. Corporate customers include Eurostar, Innocent Drinks, and 3M.
All of the projects Carbon Clear invests in are selected based on both carbon reduction and a wider social benefit for the communities implementing them. A great deal of care is taken to ensure money is directed to activities that genuinely improve the environment and the lives of real people and all projects must meet the following criteria:
Our projects must make verifiable pollution reductions over and above their normal level. We follow the guidelines developed by the Clean Development Mechanism and Voluntary Carbon Standard.
Projects must provide additional, long-term benefits to the communities that undertake them; these range from better health and improved incomes to job creation and the protection of endangered plants and animals.
Projects must be efficient; funds should support the projects, and not be diverted to unnecessary bureaucratic overheads, waste or middlemen.
Carbon Clear is supporting a wide variety of emissions reduction projects that produce clear development benefits. These range from improved cookstoves in Sudan, to wind farms in India and energy efficient brick kilns in Nicaragua.
Carbon Capital Markets Welcomes Defra's Offset Code of Conduct
Commenting on today's launch of Defra's Code of Conduct for Carbon Offsetting, Lionel Fretz, CEO of Carbon Capital Markets®, a leading trader and fund manager in carbon and clean energy markets, said:
"We welcome this strict code from Defra for the carbon offset markets. We have always taken the position that offsetting should only use credits from the regulated market as it is only these that have been through such a strict process of auditing and verification to guarantee their worth.
I would urge anyone purchasing offsets to make sure they are buying regulated credits only, using an FSA authorised and regulated supplier to ensure that both the offset supplier and the offsets they provide, are subject to the highest standards of regulation."
Carbon Capital Markets is involved in all aspects of the regulated, Kyoto-compliant carbon markets. It was recently cited by Point Carbon, a leading provider of news and analysis, as an industry leader for its management of the Carbon Assets Fund, which invests in Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) Projects.
DEFRA Government Offsetting Code to remain open to quality VERs (Verified Emission Reductions).
Eight leading international carbon offset companies, together supplying both CERs and VERs to the beyond-compliance market, have today welcomed the UK Government’s Offsetting Code and its recognition of the important role played by Verified Emissions Reductions (VERs).
When Defra in the UK published its draft version of the Code (Jan 2007) ‘Kyoto-compliant’ carbon credits only were included. However, following a twelve month consultation that saw support for VERs from experts as varied as NGOs and academics through to Parliament’s own Environmental Audit Committee, Hilary Benn stated yesterday that “we recognise that credits from the unregulated market may be innovative and of a very high standard”.
As a group of eight leading carbon offsetting companies, representing most of the leading suppliers by volume in the beyond-compliance carbon (voluntary) market, we welcome the government’s adoption of the key principles already used by the market for selection of VER and CER emission reduction programmes – from additionality and leakage through to permanence and verification. It’s appropriate and welcome that Defra has listened to the market and is taking a lead from it.
The beyond-compliance carbon market, which kick-started carbon trading in the mid-nineties, is global, cross-sectoral and growing extremely fast. The industry has professionalised over the last 5 years, and has seen in the launch of new quality standards for VERs including the Gold Standard (GS VER) and the Voluntary Carbon Standard (VCS), with registries for the VCS and GS in development along with a planned project database linking the two. (see Notes below)
We firmly believe that there is increased interest from people and business in acting beyond compliance, i.e. reducing emissions because they want to not because they have to. This is the carbon market coming of age, and we look forward to working with the UK Government to keep them informed participants in the global development of this innovative and fast-paced emergent market – one that is already generating important investments and innovative solutions towards tackling climate change.
Jonathan Shopley, Executive Director,The CarbonNeutral Company
Jamal Gore, Managing Director, Carbon Clear
Edward Hanrahan, Chief Operating Officer, ClimateCare
Steve Green, Carbon Strategy and Partnerships Manager, Climate Friendly
Mike Rigby, Director,co2balance
Tom Stoddard, Vice President, NativeEnergy
Kerryn Schrank, Programme Director, targetneutral
Adam Stern, Vice President of Policy and Strategy, Terrapass
Thursday, November 08, 2007
Doing what it says on the tin
Just got this in: (DEFRA) Offsetting projects to create jobs and cut emissions
Don't know why, but the first thing that popped into my head was an expression from the military: DEFRACon 3.
