NationStates Jolt Archive

The modern form of the indulgence, or, as I like to view it, "this is where the rich can continue to live life as they please, and the poor have to find a way to stop emitting carbon on their own."

http://calsun.canoe.ca/News/National/2007/02/26/3667753-sun.html

Do you think it is fair for corporations and the rich to be able to buy their way out?

I mean, if you believe global warming is man-made, and very real, how can you think it is ok to say, "well, rich people and major corporations can just pay to emit!" ?

The key there is the word "offset." Certainly it would be better if we reduced emissions completely and that's what many of us are working toward, but in the meantime, anything that reduces the amount is better than nothing. So if some groups are willing to pollute less in exchange for money, and others want to pay the freight, it's a reasonable, if not perfect, trade.

Now, you asked if it's fair. The simple answer is no, it's not fair. But neither is life. It's tough--get a helmet. There have always been two sets of standards, one for the rich and one for everyone else. So why should this be any different?

The modern form of the indulgence, or, as I like to view it, "this is where the rich can continue to live life as they please, and the poor have to find a way to stop emitting carbon on their own."

http://calsun.canoe.ca/News/National/2007/02/26/3667753-sun.html

Do you think it is fair for corporations and the rich to be able to buy their way out?

I mean, if you believe global warming is man-made, and very real, how can you think it is ok to say, "well, rich people and major corporations can just pay to emit!" ?

I have to agree with you on this EO. It's a piece of shit scam, and has been from the beginning.

What I especially love is the concept of an 'offset' fee for jetsetters. You can pay a bit extra on your travel ticket, and have a tree planted in the third world. Ha, who cares that the tree isn't native to the area, and either won't survive or will start pushing out the native fauna. You can sleep easier!

When I was in Grade 6, there was this LOVELY scam, where schools could raise money to save acres of rainforest. That's right...you could pay for them not to cut down an acre of rainforest. Except, when you read the fine print, that's not at all what it was about...you weren't saving anything...you were supporting an already existing eco-zone. The money went to the salary of the ranger who was to ensure no one cut down the trees.

It was a rainforest protection racket...the Brazilians must have taken some seminars in New Jersey :D

I'm sceptical to say the least, but it's better than nothing.

The way I see it, its just rich people trying to feel beter about themselves by throwing money at the problem

I have to agree with you on this EO. It's a piece of shit scam, and has been from the beginning.

What I especially love is the concept of an 'offset' fee for jetsetters. You can pay a bit extra on your travel ticket, and have a tree planted in the third world. Ha, who cares that the tree isn't native to the area, and either won't survive or will start pushing out the native fauna. You can sleep easier!

When I was in Grade 6, there was this LOVELY scam, where schools could raise money to save acres of rainforest. That's right...you could pay for them not to cut down an acre of rainforest. Except, when you read the fine print, that's not at all what it was about...you weren't saving anything...you were supporting an already existing eco-zone. The money went to the salary of the ranger who was to ensure no one cut down the trees.

It was a rainforest protection racket...the Brazilians must have taken some seminars in New Jersey :D

I once attended a seminar by a Brazillian in New Jersey, but that has nothing to do with this thread.

Certainly better than nothing. I wouldn't say great, but much better than "rotten".

Yeah, yeah, people shouldn't be allowed to emit at all etc. etc., but that's utterly unfeasible at this point in time for any kind of manufacturing industry, so we might as well adopt this policy, to be honest.

Certainly better than nothing. I wouldn't say great, but much better than "rotten".

Yeah, yeah, people shouldn't be allowed to emit at all etc. etc., but that's utterly unfeasible at this point in time for any kind of manufacturing industry, so we might as well adopt this policy, to be honest.

And use it as a stepping stone to become as emissions free as possible. It should never be looked at as anything but a stopgap measure.

Certainly better than nothing. I wouldn't say great, but much better than "rotten".

