How is this even an "offset"?

[Pseudolus]

These indulgences are really getting out of control.
DENVER

Travelers asked to buy carbon offsets

Greenprint Denver, a panel of environmental experts put together by Mayor John Hickenlooper, released its list of recommendations for making the city greener. Among them is a proposal to urge travelers to and from Denver International to buy carbon offsets — pay a voluntary fee — to "cancel out" the carbon emissions generated by their flights.

The panel envisions establishing kiosks at the airport where travelers can pay for carbon offsets, which are transferred to environmental advocacy organizations. Alternatively, the airport might work with airlines to allow air travelers to pay voluntary "offset" fees when they purchase tickets. It estimates that a fee of $2.50 to offset 1,000 miles of air travel would be in line with the city's goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 10% per capita by 2012. The panel also recommends giving front-of-the-line privileges to less-polluting, hybrid-powered airport taxis. http://www.usatoday.com/travel/flights/2007-05-20-airport-checkin_N.htm

How does giving money to a political lobbying group cancel out carbon emissions? Do they promise to not send out one additional tree-killing mass mailing for every $X they receive?

[Griffin 6]

I heard that environmental groups' motives were pure.

[General Apathy]

If you pay me $100 at the airport I will smack you on the nose and take your ticket away.

Do this enough times and planes will be forced to fly less.

[Wally]

Normally carbon offsets work by subsidizing power from "green" sources so that less polluting power from coal power plants is produced. There is typically a formula whereby a contribution of $X translates to Y kilowatts of power from non-polluting sources that would otherwise come from coal plants.

When an environmentalist says he would gladly pay more for non-polluting energy, this allows him to put his money where his mouth is. As an individual, he may not be able to get the power company to mothball a coal plant, but he can use power without increasing the output from coal plants by paying for as much incremental non-polluting power to be produced as he uses.

[MountainHawk]

Let's say I use my car, which uses a carbon based fuel. For arguments sake, lets say the power costs me $100 a month. Getting the same amount of power from a 'green' source would have cost me $175 a month. The offset is saying 'here's $75 a month to help subsidize green power'? Even though I've used a carbon based power, it's helping to invest in green power. Is that sort of the gist?

[Pseudolus]

Let's say I use my car, which uses a carbon based fuel. For arguments sake, lets say the power costs me $100 a month. Getting the same amount of power from a 'green' source would have cost me $175 a month. The offset is saying 'here's $75 a month to help subsidize green power'? Even though I've used a carbon based power, it's helping to invest in green power. Is that sort of the gist?I don't think so. The "offsets" I've read about before are all about balancing carbon, not balancing dollars. If your trip puts X amount of CO2 into the atmosphere, then to offset it you need to personally remove X amount of CO2 from the atmosphere. Or pay someone else to do it for you. Or to promise to do it.

Now it seems the definition's been extended to "to hector the government into forcing other people into doing it for you".

[Wally]

Let's say I use my car, which uses a carbon based fuel. For arguments sake, lets say the power costs me $100 a month. Getting the same amount of power from a 'green' source would have cost me $175 a month. The offset is saying 'here's $75 a month to help subsidize green power'? Even though I've used a carbon based power, it's helping to invest in green power. Is that sort of the gist?

What I described is an established procedure with electricity usage. Hard to apply it to transportation, but let's say I could sell you solar panels for your car for $175 per month, and that would accomplish the same thing as the $100 you are currently spending. You might pay more out of your love for the environment. But suppose that is not practical, but you still want zero incremental greenhouse gases put into the atmosphere as a result of your existence.

A separate entity could be set up to accept a $75/month contribution from you, use that contribution to subsidize solar or other clean energy sources. The intended result would be that less carbon-emitting power is produced, and an equal amount of incremental clean power is produced. This result is accomplished by subsidizing the clean-power producers with your $75/month.

[Rosebud]

Carbon offsets are nothing more than modern day indulgences--if you pay, you're excused from sinning.

[General Apathy]

Carbon affsets don't actually offset any carbon

[The Diabolical Biz Markie]

Carbon offsets are nothing more than modern day indulgences--if you pay, you're excused from sinning.

Which isn't what an indulgence is, or has ever been, but that's another story.

[The Diabolical Biz Markie]

Carbon affsets don't actually offset any carbon


It is the cost to assuage a guilty conscience.