Because I rather leapt to the notion that whatever else might or might happen, jobs would for sure be created. It's just a matter of where, and doing what, that concerns me, especially when I read on to this:
Government Carbon Offsetting Fund Members
Central Government (including participating agencies)
Cabinet Office
The Prime Minister's Office
Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform
Department for Children, Schools and Families
Department for Local Government and Planning
Department for Culture, Media and Sport
Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science (CEFAS)
Department of Health
Department for International Development
Department for Transport
Government Car and Despatch Agency
Department for Work and Pensions
The Rent Service
Export Credits Guarantee Department
Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs
Valuation Office Agency
Her Majesty's Treasury
Home Office
Identity and Passport Service
Criminal Records Bureau
Forensic Science Service
Law Officers' Department
Crown Prosecution Service
Serious Fraud Office
Legal Secretariat to the Law Officers
Attorney General's Office
Treasury Solicitors
HM CPS Inspectorate
Revenue and Customs Prosecution Office
Ministry of Defence
Ministry of Justice
Northern Ireland Office
Sustainable Development Commission
Other partners
Parliament
(including both Houses and the British American Parliamentary Group)
The Greater London Authority
Metropolitan Police Service
Transport for London
London Development Agency
The Royal Household
That seems an awful lot here (I'm guessing there is a, or a department off offset munchkins in each to play with all this) for not so many there.
I also still need to get my head around the whole carbcon deal to appreciate how it truly saves my kids' futures, as paying towards the projects 'would ensure that the carbon footprint of Government air travel was neutralised by ensuring emissions were avoided elsewhere. This will help to cut emissions and ensure developing countries are not impoverished by carbon-cutting measures.'
Maybe it needs to be explained to me in ways I can grasp, but that doesn't seem to me to be, as per the title, cutting emissions, but moving them around a bit, globally, which is not quite the same thing... is it?
At least it's acknowledged in the small print that "Offsetting emissions from transport isn't the answer to climate change ".
Apparently, 'the GCOF is being managed by EEA Fund Management Ltd, who won the contract to source and deliver 255,000 Certified Emission Reduction Credits, with a provision for a further 50,000 credits, over three years from a range of Kyoto-registered projects. Credits will be supplied from the project portfolio of Trading Emissions PLC, to whom EEA is the Investment Advisor.' Whatever that means.
Defra's aim is sustainable development. Nice.
One couldn't also help but wonder if, as it is taxpayers money being used here, the offsets might not be more [insert non-judgemental phase here]-lly targeted first more locally, perhaps on insulation for non-golden pensioners, and other folk who have paid all their lives to fund civil service salaries and pensions.
Don't know why, but the first thing that popped into my head was an expression from the military: DEFRACon 3.
Because I rather leapt to the notion that whatever else might or might happen, jobs would for sure be created. It's just a matter of where, and doing what, that concerns me, especially when I read on to this:
Government Carbon Offsetting Fund Members
Central Government (including participating agencies)
Cabinet Office
The Prime Minister's Office
Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform
Department for Children, Schools and Families
Department for Local Government and Planning
Department for Culture, Media and Sport
Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science (CEFAS)
Department of Health
Department for International Development
Department for Transport
Government Car and Despatch Agency
Department for Work and Pensions
The Rent Service
Export Credits Guarantee Department
Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs
Valuation Office Agency
Her Majesty's Treasury
Home Office
Identity and Passport Service
Criminal Records Bureau
Forensic Science Service
Law Officers' Department
Crown Prosecution Service
Serious Fraud Office
Legal Secretariat to the Law Officers
Attorney General's Office
Treasury Solicitors
HM CPS Inspectorate
Revenue and Customs Prosecution Office
Ministry of Defence
Ministry of Justice
Northern Ireland Office
Sustainable Development Commission
Other partners
Parliament
(including both Houses and the British American Parliamentary Group)
The Greater London Authority
Metropolitan Police Service
Transport for London
London Development Agency
The Royal Household
That seems an awful lot here (I'm guessing there is a, or a department off offset munchkins in each to play with all this) for not so many there.
I also still need to get my head around the whole carbcon deal to appreciate how it truly saves my kids' futures, as paying towards the projects 'would ensure that the carbon footprint of Government air travel was neutralised by ensuring emissions were avoided elsewhere. This will help to cut emissions and ensure developing countries are not impoverished by carbon-cutting measures.'
Maybe it needs to be explained to me in ways I can grasp, but that doesn't seem to me to be, as per the title, cutting emissions, but moving them around a bit, globally, which is not quite the same thing... is it?
At least it's acknowledged in the small print that "Offsetting emissions from transport isn't the answer to climate change ".
Apparently, 'the GCOF is being managed by EEA Fund Management Ltd, who won the contract to source and deliver 255,000 Certified Emission Reduction Credits, with a provision for a further 50,000 credits, over three years from a range of Kyoto-registered projects. Credits will be supplied from the project portfolio of Trading Emissions PLC, to whom EEA is the Investment Advisor.' Whatever that means.
Defra's aim is sustainable development. Nice.
One couldn't also help but wonder if, as it is taxpayers money being used here, the offsets might not be more [insert non-judgemental phase here]-lly targeted first more locally, perhaps on insulation for non-golden pensioners, and other folk who have paid all their lives to fund civil service salaries and pensions.
Just one, wafer-thin fact...
A flight of fancy, or fancy cutting your flights...? : Time to get tough
I saw this as one of those 'Great idea but..' notions along with carbon trading, which all seem to presume an instantaneous, and frankly miraculous level of engagement and cooperation between every competitive country and company on the globe to result in a fair and equitable system to be initiated down through corporate to an individual level.
Then I saw this: '...assessed their figures under internationally-accepted methodology'. Which suggests things are further ahead than I thought. What is this and have you a link to it?
If everyone has already accepted the methodology of assessment, then we are a long way to the rest already. But then some seem not to have embraced it yet. If so, why not?
I saw this as one of those 'Great idea but..' notions along with carbon trading, which all seem to presume an instantaneous, and frankly miraculous level of engagement and cooperation between every competitive country and company on the globe to result in a fair and equitable system to be initiated down through corporate to an individual level.
Then I saw this: '...assessed their figures under internationally-accepted methodology'. Which suggests things are further ahead than I thought. What is this and have you a link to it?
If everyone has already accepted the methodology of assessment, then we are a long way to the rest already. But then some seem not to have embraced it yet. If so, why not?
Wednesday, October 17, 2007
More on Carbcon Offsets
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.
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.
Monday, September 24, 2007
One man's issue of conscience can be another's meal
Having lived in Asia, I have seen first hand how other cultures do their thing. And cope. I have also seen how predominantly Western sensibilities can lob a big ethical spanner in a very complex works: The ‘carbon offset’ child labourers
So when I saw this headline I thought 'Oo, 'eck, here we go again'. 'Better dead so one can feel fine, than fed and spoil the luvvies' bleeding heart wine' was how some viewed the activities of a few liberal groups crashing about the jungle in days of old. It's a tricky one, but to some kids not having a job was worse than having a rotten one.
This piece seems a bit of a stretch, though. Even with my faith in low to no provenance-checked carbon buy-offs so well entrenched.
But I really can't see how 'helping persuade' families to give up labour-saving (and cost sucking) diesel pumps is so awful. I guess it depends on what is meant by 'help persuade'.
Which may be explained (though I doubt soon, here or anywhere) by the Indian experts who have criticised the scheme, saying it forces anyone to do anything. The bit about travellers I'll go with.
But then we get to the Old Ming sells his Jag to prove he's green issue, namely: “It’s not being monitored properly. It’s not reducing emissions. People are selling their diesel pumps to others who are using them.”
That does warrant a look, and frankly outweighs the several awards. And if four reports had identified major benefits, maybe they're all worth looking at in more depth.
So when I saw this headline I thought 'Oo, 'eck, here we go again'. 'Better dead so one can feel fine, than fed and spoil the luvvies' bleeding heart wine' was how some viewed the activities of a few liberal groups crashing about the jungle in days of old. It's a tricky one, but to some kids not having a job was worse than having a rotten one.
This piece seems a bit of a stretch, though. Even with my faith in low to no provenance-checked carbon buy-offs so well entrenched.
But I really can't see how 'helping persuade' families to give up labour-saving (and cost sucking) diesel pumps is so awful. I guess it depends on what is meant by 'help persuade'.
Which may be explained (though I doubt soon, here or anywhere) by the Indian experts who have criticised the scheme, saying it forces anyone to do anything. The bit about travellers I'll go with.
But then we get to the Old Ming sells his Jag to prove he's green issue, namely: “It’s not being monitored properly. It’s not reducing emissions. People are selling their diesel pumps to others who are using them.”
That does warrant a look, and frankly outweighs the several awards. And if four reports had identified major benefits, maybe they're all worth looking at in more depth.
Monday, September 03, 2007
Offsetting journalistic integrity
This will make me popular. I've tried to answer a Telegraph travel writer's (how do they get to afford 2nd homes?) question: Corporate guilt breeds corporate jargon
At least you care enough to ask the question. I'm not sure the two answers derived so far are going to help much, though. Or indeed most others you may get (from the carbon 'industry') that may seem to be more factual.
Personally I can think of worse things than a second home, so long as you don't leave the heat/aircon (preferbaly it's fan-cooled anyway) running (depending on location) when you're not there. And if it's rented out then the person there is not 'emitting' elsewhere. Other than travel... which is just the start of how complex all this is.
