Read-only discussion
Hello, guys. I'd like to offer carbon offset packages for Wetpixel trips, and I was wondering if you had opinions about which organizations might be the best ones to use. I'm considering these:
http://www.buycarbon.org (Clean Air Conservancy)
http://www.carbonfund.org/site/
http://www.sustainabletravelinternational.org/
... but need to do more research to get a final list.
Any ideas? 
I helped my friends at Ocean Frontiers in Cayman set up a scheme with the last one of the three.
In the UK I use climatecare.org for my travel.
Carbon offsetting is the note the total cure, of course, but certainly much better than nothing.
Alex
excellent idea. Delta just started that, I was thinking about doing it myself for my own bidness trips.
Delta info:
Eric, I just posted a lot of info here:
Top post (today) at
permanent link to post at:
http://www.laups.org/2007_04_01_archive.ht...017678297586452
The sharks are on the move so to speak.
Industry caught in carbon ‘smokescreen’
Companies and individuals rushing to go green have been spending millions on “carbon credit†projects that yield few if any environmental benefits.
A Financial Times investigation has uncovered widespread failings in the new markets for greenhouse gases, suggesting some organisations are paying for emissions reductions that do not take place.
Others are meanwhile making big profits from carbon trading for very small expenditure and in some cases for clean-ups that they would have made anyway.
The growing political salience of environmental politics has sparked a “green gold rushâ€, which has seen a dramatic expansion in the number of businesses offering both companies and individuals the chance to go “carbon neutralâ€, offsetting their own energy use by buying carbon credits that cancel out their contribution to global warming.
A fool and his money are easily parted?
yeah. So far I'm keeping my money in a jar, and it might just go to the WWF or nature conservancy, some proven general habitiat protection, and not necessarily "carbon credits".
I'm curious to see what Eric chooses.
You dont do much good in buying your sins!!
The only way is to change the way of life.
Good article about this on the link below.
http://climateark.com/shared/reader/welcom...px?linkid=73875
Now let's not condemn everything. In that evaluation cited by Climateark, several companies come out with a decent record.
The point is that it's IMPOSSIBLE to remove your carbon signature, unless there is a drastic change in the way cities and humans live and work. Being carbon neutral or at least offsetting the emissions surely doesn't make it better, but it also doesn't emit more emissions.
Now let's not condemn everything. In that evaluation cited by Climateark, several companies come out with a decent record.The point is that it's IMPOSSIBLE to remove your carbon signature, unless there is a drastic change in the way cities and humans live and work. Being carbon neutral or at least offsetting the emissions surely doesn't make it better, but it also doesn't emit more emissions.
True, but Palmid raises an interesting point that bears repeating: many people seem to hope that they can affect big change without changing their lifestyles. The push by utilities in California has been for "energy efficiency" rather than "conservation", because apparently "conservation" conjures up feelings of deprivation and feeling poor for many people. So people don't take conservation-type actions. So, we push EE technologies and the underlying message that you can go ahead and use energy as long as you use it efficiently. I'm hoping that "conservation" will start to gain a little more traction...
I'm also waiting for some real guideline as to which carbon-offset businesses are truly effective, and periodically check that industry for news. In the meantime, I do try to eat more vegetarian meals (http://earthsave.org/globalwarming.htm), teleconference instead of fly to meetings... Every little bit counts, these days.
Melusine... the water fairy... do you still go to Avalon?
Let's be very honest about lifestyle changes. We'd have to cut out a lot including using computers, cars, buying new products etc or hope for some sort of plague that wipes out 1/2 the population of the world.
Carbon trading is just minimizing additional damage to what already has been done. All this climate change is from the last 100 years of industrialization. How do you explain that to the Chinese and Indians and every 3rd world nation that they have to stay 3rd world because otherwise the damage the western did would be increased tenfold or more? Absolutely no way, especially since the western world has no inclination to cut down their lifestyle. The same token, I eat vegetarian as much as I can, am carbon positive and have 30 lbs of waste out of my house in the US. What does that make me? A polluter who's trying but am I travelling any less? Using less electronics (even if it is solar powered?) Nope. Welcome to the human race to extinction 
All this climate change is from the last 100 years of industrialization. How do you explain that to the Chinese and Indians and every 3rd world nation that they have to stay 3rd world because otherwise the damage the western did would be increased tenfold or more?
This statement is so illogical, but I'll save the discussion for some future surface interval or over drinks.
As a libertarian, a free market for carbon offsets/credits would be a wonderful mechanism for controlling pollutants of any kind. It is just not functional at this time or for the near future and maybe never.
I think we will eventually see offsets completely replaced by a carbon tax.
The trading of carbon credits will never happen in my life time, because there would have to be global agreement on total carbon emissions and have a way of tracking the emissions.
For now, I'd pick an offset company that plants trees.
Melusine... the water fairy... do you still go to Avalon?
Why, yes I do! Avalon, CA, that is .
