Archives

I'm not sure how anyone could actually contribute to a carbon offset organization. Regardless of whether you believe that carbon dioxide is a pollutant and you should reduce your emissions of it, how can anybody think they should voluntarily pay a tax on it? How could you possibly think that that money wouldn't be better spent toward purchasing products that help you lower your emissions, change electricity suppliers to a more expensive but green supplier, or donated directly to a fund that would directly address your concerns? You could contribute to the campaign of a candidate how supports your views. You could save your money and invest in a HEV or convert to a PHEV. But why set the precedent that to pay a tax on your emissions that you must produce to live. This is putting up a big sign that says "I think the system of carbon credits are great, please bring them here."

change electricity suppliers to a more expensive but green supplier

Check.

, or donated directly to a fund that would directly address your concerns?

Check.

Companies selling carbon offsets typically provide them through these types of methods. Many people here are likely doing there best to reduce their own emissions as well as trying to offset what they do produce.

People who just want to offset with no interest in reduction is an entirely different story.

I'm not sure how anyone could actually contribute to a carbon offset organization. Regardless of whether you believe that carbon dioxide is a pollutant and you should reduce your emissions of it, how can anybody think they should voluntarily pay a tax on it? How could you possibly think that that money wouldn't be better spent toward purchasing products that help you lower your emissions, change electricity suppliers to a more expensive but green supplier, or donated directly to a fund that would directly address your concerns?

friedlbug:

That is the beauty of forums such as CleanMPG, we always get to learn a little more now and then, or at least contemplate a different perspective.

While I don't consider myself an environmental activist, I do recall that most of my past decisions have been often seen as a little extreme by many folks.
For instance: I never owned a vehicle that had a displacement greater than 1.7 liters. Ever.
In the last 20 years, I built two houses and both were R-2000 rated and certified. High efficiency appliances, lighting and some automation were mandatory features that I never overlooked either... and I could go on, and on.

Anyhow, despite my conscious effort to be efficient at every opportunity, I still offset my carbon. I offset my house, business and my vehicles and whatever else I see merit offsetting carbon for.
Why you ask? Because to me, it is not only the "moral" right thing to do, as it is a very personal "next step" in addition to it being an example that I like to set for anyone who cares as much as I do.

Now, like many others in recent years, I do my research on the current crop of carbon off-set companies and I pick the one that I believe is the most verifiable, accountable and capable of delivering the projects I consider meaningful. Many of these projects are NOT ghost money pits and they do make a difference especially in places where the typical "business plans" don't apply because the profits are not appealing enough.

With that said, I also respect the views of those who regard voluntary carbon offsets as a scam or just another hypocritical entitlement to waste. I respect them with the same ease I respected the MANY of those who regarded me as weird "tree-hugger type" back in the days when the gas prices were low and they had no trouble buying into the SUV and horse power game. In the end for many it is always a matter of choice.

So yes, I voluntarily offset my carbon, and if pride was not a sin, I would openly claim pride in doing so. :)

Cheers;

MSantos

It makes sense to me that you (for example) are contributing to causes you care about. It just doesn't make sense that you are correlating your emissions of carbon to some figure that is supposed to balance it. It also concerns me that you are choosing to make these contributions in a way that is similar to the less voluntary system of carbon credits used in, for instance, Kyoto treaty-ratified nations.

Hi Friedlbug:

___Do you drive? If you do drive, is it for a purpose or pleasure? Either way, because you drive, you are emitting CO2 to the tune of almost 30 #’s per gallon well to wheel. Do you consider that a good thing or would you consider doing something about it?

___Offsets work because you have created literally tons of CO2.

___As Shifty and Msantos described, purchasing offsets so the rich and famous can fly from one end of the country to the other hundreds of times a year or driving to the local Chinese restaurant in a Suburban is not helping matters. Using offsets to cover a minimized CO2 output is better then not doing anything at all.

___Good Luck

___Wayne

Hi Wayne,

If you do drive, is it for a purpose or pleasure?
-Purpose, though sometimes the purpose is to get to an activity for pleasure.

Either way, because you drive, you are emitting CO2 to the tune of almost 30 #’s per gallon well to wheel. Do you consider that a good thing or would you consider doing something about it?
-For the purposes of this conversation, I'll concede it's a bad thing and want to do something about it.

Offsets work because you have created literally tons of CO2.
-I don't see the cause and effect here. They work if the organization is dedicated to an effective way to convert CO2 to something else and measure the conversion in some graduated way that will give you a dollar value to your volume of emitted CO2. That (and this is where I can see you spending money against your own interest) or they could contribute to ways to keep people from emitting as much CO2 in the first place.

Purchasing offsets so the rich and famous can fly from one end of the country to the other hundreds of times a year or driving to the local Chinese restaurant in a Suburban is not helping matters.
-Where is the line to be crossed? Do you resist your craving for charcoal-BBQ ribs because making them will emit more carbon than gas-grilled, or do you just balance a little more carbon this month? Is there a difference other than the scale?

Using offsets to cover a minimized CO2 output is better then not doing anything at all.
-From the environmental standpoint, yes, assuming your not getting ripped off. From the political one, I'm not sure it's worth it if you could support all the same benefits without tying them to a carbon credit-based system.

-Dave

It makes sense to me that you (for example) are contributing to causes you care about. It just doesn't make sense that you are correlating your emissions of carbon to some figure that is supposed to balance it. It also concerns me that you are choosing to make these contributions in a way that is similar to the less voluntary system of carbon credits used in, for instance, Kyoto treaty-ratified nations.


From your reply I conclude that you view my decision to offset my carbon as somewhat misguided, naive and uninformed. Even though you are entitled to your convictions, I beg to differ.

The "some figure" you mention is not always arbitrary at all. While some carbon offset companies have different formulas and may account for different pollutants and rates, I specifically pick the companies that are endorsed by the StockHolm Environment Institute (also known as the Tufts Climate Initiative (http://www.tufts.edu/tie/tci/carbonoffsets/ratings.htm)). I suggest you review the assessment and validation criteria to get an idea of what current voluntary Carbon Offsetting is really all about.

Also, as imperfect as the Kyoto treaty is/was in the eyes of many, for others like myself it still remains a necessary first step... sadly, it is also a "litmus test" of the willing.
It is too bad that neither the US Congress nor the Administration put any good faith into it. Then again, the lack of support from the those branches of government for the Kyoto treaty was not unexpected either.

Cheers;

MSantos

I'm with the OP on this one. I cut my gas burned because I don't want to pay huge amounts. I hypermile to save money. Why would I want to pay for gas, and then pay again to "offset" it? Defeats the whole purpose of hypermiling to save money.

Why would I want to pay for gas, and then pay again to "offset" it? Defeats the whole purpose of hypermiling to save money.

Not at all. The offset is to "undo" the damage that had to be done to use any car/plane/energy at all.

Not that I'm for offsets; I'd rather place my money in green energy investments. If I don't make money, I'm no worse off that I would have been with the offsets and hopefully the world still benefited. If I do make money, I'm not only better off, but I can turn around and reinvest in additional green tech. For those who don't like investing, create a saving account and pay an offset tax to yourself. Every summer look at the money you have and figure out where it could be well used to save energy. Add insulation. Replace bulbs. Add a solar heating system. Replace an outdated furnace. You might not have enough money in just one year, so keep adding until you do. And if something goes horribly wrong in your life, you have another buffer (but consider it a loan from yourself that you will pay back...with intrest).

As I see it hypermilers hypermile for 4 basic reasons:
1. To save money
2. To save the environment
3. To save world oil supplies
4. Because it's a **** fun hobby

We all place these in different order of priority, but I would say those who are most likely to offset their CO2 are those who consider #2 most important.

So let's look at this person. They drive a honda insight, have a small well insulated house and use all sorts of environmentally friendly products. The question is, what else can they really do to reduce their impact on the environment? The truth is, there's not much they can do without making drastic changes in their lifestyle. Sure they can go live in an unheated house and bike to work, but for most of us, that's not practical. So, as the environment is a very high priority for them, they buy to offset CO2. This is because the earth isn't affected by where CO2 came from, just how much of it is there is. They take the steps to insure that they are a 0 net contributor to CO2 in the world. It's clearly done for moral reasons; you feel good about yourself when you feel that your actions aren't affecting others in a bad way. I'm saying you should agree with this reason, but you should understand why people do it.

Personally I would place my priority for hypermiling as 1,3,4,2 (from my list above).

