Anyone considered carbon offsetting?

RabbitHutch

RabbitHutch

RabbitHutch

Associate
Joined
24 Sep 2011
Posts
58
Has anyone considered carbon offsetting? I.e. the process of balancing your CO2 (and other) contributions into the ecosystem by buying credits which go towards tree planting/alternate energy funding etc.

I enjoy using new technology/cars/flights etc - but I'm sure I won't be alone when I say nothing takes your breath away like nature often does.

I don't reckon it would be that expensive. A few hundred per year perhaps.

Does anyone do it?
 
Kind of. Paying for negative externalities makes sense. I think I'd be more likely to do it if not for the fact that I'm a poor student and can't afford it...

kd
 
Of course not. Trees and other plants would not exist if it wasn't for plentiful amounts of carbon dioxide. Don't feel too sorry for them, it is their purpose. The world's great forests are greener and more productive now than just 50 years ago.
 
Cleeecooo said:
I've seen the option to do it when I buy plane tickets, but never do as its around £60 and I'm stingy!
Click to expand...

You can always do it externally, there are loads of sites which approximate the appropriate offset. Let me see how much a flight to Paris would cost...

Edit: This calculator is saying that based on individual contribution you would create 0.11 tonnes of CO2 on a return trip from Heathrow to Charles De Gaulle (Paris) - costing £0.81 to offset!?
 
Last edited:
Glaucus said:
No, carbon is silly.
Let's go after known pollutes that cause untold suffering. Hate all this co2 pushing.
Click to expand...

How is carbon silly?

Yes there are other gases, but carbon is probably as harmful as those put together (or thereabouts IIRC)

It's one of the easier ones to tackle aswell.
 
I've seen the inner workings of companies that "carbon offset" on your behalf, and their practices are nothing but damaging, it's all a big con.
 
kae2 said:
I've seen the inner workings of companies that "carbon offset" on your behalf, and their practices are nothing but damaging, it's all a big con.
Click to expand...

"Let's cut down this huge tree that contains 200 years of carbon sink activity, then replace it with 2 small sucklings. That ought to 'tick the box' for some sucker in the West."
 
Cleeecooo said:
How is carbon silly?

Yes there are other gases, but carbon is probably as harmful as those put together (or thereabouts IIRC)

It's one of the easier ones to tackle aswell.
Click to expand...

How is co2 bad.
And I'm not talking about other gases, heavy metal, carbon particulates, water pollution, deforestation along with a 1001 other pollutants.
Not a harmless bass that even if we agree on the IPCC report, it's already to late to stay within the moderate risk catogry for climate change.
 
kae2 said:
I've seen the inner workings of companies that "carbon offset" on your behalf, and their practices are nothing but damaging, it's all a big con.
Click to expand...

Castiel said:
Indeed.
Click to expand...

NathanE said:
"Let's cut down this huge tree that contains 200 years of carbon sink activity, then replace it with 2 small sucklings. That ought to 'tick the box' for some sucker in the West."
Click to expand...

There's nothing saying you have to do it though the company.

You could just as easily calculate your offset, and donate it to a reputable alternative energy research foundation/forest sustenance charity etc.

Edit: And it doesn't have to be CO2, you can do it for any environmentally damaging substance.
 
RabbitHutch said:
There's nothing saying you have to do it though the company.

You could just as easily calculate your offset, and donate it to a reputable alternative energy research foundation/forest sustenance charity etc.

Edit: And it doesn't have to be CO2, you can do it for any environmentally damaging substance.
Click to expand...

Which is why it is more cost effective and ecologically sound to reduce your own eco footprint overall......things like Solar, recycling, smaller more eco friendly car, and the obvious energy saving measures such as insulating you home, reducing standby and energy wastage...and so on.

Anyway you get the idea.


Offsetting is really a salve for your conscience, rarely is it effective ecologically or economically.
 
NathanE said:
"Let's cut down this huge tree that contains 200 years of carbon sink activity, then replace it with 2 small sucklings. That ought to 'tick the box' for some sucker in the West."
Click to expand...

I believe that actually makes sense. As trees get older, the amount of carbon they absorb reduces, so planting younger trees in place of an older one would, in theory, result in more carbon being captured. Of course, it also depends what you do with the old tree (burning it would be counter-productive).
 
Carbon offsetting is merely a token gesture for those not willing or able to make the lifestyle changes needed to really tackle the problem.

I do think we will end up going down the route of carbon tax and carbon share trading eventually however as I see no other way for economics to engage with the issues of climate change.

The latest outcome from the climate change debate at Derban has been worrying and dissapointing to say the least. By the time they have made up their minds it will be much too late.

The general consensus is that joe public is in favour of changes to limit climate change but have very little idea about how to go about it or what the implications might be. What we need are politicians and bureaucrats with the balls to actually implement the policy needed to limit the impacts of increased greenhouse gas emission on the climate. Unfortunately we dont have anyone who currently fits that bill.

/Salsa
 
I would imagine this has a lot also to do with the world almost expotential population growth, by the year 2050 when the world population is at approx 10 billion i would imagine if subjects like carbon reduction are not sorted then most of our children wont be much longer for this world...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom