The Inexact Science of Carbon Neutrality 302
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?'"
Bullshit (Score:5, Interesting)
Doesn't anyone watch Penn and Teller? They already covered it [wattsupwiththat.com].
We put up solar panels (Score:5, 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.
Re:Carbon neutrality is a joke anyway (Score:2, Interesting)
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.
Re:A first post should be more like this (Score:1, Interesting)
2) Seek counseling.
http://tinyurl.com/globalwarmingscam (Score:0, Interesting)
http://tinyurl.com/globalwarmingscam
Re:Carbon neutrality is a joke anyway (Score:2, Interesting)
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
Re:Modern day Indulgences (Score:3, Interesting)
Subsidies (Score:2, Interesting)
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).
Re:We put up solar panels (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.
Some Credits are More Equal than Others (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
The Indulgence of Global Warming Religion (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.
Re:A first post should be more like this (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:Bullshit (Score:5, 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.
Re:Bullshit (Score:2, Interesting)
[The phrase "scientists say"] is one which only tends to come out of the mouths of people who can't distinguish between 'scientific' and 'sciencey.'
No, it comes from rational people who understand they cannot possible know every question let alone all the answers. These people are pointing to the current state of knowledge in said republic.
BTW: How do you distinguish between 'scientific' and 'sciencey' because all you have offered so far are platitudes, unsupported assertions, and ad-homs?
Re:Modern day Indulgences (Score:3, Interesting)
Or buy renewable energy credits:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_Energy_Certificates [wikipedia.org]
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".
Re:no approach to measure carbon footprint? (Score:1, Interesting)
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
Re:Bullshit (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?
Re:Get fat and sequester carbon... (Score:4, 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.