Hi msantos. No, I wouldn't suggest you are misguided, naive or uninformed, just as you did not suggest that I am behind the times or reactionary compared to your progressive decisions. Just discussing ideas. As far as Kyoto, being a litmus test is exactly what many were afraid of. In other words, you must make this flawed treaty your law or you prove you're not concerned about the future of the planet.

Let me be clear, though: I might argue points with you, but I have respect for the research, money, and time put in by nearly everyone on this board towards what you believe. I intend to evaluate each point on it's own merits, though, and I don't see the merit in carbon offsets.

I'm not sure how anyone could actually contribute to a carbon offset organization. Regardless of whether you believe that carbon dioxide is a pollutant and you should reduce your emissions of it, how can anybody think they should voluntarily pay a tax on it? How could you possibly think that that money wouldn't be better spent toward purchasing products that help you lower your emissions, change electricity suppliers to a more expensive but green supplier, or donated directly to a fund that would directly address your concerns? You could contribute to the campaign of a candidate how supports your views. You could save your money and invest in a HEV or convert to a PHEV. But why set the precedent that to pay a tax on your emissions that you must produce to live. This is putting up a big sign that says "I think the system of carbon credits are great, please bring them here."

I agree with you, and in my opinion, people should just forget "offsets" and other similar and often misunderstood terms. Instead, it would be more helpful if everyone would just do their part to personally help reduce carbon emissions by driving a low emission vehicle such as a Toyota Prius, Honda Civic, Toyota Corolla, or an all-electric vehicle.

By the way, I recently purchased an all-electric vehicle called the Zenn. It burns no gasoline at all, is smooth riding, and I use it every day for all of my local errands. It's a pleasure to drive.

By the way, I recently purchased an all-electric vehicle called the Zenn. It burns no gasoline at all, is smooth riding, and I use it every day for all of my local errands. It's a pleasure to drive.

While I applaud your path into EVs if your electricity comes from a coal or natural gas plant then you have not escaped greenhouse gas emissions at all. Reduced, yes. Eliminated, no. And while you still create emissions offsets are feasible.

...I intend to evaluate each point on it's own merits, though, and I don't see the merit in carbon offsets.

friedlbug:

... and that is why carbon offsets are still voluntary. If you do not agree with them, then I am quite happy you are not forced to buy them either. ;)

Purchasing a carbon offset should be as much of a personal decision as it is a matter of principle. While there are those who may purchase the offsets only to "compensate" for their continued waste and disregard for the environment, their purchase is still better than no purchase at all... because after all, before carbon offsets were available they still went about their merry and wasteful ways anyway. Except now they are doing some good however marginal and small it may be.

Now, in my case I cannot improve/reduce my carbon any further beyond what I've done for the last 20 years. At least without moving out of the urban environment I live in, in favor a more elemental country side setting where self sufficiency is more feasible. But then what kind of an example would I be providing, to my neighbors and employees, and so on? They certainly would not follow me at all... that is for sure!! ;)

All my vehicles (including the company vehicles) are not only the most fuel efficient vehicles on the market but are all also AT-PZEV rated. And despite my apparent efforts, they each still spew 2 tons of CO2 per year. Sure, like so many in this forum, I also pay for the gas, but that is not enough since a better and more responsible standing for me would be to neutralize my CO2 footprint - completely.

That is exactly why I have to offset my vehicles, my house and all my commercial airline trips. Purchasing the cleanest vehicles I can buy at the moment and hyper-miling them into exhaustion is not an excuse not to buy the carbon offsets. Certainly not in my mind and definitely not in my conscience. As I said before, it is a matter of principle and I welcome any and all legitimate carbon offset schemes in existence today. The greater the selection the better it is.

Look, carbon offsets are a tool. And while a tool can be misused by some, they still achieve very tangible goals. I am certainly much happier now when I learn that a carbon offset project contributed to the design and building of yet another wind or solar farm here and there.
Still, I would only hope that more people contributed to the same cause because together and in much larger numbers, we can make better things happen sooner. And I mean really soon.


