genericbikedude

https://www.ecobusinesslinks.com/carb..._reduction.htm

this website has links to various companies that sell offsets.

donrhummy

The Amgen Tour of California purchased carbon offsets last year because of all the cars, etc at the race. Not sure if they're doing it again this year.

EDIT: Just checked, it was sponsor Clif Bar last year that agreed to purchase carbon offsets for all the carbon dioxide emissions from the race.

gerv 

Just had a look at TerraPass. I am considering some flights this year and these look to me like a kind of carbon tax... https://www.terrapass.com/flight/prod...flight_miles=0

Spend $36 and feel better about all the CO2 you've just blasted into the atmosphere.

urbanknight

My wife's wedding ring came from a green jeweler, and I paid the voluntary carbon offset tax. It was less than $3 though, so I hope enough people pay it as well so they can plant a shrub at least.

donrhummy

No, carbon offsets actually REMOVE carbon from the atmosphere (some by planting trees for example). So you'll actually be removing the carbon you blasted into the atmosphere.

Roody

So this looks promising but I'm an offset virgin and I have a number of questions:

1. Is it better to buy the offsets than to donate money to environmental groups or to political action groups? Why or why not?
2. I looked at the links on ecobusinesslinks (Thanks genericbikedude ) Some offsets are non-profit and some, including TerraPass, are not. What does this mean?
3. How do people determine how many offsets to buy in order to become "carbon neutral"?
4. Is it better to emit less carbon in the first place than to offset it?
5. How come most offset projects are in developing countries when it's wealthy nations that emit the most carbon?
6. What else do I need to know about this? Pro and con....

genericbikedude

see below

Roody

Thanks, genericbikerdude. I do know how to google and wiki, but the whole thing seems so abstract and I'm still not grasping the basic concept. I'll keep working on it as it sounds promising. Like many others, I think carbon is the biggest problem we're facing right now and I'd do just about anything to help.

genericbikedude

what is the problem?

1. people do *things* that reduce the amount of carbon emitted. these *things* vary
2. these emissions reductions are certified (by someone)
3. CERs are issued (by that someone)
4. you buy the CERs from the person who did the *things*

simple.

Roody

Well I'm simple too, so I should be able to understand this.

SUDDEN FLASH OF UNDERSTANDING! Am I paying him for doing a good *thing* in order to make up for a bad *thing* that I did? That is so bizarre. It almost seems medieval. I love it! Do I have it right now?

Andreasaway

Is this a carbon offset?
I always buy biodiesel for big my truck, and ethanol for my fast car. So by using the land we normally use to grow food, I am starving the poorest of the poor. So the fewer people on the planet, the less pollution, right? After all, an African life isn't worth the same as westerners right?

Anyhow sorry for the grim post, but I think is is important to not loose sight of the fact that our actions have real affects on the planet we live in now. Carbon offsets, if they plant trees for example, those trees don't really start to take in large amounts of carbon, until decades down the road, by which time much of the damage of your carbon has already been done. We need to look at our life in terms of how our over consumption will effect the quality of life for those in Bangladesh, ect. But really, I am just saving up, I am going to try to use emit 450,000 pounds of carbon this year, and offset it, doing good for the world and I get A FREE FOLDING BIKE!!!!!

genericbikedude

Let us break up your rant into its component parts:

No, this is not an offset. Offsetting is removing carbon from the atmosphere or preventing it from being emitted. Using biofuel does not do this. When you burn biodiesel, carbon is emitted. This carbon was taken from the atmosphere when the plants grew, but then the biodiesel was transported, and the fertilizer and tractors used to grow it involved carbon emissions. So biofuel is lower-carbon, but nor carbon neutral.

Now, if you replaced the fuel supply for an entire region (say, a state in India) from one that was high carbon to one that is low carbon, then you would be preventing a certain amount of carbon from going into the atmosphere. This could be made into a saleable CER.

That is a silly demagogic argument. THere is a net world food surplus, which keeps food prices low. Low food prices mean that African farmers can't get any income when they sell their crops. THerefore they have no savings, and many only produce at the subsistence level. When there is a bad year (more coming with climate change), many starve.

There is no world food shortage. The problem is distribution and economics. The US and Europe need to stop subsidizing their farmers.

You should be ashamed at yourself for making such a ridiculous argument.

Very few offsetting programs plant trees. As I said above, it is hard to develop a defensable methodology for quantifying the CERs, as it is hard to tell how fast the trees will grow, who will look after them, and how to ensure that they are not cut down or burned in a forest fire. Most CERs are carbon avoidance, like energy efficiency and renewable energy.

I agree. You should first reduce your overall impact. But living in a rich country it is virtually impossible to be completely carbon neutral. Reduce your emissions as much as you can, then offset the rest.

I'll ignore the first part, but say sheeeeit, whats the matter with a free bike?

OK? No more cheap rhetoric, please.

Andreasaway

The comment I made was satire, not my real opinion, i don't drive a car or fly in planes. The simple fact is that biofuels, raise prices and might price out the poor. Carbon offsets run the risk of making people feel OK about their consumption, if they can afford the bill.

cranky

Hey thanks to this poll, it finally kicked the issue into my awareness. I've heard buzzings about it in the background, but never took action to look into it.

Like Roody though, I have questions but at least I feel motivated now to figure things out. I like to do a lot of research before giving people my hard-earned money, but rest assured, I will do this. Thanks!

donrhummy

Awesome!

I remember that Men's Journal had a good guide on this stuff. Let me see if I can find the article and I'll post some of the info (websites, etc) they had to find more info and purchase carbon offsets.

cranky

Well, based on what I've read so far, from Daily Grist, I have begun my modest contributions to carbonfund.org.

I referenced this thread when filling out the form on "how did you hear about us?". Oh, and now I get to vote in the poll...

Thanks for spreading the good word, every little bit helps.

donrhummy

So maybe if we try this poll again in 6 months, we'll get a better percentage saying "yes."

yes

Planting trees in general does not remove carbon from the atmosphere over the long term.
Every carbon molecule the tree takes in (converting CO2 to O2) is stored in the trunks or in the soil. When the tree decays, it produces CO2 (aerobic digestion) and methane (anaerobic digestion), which is 24 times as potent as CO2 as a greenhouse gas. So planting a tree is likely to just delay carbon emission.
Trees also lower the amount of natural vegetation that would otherwise exist (wherever they are planted). Tree farms, where large amounts of pine are planted can also screw up ecosystems and water tables. If it's done well, that's another issue.
I'm all for supporting wind power, and am very happy to see that performance bike went that route.
It's also nice to see these options, as they stimulate debate, increase awareness, and can be helpfull.

Roody

I'll have changed my vote from no to yes by then. Thanks for the time and trouble you took to explain this complicated (for me anyway) issue. And thanks to everybody else who found good links.

Roody

Whoa. Easy fella! Why do you think offsets would harm anybody or anything?

Roody

Actually, coal miners should welcome the limits on greenhouse gas emissions. At this time, only one carbon emission-free power source is ready to come online quickly. That's gasified coal with carbon capture. This is probably a good time to own coal mining stocks.