Yeah, yeah, people shouldn't be allowed to emit at all etc. etc., but that's utterly unfeasible at this point in time for any kind of manufacturing industry, so we might as well adopt this policy, to be honest.
Unfortunately, we in Europe at least are making it as difficult as possible for ourselves for these kind of schemes to happen despite our 'trading' system:

A simple method to help poor African farmers earn money by planting trees to soak up carbon dioxide is being hindered by European inflexibility, a leading forestry specialist is claiming. The accusation, from Louis Verchot of the World Agroforestry Centre (ICRAF) in Nairobi, Kenya, comes less than a month after the UN climate conference in Nairobi, at which the European Union promised to help Africans benefit financially from carbon trading schemes designed to help the fight against global warming.

ICRAF and researchers from Michigan State University have developed a method for calculating changes in the amount of carbon stored in soil and trees. By combining satellite pictures with infrared spectrum analysis using cheap ground-based instruments, ICRAF says it could analyse changes in carbon storage across millions of square kilometres of farmland. It has conducted a successful pilot project in western Kenya, and Verchot says the system could be in widespread use by the end of next year but for one snag: the EU is refusing to accept it.

Farmers are often regarded as climate villains because of the CO2 liberated when they burn wood. Yet many poor farmers capture large quantities of CO2 by planting trees, and many more would do so if given the incentives of carbon trading, Verchot says.

The Kyoto protocol and Europe's Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) supposedly allow anyone investing in activities that prevent or reduce CO2 emissions to earn carbon credits, which they can then sell to polluting industries. But the ETS was set up with big forestry schemes in mind, for which estimates of the amount of carbon that will be captured are more reliable, and where there is an element of accountability if things go wrong.

Verchot says the best way of getting Africa to take part in carbon trading is to give credits to farmers who capture carbon on their land - a scheme his technology makes feasible for the first time. "Land management is going to be the best way for these poorest countries to join in," he says. "Millions of dollars in carbon credits could begin flowing to the world's rural poor."

Although at the Nairobi conference the EU promised to help poor farmers overcome the bureaucratic hurdles involved in getting carbon-capture schemes approved, Verchot told New Scientist that EU representatives have so far rebuffed ICRAF's proposal. "They don't want to recognise it," he says. He likens it to a trade embargo being imposed on the least developed nations.

European concerns centre on verifying how much additional carbon is really being captured by farmers' trees and whether the sequestration will be permanent. Verchot, however, insists that many of the concerns are illusory: "They need to be more flexible," he says.

The system that Verchot wants implemented is among a raft of new responses to climate change announced this week by a network of research institutes known as the Consultative Group for International Agricultural Research. Other projects include breeding food crops tolerant of high temperatures.

And use it as a stepping stone to become as emissions free as possible. It should never be looked at as anything but a stopgap measure.
Exactly.

By the way, this is one of the most biased polls I've ever beared witness to - I support the measure, but not because I love the rich or corporations, more because it's the first step to getting cleaner industry and cleaner life in general in Canada, and then hopefully areas such as the US, too.

The EU's doing something very similar soon, and hopefully it'll improve the carbon emissions here, too.

And use it as a stepping stone to become as emissions free as possible. It should never be looked at as anything but a stopgap measure.

It's not even that in many cases, it's a sham.

For some examples, check out the New Internationlist (http://www.newint.org/issues/2006/07/01/) issue on offsets.

One specific example...not even necessarily intended to be a sham, but for whatever reason or reasons, people were not getting what they thought they were:

"When it was announced that Coldplay’s latest album, A Rush of Blood to the Head, would be offset with 10,000 mango trees in Karnataka, India, it was met with much fanfare. After all, rock super-groups rarely addressed the environmental impacts of things like CD production, and so there was much positive publicity. Other rock stars were also clamouring for their own ‘celebrity forests’. Fans too could get in on the act. For just 25 dollars fans could get a certificate from the Carbon Neutral Company (formerly Future Forests) – the British offset company that devised the scheme – affirming that they had dedicated trees in ‘The Coldplay Forest’. A recent investigation into the scheme, however, revealed that all that glitters is not necessarily green.