Apparently, some people's consciences are pretty cheap.

[Wally]

Carbon affsets don't actually offset any carbon

Au contraire. There is more solar and other cleaner energy put into our electric grid due to the voluntary subsidy that I described above. It's just less visible, and more practical, when an individual does that rather than installing a big solar panel on top of his house.

[General Apathy]

A separate entity could be set up to accept a $75/month contribution from you, use that contribution to subsidize solar or other clean energy sources. LEAP OF FAITH The intended result would be that less carbon-emitting power is produced, and an equal amount of incremental clean power is produced.

There is a leap of faith in there. I have diagramed this leap of faith in large blue letters. Let me know if you don't see it.

Honestly, you may be right, but I would like to understand
1) How the company who takes my $75 actually gets more clean power on the grid
2) if this actually reduces the "bad" power
3) how we know the $$ aren't simply being wasted like many charities.
4) What is the limit on how much clean energy we can get from carbon offsets. It's obviously not unlimited and I wonder if it has any effect on global warming at all (which is total BS anyway)

[Wally]

There is a leap of faith in there. I have diagramed this leap of faith in large blue letters. Let me know if you don't see it.

Honestly, you may be right, but I would like to understand
1) How the company who takes my $75 actually gets more clean power on the grid
2) if this actually reduces the "bad" power
3) how we know the $$ aren't simply being wasted like many charities.
4) What is the limit on how much clean energy we can get from carbon offsets. It's obviously not unlimited and I wonder if it has any effect on global warming at all (which is total BS anyway)

These "entities" may be nice people & organizations, but certainly oversight and accountability are needed as always.

1. Subsidizing production of clean power makes some techniques & facilities financially feasible that otherwise would not be.

2. If it's power to the electric grid, typically coal plants are the "balancing item" in that they can be readily ramped up or down to fill the gap between what is otherwise produced and what is needed at any point. An incremental kilowatt of solar power into the grid reduces coal power by exactly that amount.

3. Yes, oversight & accountability needed.

4. Don't know, but we're a long way from that limit. With respect to electricity, when we're to the point of shutting down coal plants, further benefits will be more difficult to attain.

[General Apathy]

Okey doke.

I've always been interested in the environement. It just seems like this is an easy way to get nothing done. Why not pay the extra money and get the solar panels for your house if you are truly interested in the environment. This is a more direct benefit.

It's like these carbon offsets were designed for the liberal who claims that the 1 day a week they don't drive to the office is "doing my part" to save the environment. It's like the need to buy $100 of carbon offsets so they can feel good about quoting "inconvenient truth" at cocktail parties.

:judge:

[General Apathy]

Hey, for every $300 you donate to me, I will walk to work one day out of the week.

[Actuary321]

These "entities" may be nice people & organizations, but certainly oversight and accountability are needed as always.

1. Subsidizing production of clean power makes some techniques & facilities financially feasible that otherwise would not be.

2. If it's power to the electric grid, typically coal plants are the "balancing item" in that they can be readily ramped up or down to fill the gap between what is otherwise produced and what is needed at any point. An incremental kilowatt of solar power into the grid reduces coal power by exactly that amount.

3. Yes, oversight & accountability needed.

4. Don't know, but we're a long way from that limit. With respect to electricity, when we're to the point of shutting down coal plants, further benefits will be more difficult to attain.But don't carbon offsets simply allow people to use more energy than they would feel good in using if carbon offsets weren't available? So instead of conserving, just buy carbon offsets. Total amount of carbon does not decrease it just doesn't increase as fast.

Reminds me of those pollution certificates companies used to buy. One company would install pollution control equipment or go out of business and the amount of pollution they used to produce could be sold to another company. So total pollution didn't go down, it just didn't go up. And people got richer for the idea and transaction costs.

[Paul Brand]

But don't carbon offsets simply allow people to use more energy than they would feel good in using if carbon offsets weren't available? So instead of conserving, just buy carbon offsets. Total amount of carbon does not decrease it just doesn't increase as fast.

How much energy you use isn't the question. The question is how much net environmental damage are you responsible for. Is it more destructive to use 300 kwh of coal power or 600 kwh of wind power?

