Carbon Offsets: A Prime Example Of How Gullible People Can Be

There are apparently a lot of people who are so gullible, or have money to burn, that they think paying someone to plant a tree for them will "offset" the carbon "pollution" they create. The story goes something like this:

Basically everything we do produces carbon dioxide gas, which goes into the atmosphere and increases global warming or what is now called "climate change". We are all guilty to some extent because even when we breathe and exhale, we are emitting carbon dioxide, or CO2.
Any of us who drive or ride in automobiles or trucks create tons of CO2. Every time we turn on a light, or fire up our computers we are using electricity which is most likely produced by burning coal. We have been made to feel guilty for simply going about our daily activities of living. Now however we have a means of redemption available.

We can buy "carbon offsets". The theory is that if we put "X" amount of CO2 into the atmosphere, we can remove "X" amount of CO2 from the atmosphere by planting a tree. Trees of course take CO2 from the atmosphere and release oxygen. Alternatively, the money from carbon offsets can be used to erect a wind turbine, or erect solar panels to generate "clean" electricity. There is hardly a limit to what those selling carbon offsets say they will do to make you feel less guilty about your polluting ways. The catch is, where is all that money really going, are they really doing what they promise?

Oh, and there are a few other "minor" questions. Does CO2 really even cause global warming? Will people spending untold millions on carbon offsets and doing something as simple as planting a tree, actually affect the weather, stop the flooding, and tornadoes, and hurricanes, ease the drought, save the polar bears, and coral reefs?

Or are people just setting an unbelievable new record for being gullible? The following article from the New York Times raises some red flags suggesting that much, if not all of the money spent on carbon offsets accomplishes nothing, other than making a few people rich. I think this fits the definition of scam, a con, a swindle, or a confidence trick. I bet you can guess who the chief shyster is. (A shyster is someone who acts in a disreputable, unethical or unscrupulous way, or a con artist. The origin is mostly likely from German Scheisser - "incompetent worthless person," literally "defecator".)
Peter

source:

F.T.C. Asks if Carbon-Offset Money Is Well Spent
By LOUISE STORY
Published: January 9, 2008
Corporations and shoppers in the United States spent more than $54 million last year on carbon offset credits toward tree planting, wind farms, solar plants and other projects to balance the emissions created by, say, using a laptop computer or flying on a jet.
But where exactly is that money going?

The Federal Trade Commission, which regulates advertising claims, raised the question Tuesday in its first hearing in a series on green marketing, this one focusing on carbon offsets.
As more companies use offset programs to create an environmental halo over their products, the commission said it was growing increasingly concerned that some green marketing assertions were not substantiated. Environmentalists have a word for such misleading advertising: “greenwashing.”

With the rapid growth of green programs like carbon offsets, “there’s a heightened potential for deception,” said Deborah Platt Majoras, chairwoman of the commission.
The F.T.C. has not updated its environmental advertising guidelines, known as the Green Guides, since 1998. Back then, the agency did not create definitions for phrases that are common now — like renewable energy, carbon offsets and sustainability.
For now, it is soliciting comments on how to update its guidelines and is gathering information about how carbon-offset programs work.

Consumers seem to be confronted with green-sounding offers at every turn. Volkswagen told buyers last year that it would offset their first year of driving by planting in what it called the VW Forest in the lower Mississippi alluvial valley (the price starts at $18).
Dell lets visitors to its site fill their shopping carts with carbon offsets for their printers, computer monitors and even for themselves (the last at a cost of $99 a year).
Continental Airlines lets travelers track the carbon impact of their itineraries.
General Electric and Bank of America will translate credit card rewards points into offsets.
Most suppliers of carbon offsets say that the cost of planting a tree is roughly $5, and the tree must live for at least 100 years to fully compensate for the emissions in question. By comparison, an offset sold by Dell for three years’ use of a notebook computer costs $2.

To supply and manage the carbon offsets, big consumer brands are turning to a growing number of little-known companies, like TerraPass, and nonprofits, like Carbonfund.org. These intermediaries also cater to corporations that want to become “carbon-neutral” by purchasing offsets for the carbon dioxide they release.

Ms. Majoras of the F.T.C. pointed out that spokesmen for events like the Super Bowl and the Academy Awards have recently started saying that their events are carbon-neutral (though the Academy Awards drew criticism for the way its offsets were handled).
The F.T.C. has not accused anyone of wrongdoing — neither the providers of carbon offsets nor the consumer brands that sell them. But environmentalists say — and the F.T.C.’s hearings suggest — that it is only a matter of time until the market faces greater scrutiny from the government or environmental organizations.

