Slashdot Mirror


FTC Offput by Offsets

theodp writes "US corporations and shoppers spent more than $54M last year on credits toward tree planting, wind farms, solar plants and other projects, prompting the FTC to question whether carbon-offset money is well spent. 'There's a heightened potential for deception,' said FTC Chairwoman Deborah Platt Majoras of the green-sounding offers that seem to be confronting consumers at every turn."

13 of 225 comments (clear)

  1. disgusting by jgarra23 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I remember in high school reading about in the middle ages when people would buy offsets for their sins so they could get out of hell or something... not far off it sounds

    1. Re:disgusting by sweetooth · · Score: 4, Informative

      You are thinking of Indulgence and certainly there are some similarities
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indulgence

    2. Re:disgusting by ceejayoz · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Carbon offsets, unlike indulgences, have at least the potential to not be a scam.

    3. Re:disgusting by timeOday · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I like tree planting, wind farms, and solar plants - and therefore carbon offsets. I don't see the sin in emitting carbon if you are sequestering just as much somewhere else. HOWEVER, we definitely need legal definitions, standards, and truth-in-advertising enforcement for this type of thing. Companies are sure to go for the cheapest available carbon offsets, so government needs to ensure that they're legit.

    4. Re:disgusting by Doppler00 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Easy. After 20 years, cut the tree down, burn it, and measure the CO2 emissions it produces.

      Seriously though, what's the point of planting a tree? Are we saying that somehow by putting a tree sapling in the ground is going to be somehow more efficient than the native plants that would grow on that some spot of land and consume the same water etc...

    5. Re:disgusting by OakLEE · · Score: 4, Informative

      I believe what the grandparent is referring to is known as the Dark Green sect of the environmental movement. These people tend to believe that it is not pollution that is the problem, but rather the current form of human civilization itself. Some of them see the continued growth and expansion of human civilization as the worst case scenario. Thus to these groups an unlimited, pollution-free source of power, which would enable unlimited growth and expansion of human civilization, would be a worst case scenario since it would allow for unbridled expansion.

      In my opinion these fringes of the environmental movement are merely using the whole "save mother Earth" as a front to push their true agenda, which is the desire to see civilization regress to an agrarian, survivalist, (maybe even subsistence,) state of existence.

      --
      The sun beams down on a brand new day, No more welfare tax to pay, Unsightly slums gone up in flashing light...
    6. Re:disgusting by OakLEE · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Even with unlimited, clean energy, growth still leaves an environmental footprint. Increases in population demand more food, and more living space, both of which would involve expansion into unsettled habitats (e.g., cutting down the rain forests, developing grasslands).

      The Dark Greens, who would prefer to not see any this destruction of habitat occur. Unlimited energy however would make expansion into undeveloped habitats cheap, and therefore easier and more likely. Thus, as a sect of the environmental movement that primarily favors preserving undeveloped territory (over reducing pollution), Dark Greens by necessity would have to be opposed to finding cheap, clean, unlimited energy.

      I surmise that they would much rather see energy prices skyrocket, and no new sources be developed. This would necessitate a worldwide Powerdown scenario, which would effectively halt, if not at least dramatically slow, worldwide growth. Only after this state, would their vision of society be palpable to the masses. In a nutshell, they are eco-Marxists.

      --
      The sun beams down on a brand new day, No more welfare tax to pay, Unsightly slums gone up in flashing light...
  2. Karma-offset programme by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    On a related note, could Slashdot possibly implement a karma-offset programme where we can trade and share karma? This way trolls could easily offset their trollishness by buying karma off the slashdot-karma-trading-system.

  3. Re:Your Government At Work by bperkins · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I don't think that's particularly fair. The FTC doesn't have the time of the resources to chase every marketing term out there, and these definitions are horribly muddy. For example, it took many years before the government (the FDA if memory serves) could agree on a definition of organic. This wasn't due to lack of need or desire or even trying, it was because the industry just couldn't agree on it.

    "Green" marketing terms are even worse. Some would claim that nuclear power is green, while others would not. Some think paper bags are green, while others think plastic is green. Is corn-based ethanol green if the fertilizer used to grow it ends up killing off most of the Gulf of Mexico? I doubt you could nail down any of these definitions in a few months, let alone a few days.