You suggest that a person who carbon offsets would tend to use more energy, due to less of a guilty conscience. I suppose that is possible for some, but I doubt that is generally true. When I purchase green power from the utility company my consumption went down. The more it costs to use power, the less power people tend to consume.

How does giving money to a political lobbying group cancel out carbon emissions?

I don't know. It's a good idea to do some research into where your carbon offset money is going. Some companies are more reputable than others.

[Paul Brand]

Okey doke.

I've always been interested in the environement. It just seems like this is an easy way to get nothing done. Why not pay the extra money and get the solar panels for your house if you are truly interested in the environment. This is a more direct benefit.I think the big wind turbines put up by the utility company costs less (per kwh) than putting up solar panels or your own mini-windturbine, so I think green power may be the way to go for now.

[Paul Brand]

Hey, for every $300 you donate to me, I will walk to work one day out of the week.

How long is the walk?

[Paul Brand]

It is the cost to assuage a guilty conscience.


What exactly is wrong with doing a good thing to ease one's conscience?

Should I pay my taxes, if the reason for me paying taxes was to ease my conscience?

Should I put money on the offering plate to pay my pastor's salary? I'd feel very guilty if I didn't pay up at church.

[Paul Brand]

Carbon offsets are nothing more than modern day indulgences--if you pay, you're excused from sinning.

What's wrong with not sinning?

[Griffin 6]

How much energy you use isn't the question.It's the first one on the list.

[Griffin 6]

What's wrong with not sinning?How much sinning you do isn't the question.

[Griffin 6]

Should I put money on the offering plate to pay my pastor's salary? I'd feel very guilty if I didn't pay up at church.Does the Bible say that easing your guilt is a valid reason to give an offering?

[Paul Brand]

It's the first one on the list.

What should you be reducing?

[Paul Brand]

How much sinning you do isn't the question.

Oh.

[Paul Brand]

Does the Bible say that easing your guilt is a valid reason to give an offering?
No.

You should give for positive reasons. But if you don't give, even though you have the means to give, you probably should feel guilty.

[General Apathy]

If someone pays me $25 I will not flush the toilet all day tomorrow.

[Paul Brand]

If someone pays me $25 I will not flush the toilet all day tomorrow.

How do you plan on sequestering the methane without flushing?

[General Apathy]

OK $45

[Griffin 6]

What should you be reducing?What should you not be reducing?

[Paul Brand]

What should you not be reducing?

Hugs :bighug:

[Paul Brand]

OK $45

You can probably dig a pretty big hole with those paws and cover up the dirt.

I'll buy you a treat. Here's a slug: :slug:

[General Apathy]

Thanks!

Can I have some money now

[Rosebud]

What's wrong with not sinning?

That's the problem--if you buy the offset, you can tell yourself that your sinning doesn't matter--or in greenspeak you can skip right over 'reduce'.

[Paul Brand]

That's the problem--if you buy the offset, you can tell yourself that your sinning doesn't matter--or in greenspeak you can skip right over 'reduce'.
You can tell yourself anything you want, which makes your defense vacuous.

You've put it in black and white terms that offsets are indulgences. That's different than saying they can be used as an indulgence, as I'm sure they could be (putting aside what could be a legitimate objection by TDBM). Using cleaner sources of energy is a good thing in itself.

It blows my mind that people have twisted the concept to such extraordinary degrees that using cleaner sources of energy is all of a sudden an inherently bad thing.

It can be done with wrong motives. Why not just leave it at that?

[Rosebud]

You can tell yourself anything you want, which makes your defense vacuous.

You've put it in black and white terms that offsets are indulgences. That's different than saying they can be used as an indulgence, as I'm sure they could be (putting aside what could be a legitimate objection by TDBM). Using cleaner sources of energy is a good thing in itself.

It blows my mind that people have twisted the concept to such extraordinary degrees that using cleaner sources of energy is all of a sudden an inherently bad thing.

It can be done with wrong motives. Why not just leave it at that?

I'll grant you that using cleaner forms of energy in and of itself is a good thing. And I think that people who want to push the forms and sources of cleaner energy putting their money to work for that is a good thing too--that's the market reacting to consumers wants.

I take exception to the way offsets are being used by many, with a perfect example being this last year's Academy Award show. In the middle of the ceremony, they sanctimoniously applaud themselves for hosting the first "Green Oscars", having bought offsets against all the energy they were using. When someone says that they are green, it implies something other than a line of hundreds of limos dropping off celebrities at an air-conditioned theater eating up jillivolts of electricity just so they can congratulate themselves.