Cheers;

MSantos

This is an issue I have been wrestling with for a while. I'm basically with the OP in that I don't get the concept of "offsetting" something that I definitely put into the atmosphere every minute that I'm alive. But my issue is mostly one of semantics; I disagree with the notion that it undoes what I did, which is not really the case unless it is physically scrubbed from the air ton over ton. I don't personally buy anything called an offset because I don't want to give myself the chance at a warm-fuzzy from getting the idea that the CO2 from my tailpipe, electric consumption, or weekend barbecue doesn't matter because it has been somehow negated. In my own (admittedly unconventional) mind it doesn't make enough sense to make me reach down and pull out the plastic.

On the other hand, I theoretically support the causes to which the reputable companies put the money. Putting cash into renewable energy, reforestation, and investments into energy research is a good thing. Nay, a great thing! That will all reduce future fossil fuel burning (and subsequent carbon emissions), which is one of the key goals that gets me out of bed in the morning. So in principle I suppose I could just as easily justify buying something like a Terrapass as I have justified not buying one.

It's such an incredibly complex issue. For that reason I can't fault folks like MSantos who understand what a "carbon offset" is and buy their fair share, even though it's not where I want to put my own money. My advice to the OP is to voice your reasons why you don't contribute to carbon offsetting, and help people find other ways to put their money to good use. Maybe someone will spend $300 on a terrapass, maybe they'll put it toward an energy-efficient capital investment such as home insulation or a more efficient vehicle. Either way we all win so long as more dollars flow toward kicking the fossil fuel habit.

I'm not sure how anyone could actually contribute to a carbon offset organization. Regardless of whether you believe that carbon dioxide is a pollutant and you should reduce your emissions of it, how can anybody think they should voluntarily pay a tax on it? How could you possibly think that that money wouldn't be better spent toward purchasing products that help you lower your emissions, change electricity suppliers to a more expensive but green supplier, or donated directly to a fund that would directly address your concerns? You could contribute to the campaign of a candidate how supports your views. You could save your money and invest in a HEV or convert to a PHEV. But why set the precedent that to pay a tax on your emissions that you must produce to live. This is putting up a big sign that says "I think the system of carbon credits are great, please bring them here."

While I admit I havn't read through this whole post, I appreciate your candor in voicing your opinion on the subject. I'm just very strapped for time here recently, and with that said.. Remember though that carbon offseting is already technically in place through higher EPA requirments and the gas guzzler tax in the US. England taxes cars based on engine size, which is essentially a carbon tax.

We might not agree on wether CO2 is a pollutant, but I'm sure we can agree that taking care of our finite resources is a good idea. Carbon offset typically are use to fund clean energy... meaning that any funding you put into it now, is not only offset carbon now... but many years down the road when your enjoying the electricity generated by that wind plant you helped fund!

Elixer fron Las Cruces I agree with you!
As I see it hypermilers hypermile for 4 basic reasons:
1. To save money
2. To save the environment
3. To save world oil supplies
4. Because it's a **** fun hobby

My main reason is #1 on your list which in turn supports the other 3 items
on your list.
supply &demand

I just like a challenge.

I don't do carbon offsets at this point. I believe you should do everything you can to reduce your own C02 HFC Methane and NO2 production, and plant some trees, before you start donating your hard earned cash to companies.

Who knows how much the employees and ceos make in these companies. Best to reduce what you can before you gamble your money away on a company that promises clean energy or the next carbon sink.

...Who knows how much the employees and ceos make in these companies. ...

We do, if we want to. :)

Many of these companies disclose how they operate and where the funds go. Some are run as "for profit" and others are not. If you wish to see detailed information and even a PDF report, please go here (http://www.tufts.edu/tie/tci/carbonoffsets/ratings.htm).


Cheers;

MSantos

Planting more trees to offset CO2 may not be a panacea, but doesn't cutting down forests concern you? ;)

Here's a few of my thoughts on carbon offsets.

First if I go to terrapass they conclude I should spend $34.65 on the 7000 lbs I produce from my truck from the gas that cost me $1000 to use, along with $79.20 to cover the 16,000 lbs for home heat and electricity that costs me $1200 a year to use.

I cover my base energy needs with $2200 a year and can absolve my sins for a mere $114 a year:confused:

I spend a lot more than $2200 a year, much of the rest of my purchases have a carbon footprint that isn't currently estimated by terrapass type companies.