A report in the Sunday Telegraph stated that, of the 10,000 trees that were supposedly distributed to small farmers in this largely dry Indian state, only a few hundred were found to be still alive. The rest perished through lack of water and inadequate financial and infrastructure support from the Carbon Neutral Company and its partners.

One of the project participants, Anandi Sharan Mieli of Women for Sustainable Development, accused the Carbon Neutral Company of having a ‘condescending’ attitude. ‘They do it for their interests, not really for reducing emissions. They do it because it’s good money,’ she was quoted as saying. The Carbon Neutral Company, however, blames Mieli’s group for not meeting its ‘contractual obligations’ to provide the necessary irrigation and support. Coldplay themselves claim no responsibility. According to a spokesperson for the band, ‘Coldplay signed up to the scheme in good faith with Future Forests and it’s in their hands. There are loads of bands involved in this kind of thing. For a band on the road all the time, it would be difficult to monitor a forest."

I love the concept that we can purchase the 'right to pollute' from other countries.

I love the concept that we can purchase the 'right to pollute' from other countries.
It's not fair, but if used properly, could be useful as a short term only measure while new non-polluting technology is brought in.

It's not fair, but if used properly, could be useful as a short term only measure while new non-polluting technology is brought in.
The problem is, many of these schemes are not even effective in the short term.

Purchasing carbon offsets covers a lot of different activities. There are many 'carbon mitigation projects', such as planting trees to 'soak up C02', in order to get permission to build a coal-burning plant, for example. So you plant some trees in Africa, and pollute in Alberta. Except the trees end up dying, or are simply not enough to possibly soak up that much C02, or the trees are planted over farmlands and families are forced out of their traditional lands. It often a 'feel good measure' that isn't looked into, and is a form of environmental laundering.

They've done the same thing with sulfur dioxide shares for years - it was supposed to be a stopgap measure for old coal-fired powerplant burners here in the US.

But now it is institutionalized - it's here for good. Not a stopgap.

Which is why I think the whole stopgap thing is like a screendoor on a submarine.

They've done the same thing with sulfur dioxide shares for years - it was supposed to be a stopgap measure for old coal-fired powerplant burners here in the US.

But now it is institutionalized - it's here for good. Not a stopgap.

Which is why I think the whole stopgap thing is like a screendoor on a submarine.

I take particular issue with how difficult it is to monitor the process. As in the Coldplay example, no one is really 'at fault' for it not working...but what often happens is that even failed projects are 'counted' as being successful. Doesn't matter if they implode, a company still gets its 'credit'...allowing them to pollute.

It's like saying to your neighbour...look, I'm going to make you a deal. I'll ensure that a few dogs in another city don't piss on people's lawns. In return, you should let my dog piss on your lawn. Okay? Just until I get the little bastard trained.

Boo fucking hoo! The rich can do something the poor cannot! How tragically unfair life is!:rolleyes:

Might I first point out that the OP is as objective as the Guardian, whilst its contention is wrong. Surely that the rich and affluent seek to counter their own "carbon-footprint" simply reduces the environmental burden placed upon society?

GRanted, offsetting is a fashion for some, however, it is a measure to counter climate change, hence why object to it? Life is unfair, get over it.

The modern form of the indulgence, or, as I like to view it, "this is where the rich can continue to live life as they please, and the poor have to find a way to stop emitting carbon on their own."

http://calsun.canoe.ca/News/National/2007/02/26/3667753-sun.html

Do you think it is fair for corporations and the rich to be able to buy their way out?

I mean, if you believe global warming is man-made, and very real, how can you think it is ok to say, "well, rich people and major corporations can just pay to emit!" ?Because no matter how you spin it, rich people buying carbon offsets is still preferable to rich people not buying carbon offsets.