On balance offsetting seems to me at least marginally better than not doing anything at all in mitigation, though certainly not as good as not adding more C02 than you otherwise might (again, a tricky call. I'd prefer you in a villa in France accessed by EuroStar than flying business to report on a property fair in Dubai, staying in a 6* emissions column - read Leo Hickman's Final Call ).
So you're right that we have become a nation obsessed with our footprints, fed in no small measure by 'awareness' campaigns such as the latest, ActonC02, that really do little else than make us worry a lot with little real information. And that opens the doors for the unscrupulous to pounce, seemingly with little regulation.
Because, like you (and with the dubious advantage of being exposed to perhaps a bit more info in my line of work) I have no real idea what 'it' actually involves in all its manifestations. And until I am, preferably with help from those who profess to care about my kids' future (from activist to government - didn't Davids Miliband (when Enivro dude) and Cameron both 'float' offsets trading as part of their respective proposals?), I'll have to suspect those not being clearer about their Green intentions, and hiding behind faceless jargon, are doing so with good reason: serving their interests. I doubt corporate guilt has much to do with it, as they only have that if and when caught out.
And those seem to have naught to do with my kids' futures if it's to create a decent enviROI, which may (another debate, but I'm sold on man's negative contribution) be derived from reduced CO2. You're right that whacking a fir in the firmament hardly seems the best way (better, to me, if you are in the need to 'make up', is to reduce deforestation - I could argue the science from my own limited background, but an existing carbon sink being lost that's in excess the USA's total annual emissions annually seems like a quick fix worth not losing). Though not all offsetters, to be fair, are just in to trees as the 'solution' .
Wouldn't it be nice to have more clarity from all involved in the 'carbon' industry, including preachy media, and rather than ratings-producing 'tis/tisn't facts and debates that get us nowhere, we have tangibles that let us assess the situation and act on it sensibly and in good conscience?
I have tried to be fair and balanced. But I hope my frustration with a media more keen on stirring the pot (look at the replies she got) than getting to a useful solution does not come through too negatively that my point does not get made.
At least you care enough to ask the question. I'm not sure the two answers derived so far are going to help much, though. Or indeed most others you may get (from the carbon 'industry') that may seem to be more factual.
Personally I can think of worse things than a second home, so long as you don't leave the heat/aircon (preferbaly it's fan-cooled anyway) running (depending on location) when you're not there. And if it's rented out then the person there is not 'emitting' elsewhere. Other than travel... which is just the start of how complex all this is.
On balance offsetting seems to me at least marginally better than not doing anything at all in mitigation, though certainly not as good as not adding more C02 than you otherwise might (again, a tricky call. I'd prefer you in a villa in France accessed by EuroStar than flying business to report on a property fair in Dubai, staying in a 6* emissions column - read Leo Hickman's Final Call ).
So you're right that we have become a nation obsessed with our footprints, fed in no small measure by 'awareness' campaigns such as the latest, ActonC02, that really do little else than make us worry a lot with little real information. And that opens the doors for the unscrupulous to pounce, seemingly with little regulation.
Because, like you (and with the dubious advantage of being exposed to perhaps a bit more info in my line of work) I have no real idea what 'it' actually involves in all its manifestations. And until I am, preferably with help from those who profess to care about my kids' future (from activist to government - didn't Davids Miliband (when Enivro dude) and Cameron both 'float' offsets trading as part of their respective proposals?), I'll have to suspect those not being clearer about their Green intentions, and hiding behind faceless jargon, are doing so with good reason: serving their interests. I doubt corporate guilt has much to do with it, as they only have that if and when caught out.
And those seem to have naught to do with my kids' futures if it's to create a decent enviROI, which may (another debate, but I'm sold on man's negative contribution) be derived from reduced CO2. You're right that whacking a fir in the firmament hardly seems the best way (better, to me, if you are in the need to 'make up', is to reduce deforestation - I could argue the science from my own limited background, but an existing carbon sink being lost that's in excess the USA's total annual emissions annually seems like a quick fix worth not losing). Though not all offsetters, to be fair, are just in to trees as the 'solution' .
Wouldn't it be nice to have more clarity from all involved in the 'carbon' industry, including preachy media, and rather than ratings-producing 'tis/tisn't facts and debates that get us nowhere, we have tangibles that let us assess the situation and act on it sensibly and in good conscience?
I have tried to be fair and balanced. But I hope my frustration with a media more keen on stirring the pot (look at the replies she got) than getting to a useful solution does not come through too negatively that my point does not get made.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)