    Finally, carbon offsets are relatively new, and problematic from a consumer perspective. It's difficult to verify that way you're paying for is being done, and almost entirely impossible to verify that someone isn't selling offset multiple times. Even if you could, you can never be quite sure that someone isn't selling you a false offset. This industry is totally ripe for fraud, and it seems reasonable for the FTC to look into it.

  4. I'd like to elaborate on my previous post. by palegray.net · · Score: 4, Funny

    Disclaimer: I'm about ass-deep in whiskey right now, and fairly sleep deprived. Mod me as you will.

    Here's some "true talk" for anybody considering posting a racist troll, whether it's on Slashdot or any other forum on our glorious World Wide Web. While I, as a Constitution-upholding sort of guy, fully support your basic human right of free speech and free expression, I honestly wish all you racist pricks would die a slow and painful death at the hands of a seriously disturbed motherfucker. I'm generally against capital punishment, with you assholes as my sole exception. Sidenote: Yep, a conservative libertarian serving in the military (hard-liners, please don't bother posting your objections to military service, I have my reasons), I'm against a justice system which could kill one innocent person.

    I'm a 26 year old white guy, born and raised in Stone Mountain, Georgia. I was a career software developer and network security specialist before joining the Navy about a year and a half ago. My whole life, I've had to deal with uneducated, fuckwitted racist pricks. They're not all from the South, by the way, not by a long shot... here's some stuff to consider before your punk ass little 15 year old hands click the "Submit Comment" button on your favorite forum.

    Thousands of your fellow citizens, who happened to be black, fought and died in World Wars I and II. Thousands more fought and died in Korea and Vietnam. I serve our nation alongside thousands more, many of whom are Iraq and Afghanistan right now bleeding because they chose to enlist in the armed forces of our nation and "obey the orders of those appointed over them." Many of those I serve alongside in the submarine community happen to be black.

    I'll make you an offer. Why don't you email me at philip.paradis@palegray.net and give me some solid contact information I can work with? I'd love to have a friendly chat with you regarding your views on racial equality. If you're out of my liberty area, that's no problem... I'm sure I can get in touch with somebody in the service in your neighborhood who would be delighted to have a friendly wrestling match with your bitch ass. I'm sure you're a fucking pussy who won't actually own up to your childish behavior, but that's okay... I'm still out here defending your right to post asinine comments on public forums. So go fuck yourself.

  5. Sunday Creek Coal Mine - Ohio by Sanat · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The water source for the Glouster, Ohio area is gotten from Burr Oak Lake which is man made here in the Appalachians. A dam was placed across a valley and made this huge lake.

    People would drive from 15 - 20 miles away with containers to gather the water for drinking because it was so pure.

    When the coal mine started producing coal approx 8 years ago all of the tailings would wash from Sunday creek area into the Lake and now it is dangerous to even drink the water because of all of the impurities.

    What did the coal company do about it? They bought some of these "free passes"

    So now that the coal mine is closed and another is now opened about 3 miles further up the road.

    And residences of Glouster, Trimble, Jacksonville, and Burr Oak now have tainted water for ever.

    The "Free Pass" is just the cost of doing business for the big companies and has nothing to do with the local residence to whom the coal company should feel responsible for fixing what they broke.

    --
    And in the end, the love you take is equal to the love you make
  6. Re:All Hogwash! by jamstar7 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The problem is that building and fueling an atomic power station takes a considerable amount of energy. The argument seems to hinge on how much fuel can be created by breeder reactors and how much must be mined and refined.

    Building anything takes power and fuel. The only way to not use up fuel and energy is to sit on a rock someplace until you starve to death.

    --
    Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
  7. Sorry, its wrong. by Shivetya · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Its a license to pollute. It is the ultimate expression of wealth. You are buying permission to pollute.

    All I saw at the recent get together for global warming supporters in Asia were people willing to save the environment because they are willing to make ME sacrifice. They, no, they have the money to buy themselves the right to destroy my environment and the political power to protect that right of theirs while taking mine away.

    Sorry, but the primary reason I destest Al Gore is his excessive resource use which he somehow thinks he absolves by buying trees. If he were truly serious about OUR environment he would cut back what he uses, not buy the right to abuse.

    There is nothing more arrogant than carbon credits : paying for excessive resource use and the right to pollute.

    --
    * Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.