What is the terrapass absolution for the $6000 I spend each year on food. All of the possessions I buy like computer, furniture, vehicles, tv, stereo, books, magazines, appliances, cds, vinyl albums (yes vinyl) created co2 emmissions.

Services like cable and phone or netflix aren't carbon free.

My true offset cost should be a lot more than $114.

If everyone in the world purchased carbon offsets from terrapass, could co2 emissions drop to zero? No way.

Even at a fringe level of participation it becomes difficult to prove actual reductions overall in world co2 emissions by buying offsets. With massive participation it would become obvious that massive reductions aren't happening through offsets. The solution is much more complicated that an offset shell game.

How planting trees is considered an offset I don't get. Trees and plants are not permanently sequestered co2 unless we can guarantee these plants never die or burn to the ground. Any plant we grow now will eventually end up back in the atmosphere, it’s just a matter of time.

So no, I won’t be buying any offsets.

Biological carbon sequestration is pretty hard for me to understand too. It strikes me that the only way it would measurably work is if it increased the long term fraction of organic carbon (foc) in the soil, but in my cursory review of carbon offset materials I haven't seen it discussed in those terms. I would need to see data before I invested. Just from my own soil sampling experiences I suspect that at least for some soil/climate types perennial grasses may fix a greater foc through their root systems than forest would (and tree planting seems to be the usual project.)

It looks like most of the companies use much of their contributions to sponsor projects to help others reduce their greenhouse gas emissions rather than directly offset your CO2 production through sequestration. It's probably pretty hard to get the carbon accounting right on those projects too.

It sounds like many of the people involved are honestly trying to help, so I'm not a "never voluntarily" guy, instead I'm a "you haven't convinced me you're right yet" guy.

I would find it hard for the average person to want to willingly pay for something such as this.

Look at how excited people get at receiving $100 tax break for a year. It supposedly stimulates the economy.

Well, doesn't that show just how tight people's budgets already are?

Yes, some are better off than others, and, if you have the money, go ahead, I suppose.

But as suggested earlier, why not invest in a truly green idea/company, and if it succeeds, then you turn those profits into more green companies and ideas. Sounds like more bang for the buck.

Invest in solar energy tech, and all other forms of using current energy that is abundantly available.

Unless I hit the lottery, or something else amazing happens, I don't foresee an opportunity in my budget to divert money towards such a thing. I also won't necessarily believe everything I read either ... so, though you may feel secure how and where your money is going, I don't carry so much trust in people and groups of people in charge of lots of money. How about using my current tax dollars much more efficiently ... instead of using it to kill people, fund bloated projects, or just plain losing it *poof*.

It takes all kinds ... I may be cynical to somethings and open to others, while the next person is just the opposite. It all balances out. I am cynical to so-called science theories taught as facts, while others blindly accept them because someone with a piece of paper says it to be so ... but I am open to some ideas that science laughs at, that sound plausible to me. Science has been wrong before, and can be again. People can be completely honest, or deceitful from being corrupted.

So, carbon offsetting seems a bit bogus to me, and seems like a brilliant idea to others. It makes the world go around. As long as people still respect each other with differing opinions, that is what is important.


I have found cutting out use of carbon much more efficient that making up for it. Get a house within a few blocks from a store, work a few blocks from your house ... a car can be nearly eliminated. Efficient appliances help. Use the money you saved from not buying a car, paying car insurance, fuel, maintenance, and get some solar panels and go off-grid. Then using your computer, listening to music, and all the other luxuries come carbon free. A car is not essential, you can take public transportation for further distances, bicycles ... though the average american (including myself) is way too spoiled to even consider it.

It isn't impossible to reduce all your un-natural carbon output. Your very breath is natural. Should be offset by plant life (I like a natural yard with lots of growth). Growing your own plants (fruits and veggies) eliminates carbon use for food transportation and care (helps that I am vegan and find meat disgusting and cannibalistic). A well designed house is very efficient, build underground, it stabilizes temperature, and you don't have to worry about tornadoes and hurricanes blowing your house away.


Anyone that has taken things so far, could find someone that doesn't to be quite wasteful, while, those they find wasteful may view them as quite extremist. Who is right? Well, I take the side of the person who comes closest to living a natural life, even though I don't live up to that standard, in time, I will work towards it ... but not by buying offsets.

