Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

The Inexact Science of Carbon Neutrality

Posted by timothy on from the these-are-not-weight-watcher-exchanges dept.

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?'"

11 of 302 comments (clear)

  1. Bullshit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Doesn't anyone watch Penn and Teller? They already covered it.

    1. Re:Bullshit by Roger+W+Moore · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Are you competent to evaluate controversial issues in high-energy physics?

      Well yes, I am but that is not really the point. The point is are scientific methods being applied? Although I am high energy physicist and not a climatologist, it should be possible for a climatologist to provide convincing and conclusive evidence that humans are unambiguously the cause of the recent global warming. You have to be an expert to come up with the data and its interpretation but if you cannot explain the resulting evidence to a fellow scientist, even one outside your field, there is something wrong.

      The problem with global warming (as I understand it) is that there is conflicting evidence as to the cause. So far I have not heard an expert on either side of the debate come up with convincing arguments to explain the other side's evidence. The conclusion I am therefore forced to reach is that we do not understand why the Earth is warming at the moment. Having had a chance to talk with an expert in a climate related field a couple of weeks ago this was his conclusion too.

      So, I would disagree strongly with your '99%' concensus number and, while we should certainly respect and listen to the experts in the field, that does not mean that we cannot question them, especially when there is no concensus.

    2. Re:Bullshit by TheCage · · Score: 2, Interesting

      So when there was a consensus that the earth was the center of the solar system, the people who believed that were being scientific?

  2. We put up solar panels by ducomputergeek · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.
    1. Re:We put up solar panels by ducomputergeek · · Score: 5, Interesting

      We didn't even bother to consider it because we didn't do it to be "Green". We did it because we had the cash on hand, the tax write off for the investment expired in December, and by switching to solar we freed up enough money to pay for another developers salary.

      --
      "The problem with socialism is eventually you run out of other people's money" - Thatcher.
  3. Re:Carbon neutrality is a joke anyway by EbeneezerSquid · · Score: 2, Interesting
    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

  4. Re:Modern day Indulgences by jmccay · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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
  5. Some Credits are More Equal than Others by KnightNavro · · Score: 3, Interesting
    Some credits are better than others. There are several verification programs in existence. In the USA, I am most familiar with the Chicago Climate Exchange and the California Climate Action Reserve (CCAR). A lot of projects would have occurred anyway due to profitability or regulations, and GHG credits from these projects are junk. Preserving a piece of forest in a desolate valley nobody could profitably harvest or installing a landfill gas flare where carbon has become too expensive should be considered "business as usual," but unfortunately some accreditation agencies and verifiers don't consider "business as usual" and say there is a reduction anyway. These credits are a scam perpetrated by the seller, the verifier, the accreditor, and sometimes the buyer.

    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.

  6. The Indulgence of Global Warming Religion by geoffrobinson · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.
  7. Re:Modern day Indulgences by TooMuchToDo · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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".

  8. Re:Get fat and sequester carbon... by Muad'Dave · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.