Go back to the thread about Al Gore's energy use at his mansion and look at how his energy use was forgiven because he had offsets for it. Then tell me that that offsets aren't being used to assuage guilt.

[Paul Brand]

I'll grant you that using cleaner forms of energy in and of itself is a good thing. And I think that people who want to push the forms and sources of cleaner energy putting their money to work for that is a good thing too--that's the market reacting to consumers wants.

I take exception to the way offsets are being used by many, with a perfect example being this last year's Academy Award show. In the middle of the ceremony, they sanctimoniously applaud themselves for hosting the first "Green Oscars", having bought offsets against all the energy they were using. When someone says that they are green, it implies something other than a line of hundreds of limos dropping off celebrities at an air-conditioned theater eating up jillivolts of electricity just so they can congratulate themselves.

Go back to the thread about Al Gore's energy use at his mansion and look at how his energy use was forgiven because he had offsets for it. Then tell me that that offsets aren't being used to assuage guilt.

I took exception to your blanket statement. You used the qualifier "nothing more than...".

Now, I know you can give me anecdotes of abuses, but evil anecdotes don't logically imply an evil at large.

I think you are now using more nuanced qualifiers, which implies that your prior choice of rhetoric was hyperbolic, and even still, I think with the recognition that it was hyperbolic, the comment was still extreme.

Ideally, we should reduce our energy consumption in things that are not all that valuable. We should use renewable energy and energy efficient technology when possible when we do use energy. Let's keep it at that.

Is Gore a prime example to follow? Maybe not. He does some good things (green power from the utility company, installing solar panels, educating others in regards to some of the threats of global warming etc.), we can follow his lead in that. But, most of us know we don't need a 10000 sq ft mansion. Gore needs a security team (being a former VP that he is), he works out of his home, and thus there is some reason for him to need a larger than average house, but probably both you and I think that 10000 sq ft is excessive even considering these things. In the end, if he is not a good example, follow someone else's example.

There are people who have the money to live a luxurious lifestyle, yet choose to live in a modest home/apartment, hang their clothes out to dry, use energy efficient appliances, and use them seldomly, bike to work, and carbon offset what they can't reduce.

[General Apathy]

Is the AO a green forum?

[gomer_tree]

Is the AO a green forum?

Sorry. Use of green in the forum means something else.

You may have to paws and think about it though.

[Paul Brand]

Sorry. Use of green in the forum means something else.

You may have to paws and think about it though.

He might be asking the question out of confusion. Give him the benefit of the doubt, will ya?

[EweTupper]

The Oscars are a good example of a place where the offsets work as intended. The fact of the matter is that they are going to hold the Oscars whether or not they are offsetting their energy. If they are going to host it anyways, buying the offsets is at least a "good" thing, even if not the "best" thing.

[Rosebud]

I took exception to your blanket statement. You used the qualifier "nothing more than...".

Now, I know you can give me anecdotes of abuses, but evil anecdotes don't logically imply an evil at large.

I think you are now using more nuanced qualifiers, which implies that your prior choice of rhetoric was hyperbolic, and even still, I think with the recognition that it was hyperbolic, the comment was still extreme.

Ideally, we should reduce our energy consumption in things that are not all that valuable. We should use renewable energy and energy efficient technology when possible when we do use energy. Let's keep it at that.

Is Gore a prime example to follow? Maybe not. He does some good things (green power from the utility company, installing solar panels, educating others in regards to some of the threats of global warming etc.), we can follow his lead in that. But, most of us know we don't need a 10000 sq ft mansion. Gore needs a security team (being a former VP that he is), he works out of his home, and thus there is some reason for him to need a larger than average house, but probably both you and I think that 10000 sq ft is excessive even considering these things. In the end, if he is not a good example, follow someone else's example.

There are people who have the money to live a luxurious lifestyle, yet choose to live in a modest home/apartment, hang their clothes out to dry, use energy efficient appliances, and use them seldomly, bike to work, and carbon offset what they can't reduce.

I think you and I are closer to each other's positions than maybe first implied.

You're right-- my "nothing more than" was a bit of hyperbole.