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?'"
Doesn't anyone watch Penn and Teller? They already covered it.
I'm not sure about carbon neutral, but we've seen a our power bill go down by 90%. Still, it will take about 4 - 5 years to recoup the investment, but if you view it as a sunk cost, it's freed up a lot of cash flow.
"The problem with socialism is eventually you run out of other people's money" - Thatcher.
Well it's more like saying that if a thousand people take a leak in the Indian Ocean and you filter out a roughly equivilant amount of piss from the Atlantic that you're neutral.
You're right in the sense that you're not purely neutral, and you're right in the sense that it may never be truly neutral, but a swimming pool is disconnected from the ocean, whereas all the air is connected.
In the end it's not perfect, and it'd be better not to piss in the ocean at all, but if you have to metaphorically piss in the sea, it's better to filter it out somewhere as opposed to nowhere.
2) Seek counseling.
http://tinyurl.com/globalwarmingscam
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
Well, planting the trees would work better. ;) Anyways, if you want to spend the money, spend it on planting tree, bushes and anything else that can consume greenhouse gases in cities and other Urban environments--like on top of buildings in New York City. Scientific American did an article (this) on it, or if you prefer this article from wikipedia. This would be more productive than falling for Al Gore's scams!
At the next eco-hypocrisy-meeting, count the private jets used to get to the meeting. Should be interesting to see that
When you start handing out subsidies, people start chasing the subsidies rather than the goals that the subsidies are trying to jump-start.
See Ethanol, various agricultural subsidies, tax breaks for wealthy and profitable corporations, subsidies to erect cable lines and the monopolies that has created, etc.
I can think of very few subsidies that have worked out well. A much better idea is to incorporate the cost of "dirty" industry into the services and goods produced. Then consumers can compare on cost alone (which is what most people do anyway).
Even those who arrange and design shrubberies are under considerable economic stress at this period in history.
There are some projects that generate real reductions. For example, capture or methane from manure lagoons or landfills where it is not required by regulation and is not less expensive than carbon treatment or the planting and preservation of trees in an area that would otherwise be harvested. These credits are real reductions.
The problem is the layman has no idea where their credits are coming from. I'm in the industry, and I can't always tell you the value of a credit.
Global Warming has all the elements of caricatures of religion.
Sin? Carbon.
Original Sin? Capitalism/Industry.
Which leads us to carbon offset. Yes, just like Roman Catholic indulgences. Except they produced something useful. The Sistine Chapel.
Except for ending slavery, the Nazis, communism, & securing American independence, war has never solved anything.
To Admins: Will somebody please block the IPs of the adolescent, racist, small-minded morons who insist on posting this type of message. I know that I could raise the level of posts to read in order to block these out myself, but I shouldn't have to. I don't mind the majority of trolls or flamebait, but this is getting ridiculous. And yes, I really that the purpose of these posts is to incite this type of response, but their are too many intolerant, ignorant people in the world now without pathetic idiots like this influencing others.
Or buy renewable energy credits:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_Energy_Certificates
Renewable Energy Certificates (RECs), also known as Green tags, Renewable Energy Credits, or Tradable Renewable Certificates (TRCs), are tradable environmental commodities in the United States which represent proof that 1 megawatt-hour (MWh) of electricity was generated from an eligible renewable energy resource.
Much less ambiguous then a "carbon credit".
There are two types of carbon footprint
1) An organisational footprint
The well known rules for setting the boundary condition and counting the carbon consistently are here ghgprotocol.org and were developed by the world business council
2) product footprint
This is newer but for example supermarkets in the UK have committed to putting grams of CO2 on the packet in the same way as calories.
A new UK ISO standard for this has recently been developed as a publically available standard and funded by public bodies - its called PAS2050. Its under consideration to become a full EU (EN) standard
After all, human fat is a fairly dense hydrocarbon.
I got the creeps when I ran across the section of the CRC regarding the composition of various fats. One was labeled 'Depot Fat', and gave the fractions of its various constituents. Depot Fat is people!!! Ewwww!
Being what could be generously called 'Portly', I've always wondered how long I'd burn if you stuck a wick in my tummy and lit it.
Tiller's Rule: Never use a word in written form that you've only heard and never read. You will end up looking foolish.