Slashdot Mirror
The Inexact Science of Carbon Neutrality
snydeq writes "Sustainable IT's Ted Samson raises questions regarding the purchasing of carbon offsets, a practice growing in popularity among tech companies such as Dell, Yahoo, and Google in an attempt to achieve 'carbon neutrality.' Essentially financial instruments, carbon offsets enable companies to invest money in sustainable endeavors in an attempt to counteract the carbon footprint they incur conducting their business. But as a recent article in the Wall Street Journal shows, measuring the value of these carbon offsets is tricky business, as some recipients of offsets say the results of their sustainable efforts would be achieved regardless of any one company's investment. 'The question of whether carbon offsets hold value just scratches the surface of the overall carbon-neutrality question,' Samson writes. 'For the time being, there isn't even a consistent approach to measuring an organization's carbon footprint in the first place. And if you don't know how much CO2 you're responsible for, how do you know how much offsetting is necessary to become neutral?'"
New from the makers of Carbon Offsets, Litter Offsets:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=il3o4rmcLBc
At the end of the vid are the best kind of offsets that the government uses all the time against other people around the world.
Of course the Christians have had the best offsets of them all: the confession booth.
Yes, the little tune in the subject line was inspired by Data of ST:TNG.
Why would we read the Wall Street Journal for insight into governing carbon emissions in a market? The WSJ has lied for years about carbon emissions and climate change. Even before it was bought last year by Rupert Murdoch to join the NY Post and Fox News (and many other lying tabloids) in his fascist communications empipre, the WSJ was lying about climate change and markets. Even beyond the carbon pollution and climate change, the WSJ spent the last decade and more lying to us about how unregulated markets would make us all rich, but they've robbed us all blind.
We have to debate a lot to get a carbon emissions market right. Doing it in the pages of the Wall Street Fox Journal is a good way to do it totally wrong. And if you think the financial crash the WSJ helped cook up is bad, wait until you see what the WSJ would do for the air we breathe and the rest of the environment we need to live.
--
make install -not war
Except for the fact that CO2 is a very poor Greenhouse gas (how's the weather by the way? Love that Global warming, don't you?). A far, far superior greenhouse gas is even more common, and when CO2 gets filtered out, it get's replaced with this gas.
Noone mentions it though. Why?
Because the Gas which is four to eight times more efficient at reflecting sunlight out into space is O2.
Oxygen
Here's an idea - Let's ban the release of Oxygen into the atmosphere! Maybe get some of the green-peacers out of there boats and start them on burning down forests! /sarcasm
You must not have an education that required the study of chemistry. Go get it, or at least make an effort by reading wikipedia. Once you know what you're talking about, please report back.
please link us to proof that every national science body on the planet agrees, or you just shot yourself in the foot.
If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
but one warm winter definitely proves global warming.
one more way in which far left environmentalism is the most fundamentalist religion on the planet..
"Ahh! Arrogance and stupidity in the same package, how efficient of you!" --Londo Molari