How planting trees is considered an offset I don't get. Trees and plants are not permanently sequestered co2 unless we can guarantee these plants never die or burn to the ground. Any plant we grow now will eventually end up back in the atmosphere, it’s just a matter of time.


I agree that planting tree is not a viable offset. Infact, when I was looking for carbon offsets to buy, I purposely avoided ones that used tree planting as their type of offset. It simply takes to long to offset any carbon and its not permanent.

Offsetting can work towards lowering overall carbon emissions, but there comes a point when its effectiveness is lowered.

Isn't carbon offset really an invalid concept anyway? Except for cases where carbon is litterally being ripped from the air/water/etc and shoved back underground, we aren't really doing anything to help the problem. Most carbon offset programs aren't involved in this in any way. Mostly they help by encouraging green power that won't add any more co2, but doesn't get rid of what the donator did.

The closest ones are those that plant trees, and really that only captures it temporarily. Some are even doing it foolishly by planting in fields where there is already bio that is holding carbon. Where is this land coming from and why aren't there trees there already? Nature doesn't like them there (in which case these will probably die or aren't the right type for that area)? Forest fire? In which case nature would replish itself. Ultimately there has to be a balance, and adding a tree here an there isn't going to reballance anything. Supporting green energy and encouraging efficency is a wonder goal, but there are a lot of options besides a donation to an offset program that won't offset anything.

@shiba3420

Its just a bad name, sort of like the federal reserve and possibly just as devious. I don't think anyone on these forums is fooled by the name.

@shiba3420

Its just a bad name, sort of like the federal reserve and possibly just as devious. I don't think anyone on these forums is fooled by the name.

Sorry, you lost me on that one. Can you explain?
Shiba is a type of dog & my personal favorite. The number is an inside joke.

Not your name, carbon offsets as a name. :D

Behold the devious Shiba Inu:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/6/6b/Taka_Shiba.jpg/250px-Taka_Shiba.jpg
I'm not fooled!

Carbon offsets are just a Green investment system / charity.

You give them money they give it to green stuff.

Like giving money to the Salvation Army or to a Food bank etc....

Like a charity you do not expect to get anything back from what you give other than a warm fuzzy feeling.

I think they call it Carbon offsets as a advertising choice to try to get money givers.... especially those who feel guilty and want to offset / forgive their sins.

---------------

If you don't like carbon offsets... but still want to make more of a impact / do your part so to speak...

do green investing... It's like investing but it promotes green companies not just money.

but unlike the charity like system of carbon offsets... you are not just giving money away and getting only a warm fuzzy feeling.

several different places to do it...

http://www.greencentury.com/

http://www.greenmoneyjournal.com/

http://www.sustainablebusiness.com/

http://newalternativesfund.com/

etc...etc...

it is more and more common all the time....

Might want to skim this BBC Story (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7058074.stm) on increased CO2 emissions since 2000.

Carbon offseting entities is like green funds, I mean a king of joke. That's a bandage to preserve the North-Amercia way of living. I have bought the terrapass for the sticker. To make the promotion of the use of the hybrid and the promotion of another way of thinking. But the real promotion I could do ( and honnestly tried to do last fall) is just sell this $?&( car still taking a very big 4.5 l/100Km and find another job where I will be able to take the train. Put 4.5 liters in a bottle, you will be frightened of how much liquid it is.

I will say like one of my brother : "Human is a mistake". Just another example, with the Nino of Tata or the Tata of Nino (who care) and apparently an equivalent in Mexico, Environment preservation war is lost.

Actually, the state of the environment is just one of many symptoms of the very poor consciousness of the humankind. However, I continue to make that mentioned promotion more for my own pleasure then the humankind, this mistake. It is just a failure of another civilization, this time with a lot of damages on the Earth, but the earth will survive.

Another optimistic comment from me :Banane09:

PierreM

I bought a cleanmpg tag frame.

But I will never purchase a carbon offset. But maybe a BMW or a G37S. :) Well and a CR-Z.....

Positive proof of global warming

LOL !!

PM

Put 4.5 liters in a bottle, you will be frightened of how much liquid it is.

I wonder if people saw the amount of liquid they pump into their vehicle at the gas tank, would they consider how much they are using?

Transparent gas tanks anyone?

I'd be freaked out to drive an SUV with a 20gal tank and watch it disappear over a couple days!