GRanted, offsetting is a fashion for some, however, it is a measure to counter climate change, hence why object to it? Life is unfair, get over it.
It isn't a measure to counter climate change. It's a cheap bucket painted up to look shiny and pretty, and then filled with shit.

Look at one example..."Tree offsets (http://www.newint.org/features/2006/07/01/carbon-cycle/)"

"This is one of the reasons that the concept of ‘offsets’ is flawed. Offsets allow extraction of oil, coal and gas to continue, which in turn increases the amount of fossil carbon that is released into the active carbon pool disrupting the cycle. That is why campaigners argue that genuine solutions to climate change require us to keep fossil carbon (oil, coal and gas) in the ground."

Read the rest of the list to get a more indepth understanding of the opposition.


Some more carbon offset information (http://www.newint.org/features/2006/07/01/carbon-offsets-facts/).

Because no matter how you spin it, rich people buying carbon offsets is still preferable to rich people not buying carbon offsets.

:headbang: Are you sure (http://www.newint.org/features/2006/07/01/voices/)?

If all it does is stymie actual action on environmental issues based on rampant consumerism...then I don't see how it's preferable at all.

The problem with this that just recently emerged is the following: When the CO2 offsets were first introduced, they ranked around € 30,- per tonne. Now they have dropped to less than € 1,- and it's way cheaper to simply buy those offsets instead of investing in CO2-reducing technology.
The incentive is completely gone - and I won't even start talking about how I feel about people "having the right" to pollute.

The concept is proper. As you pay for the electricity you consume, you should pay for the pollution.

The implementation... Well, enough said in the post above. Emissions should be treated as a limited resource, with limited quantity, which makes prices grow.

The problem I have with this is that it's like watching someone else lift weights or paying someone else to go on a diet for you. You're not living a better, less polluting lifestyle, you're telling someone else to do it for you, in most cases because it'd be too damn inconvenient to do it yourself. This may not be what you want to hear but it's the truth.;)

If you believe you're bigger than nature, can control weather and climate with your car's exhaust, that catastrophies are imminent and the only way to stop them is by people changing their lives then shouldn't you start with your own, the one that you have (and the only one you should have) direct control over? If you believe everything you hear then why should the privilaged get a free pass while the rest of the world is forced to suffer? Do you think celebrities should be exempted from regulation because they lend their 'star power' to a cause like this? I don't think so. A preacher isn't exempt from the rules of his holy book just because he spreads the word.

There are potential win-win scenarios that don't involve throwing good money away. Coal powered vertical farms can provide cheap power for those that need it, fresh water from oceans to reduce the drain on aquifers, food for the hungry, and even filter the air for those that think it's our responsibility to fine-tune the atmospheric composition and climate of this world.

These carbon offsets aren't really a permanent solution, and can only go so far toward compensating for the problem. The reason is that the surface can only sequester so much carbon into vegetation, and that carbon is only stored until the death and decay of the plants, unless it is in a peat bog, in which case it will eventually form underground coal deposits assuming that it isn't mined to be burned for fuel or to stuff the pots of silk plants. The other truly effective vegetative form of carbon sequestration is marine phytoplankton that die and sink to the bottom, where they are absorbed into the sediments. Both are slow processes and impossible to be created artificially; however, they are critical components of the Earth's natural carbon cycle and, as such, should not be damaged further. The only permanent solution for the carbon in the atmosphere is to put it back in the ground where it came from; that, of course, and halting the reverse process...

There are potential win-win scenarios that don't involve throwing good money away. Coal powered vertical farms can provide cheap power for those that need it, fresh water from oceans to reduce the drain on aquifers, food for the hungry, and even filter the air for those that think it's our responsibility to fine-tune the atmospheric composition and climate of this world.