Well, CA is leading the way in trying to establish GHG emissions limits at the state level (google "AB 32"). We'll see whether these work or not. But that step seems to have motivated eleven (!) other states in the U.S. to also adopt the same limits. So, while it might be difficult to track emissions globally (and attribute them to various states/countries), the tracking can be done on a local level, and perhaps the local efforts will propagate to a wider scale. Here's hoping...!
States with Greenhouse Gas Emissions Targets
Let's be very honest about lifestyle changes. We'd have to cut out a lot including using computers, cars, buying new products etc... Nope. Welcome to the human race to extinction
If you think about ALL the things you're not doing right now, then affecting change becomes a really daunting task. One step at a time, every little bit helps, including carbon offset schemes. However, some have expressed the concern that people will buy carbon offsets and then use that to justify NOT making behavioral changes. Sort of like, "well, I exercised this morning so I can have an extra donut" rather than "I'll exercise and also avoid donuts". Unfortunately, I don't think the human race will die out (not in my lifetime at least), but do say goodbye to biodiversity... 
This statement is so illogical, but I'll save the discussion for some future surface interval or over drinks.
As a libertarian, a free market for carbon offsets/credits would be a wonderful mechanism for controlling pollutants of any kind. It is just not functional at this time or for the near future and maybe never.
I think we will eventually see offsets completely replaced by a carbon tax.
The trading of carbon credits will never happen in my life time, because there would have to be global agreement on total carbon emissions and have a way of tracking the emissions.
For now, I'd pick an offset company that plants trees.
George, not my logic but the logic of economic progress. Every industrialized nation has gone through this phase to reach industrialized status. In no way can present anti-pollution technology make industrialization ecologically friendly and cheap, which is what the many developing nations need to advance their economy gains, empirically at the expense of the environment. To tell them to not do it and slow it down is pretty much that sort of logic in their eyes.
The point is current levels of pollution are obviously unacceptable. Carbon credit trading will help in many ways no doubt, but you are really asking a lot for all the industrialized nations to accept that. Even if Asia and South America can be controlled, there's still Africa in the future. The current pollution levels and the climate change occurring isn't what is happening now but what has happened in the last few decades. Removal of tropical rainforests, greenhouse gas emissions etc are all directly related to the growing global population. If even China alone reaches the present US per capita in terms of pollution, that's way too much.
Don't forget solar and wind power! They offset a lot too.
If man-made global warming (mmgw) is indeed a serious problem, then the solution must be a global one. Exempting any entity (e.g. Kyoto) will simply result in industrial greenhouse gas emissions (gge)migrating to those countries which are not part of the agreement. That is the economic reality. This doesn't even touch upon the concept of penalizing those countries whose business and political climate have allowed for such economic progress and rewarding those who have remained entrenched in socio-economic decay.
Rainforest is currently being destroyed to make way for more sugar cane plantations to produce more ethanol. This isn't a rational approach to reducing gge. It isn't meant to be. It's a way of improving the ecomomic power of one country, Brazil.
Don't forget solar and wind power! They offset a lot too.
Not really. They are ineffecient and cannot contribute more than a token quantity of required energy. It would be more prudent to invest in breakthrough research than simply buying offsets that actually build or buy panels and wind mills. Renewable sources are just a small piece of any solution.
There's only one solution. Too many people refuse to accept it. Nuclear power.
Carbon off-setting is rather like buying your wife some jewellery because you are shagging the au pair girl. It's not solving the problem. It's deferring it!
Carbon off-setting is rather like buying your wife some jewellery because you are shagging the au pair girl. It's not solving the problem. It's deferring it!
Probably the best description of the process that I have heard yet, 
And I suspect the shaggers are being shagged by the companies as well.
Hello, guys. I'd like to offer carbon offset packages for Wetpixel trips, and I was wondering if you had opinions about which organizations might be the best ones to use. I'm considering these:
http://www.buycarbon.org (Clean Air Conservancy)
http://www.carbonfund.org/site/
http://www.sustainabletravelinternational.org/
... but need to do more research to get a final list.
Any ideas?
Eric, my company, Wells Fargo, endorses Three Phases Energy. You can link to it thru the Dept of Energy Site here: Three Phases
Carbon off-setting is rather like buying your wife some jewellery because you are shagging the au pair girl. It's not solving the problem. It's deferring it!
Well John, until cold fusion is a cheap reality, there really isn't a free ride on any environmental effort. The only real way to reduce pollution, consumption etc is mass removal of humans , a la Mr Watson's theory.
With deferrence comes hope that technology will be developed to meet the problems we the present and past have caused. False hope? Probably.
And you'd be surprised what tree planting and forest protection can do. Just like solar power. Until a real solution is found, the Malthusian future is certainly upon us now.
More reasons why offsetting is better than nothing:
Terms of Use Privacy Policy Guidelines We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.
A worldwide community for underwater imaging.