That sounds like an intriguing concept (except for the coal-powered part). Link?

it defeats the object of the whole idea of cutting carbon emissions. it beggars belief to me that this happens, akthough i'm fully aware that it does obviously.

That sounds like an intriguing concept (except for the coal-powered part). Link?
Google is your friend, look it up yourself. I had actually thought it up on my own during a drafting class (I often finish early and have nothing better to do) before I ever learned about Dickson Despommier.

The reason you'd use coal is because it can provide the power you'd need to run a facility like a vertical farm and the CO2 can be used within the greenhouses (between 700ppmv and 1,000ppmv) to increase crop yeilds by around 15% or more. Carbon dioxide being an essential trace gas that underpins the bulk of the global food web and is hardly the boogy-monster it's been made out to be in popular culture.

In my concept the whole thing would be hydroponic and run sea water through coal-fired boilers for power, fresh water, and salt.

Google is your friend, look it up yourself. I had actually thought it up on my own during a drafting class (I often finish early and have nothing better to do) before I ever learned about Dickson Despommier.

The reason you'd use coal is because it can provide the power you'd need to run a facility like a vertical farm and the CO2 can be used within the greenhouses (between 700ppmv and 1,000ppmv) to increase crop yeilds by around 15% or more. Carbon dioxide being an essential trace gas that underpins the bulk of the global food web and is hardly the boogy-monster it's been made out to be in popular culture.

In my concept the whole thing would be hydroponic and run sea water through coal-fired boilers for power, fresh water, and salt.

Google gave me precisely squat. I think I see what you're getting at, though. My main concern is that the further you segregate your population from the biosphere, the less able to support good health whatever alternative you provide is. The obesity epidemic in America (and emerging around the rest of the world as we export the cause) is the result of our industrial food system, and that's still grown in the ground. Hydroponics are even less natural and consequently less healthy. Reductionist approaches to simulating nature are generally unsuccessful at replicating it.

On the other hand, there could very well be a SF novel in that idea.

EDIT: I found it. I didn't look hard enough first time. Yeah, looks interesting. http://www.verticalfarm.com/

I'll agree with Neesika on this one - carbon offsets are a way of sticking one's head in the sand, and it is highly unlikely that they do anything other than draw attention and funding away from programmes that actually reduce emissions, as opposed to shift responsibility to someone else.

But there are so many advantages to hydroponics.
*While removing soil-grown crops from the ground effectively kills them, hydroponically grown crops such as lettuce can be packaged and sold while still alive, greatly increasing the length of freshness once purchased.
*Solution culture hydroponics does not require disposal of a solid medium or sterilization and reuse of a solid medium.
*Solution culture hydroponics allows greater control over the rootzone environment than soil culture.
*Over and under-watering is prevented
*Hydroponics is often the best crop production method in remote areas that lack suitable soil, such as Antarctica, space stations, space colonies or atolls, such as Wake Island.
*In solution culture hydroponics, plant roots can be seen.
*Hydroponics is excellent for plant teaching and research.
*No soil is required.
*Soil borne diseases and the need for crop rotation are virtually eliminated.
*Weeds are virtually eliminated.
*Fewer pesticides may be required because of the above two reasons.
*Edible crops are not contaminated with soil.
*Water use can be substantially less than with outdoor irrigation of soil-grown crops.
*Hydroponics cost 20% less than other ways for growing strawberries.
*Hydroponics let the plants recieve more sunlight.
*It is easier to replant and pick the strawberries because some hydroponics are towers that can hold 5 square pots which each pot can hold to 4 plants per each pot and the towers rotate.
*Many hydroponic systems give the plants more nutrition while at the same time using less energy and space.
when using hydroponics the plants are less at risk of getting a root disease than plants that are grown in the ground.
*Hydroponics allow for easier fertilization as it is possible to use an automatic timer to fertilize the plants.
*Maintanence for this system is very low.

The reason there're fat people is because they eat too much and excercise too little.