“Is there green substance behind the green sparkle?” said Daniel C. Esty, director of the Center for Business and the Environment at Yale University and author of “Green to Gold,” a book about how companies use environmental strategies to their advantage. “The carbon market is a leading example of the challenge of making sure that when people put their money into what they hope will improve their planet, that there is real follow-through.”

Carbon offsets are essentially promises to use money in a way that will reduce carbon emissions. Panelists at the F.T.C.’s session on Tuesday raised a number of questions about certifications behind the claims, wondering if the offset companies might be double-counting carbon reductions that would have happened even without their efforts.

There is even disagreement over how much carbon dioxide can be neutralized by tree-planting, which is the type of offset that is easiest to grasp.

Carbonfund.org, for example, which provides offsets to companies like Amtrak and Allstate, uses the offset money in three ways: to plant trees; to subsidize wind and solar power so that it can be sold at more competitive prices; and to purchase credits on the Chicago Climate Exchange, which barters among hundreds of companies trying to reduce their emissions.
Even the companies that market carbon offsets say they have wondered if the providers were living up to their promises. When Gaiam, a yoga-equipment company, began selling offsets for shipping to consumers through the Conservation Fund, a nonprofit organization, Chris Fischer, the company’s general manager, says he insisted on visiting one of the tree sites in Louisiana.
“Not only did I want to know it existed, I wanted to make sure it was being done the way they said it was being done,” Mr. Fischer said. “It’s not just ‘did they do it?’ — it’s ‘did they do it right?’”

Gaiam has sold more than $200,000 in offset credits in the last two years, Mr. Fischer said.
Other companies have not had immediate success marketing the offsets. Last spring, Delta Air Lines began selling flight offsets — $5.50 for domestic round-trips, and $11 for international ones — but has so far not sold as many as it hoped, said Jena Thompson, director of Go Zero program at the Conservation Fund, which manages Delta’s offsets.

Delta is trying to draw more attention to the program this month by setting up a carbon-offset kiosk at the Sundance Film Festival in Park City, Utah.

The airline did not consider increasing all ticket prices by the cost of carbon offsets because customers are price-sensitive, a spokeswoman, Betsy Talton, said.
Volkswagen has provided free offsets to everyone who purchased a car in the last five months. The offsets cover a year of driving for a typical driver, a spokesman, Keith Price, said. The company also gave customers the chance to buy offsets for additional years, an option that Mr. Price said had proved most popular in Southern California and the suburbs of Boston.

Carbon Offsets Are.....?

I just copied this from an online survey taken and published by MSNBC.....77% of people think carbon offsets are either a fraud or a joke. That kind of says it all. It seems there are some intelligent people out there reading this stuff and thinking about it.
Peter


Carbon offsets are ... * 5647 responses
A reasonable way to try to reduce the damage a person does to the environment 3.7%
A good first step, but only a first step, to living greener 19%
A way fake environmentalists can rationalize their behavior 34%
A joke 43%
Not a scientific survey. Click to learn more. Results may not total 100% due to rounding.

Carbon Offsets Scandal?

This is just the kind of financial scandal I've been predicting is going to happen with the ongoing push to stop global warming and climate change. The idea of an individual or corporation buying "carbon offsets" (like planting trees, installing solar or wind power) so they can continue "polluting" (releasing carbon dioxide) is just about the most ridiculous thing I can think of.

There are numerous flaws in this concept. First, is the notion that you can "sin all week long", as long as you go to Church on Sunday and put a hefty contribution into the collection basket. Does that mean the rich are the only people who are going to be forgiven? Are people really that shallow that they can soothe their guilty consciences this way?

Secondly, it is very clear that reducing carbon dioxide emissions has a near-zero hope of stopping global warming and climate change. Does anyone not realize that these costs are going to be passed on to the consumer? Think again, this will just like an added, hidden tax. Finally, do you know who is going to benefit from this? The middle-man, the broker, the sellers of the "carbon credits". And of course the makers and installers of solar panels and windmills will benefit. So a lot of people stand to make money from this, so there will be supporters. A lot of people make money selling "snake oil" too. Is this a fraud and a scam, or what?
Peter

Probe Carbon Offsets, Congressmen Say
By Fred LucasCNSNews.com Staff Writer May 21, 2007(CNSNews.com) -

For those who support it, it offers the reward of "carbon neutrality" without having to lower one's standard of living. To critics, it allows guilt-free pollution. Either way, the burgeoning carbon offset industry needs more oversight, say two members of Congress. In a letter to the Government Accountability Office, Republican Reps. Tom Davis of Virginia and Darrell Issa of California asked for an investigation into emission offset programs.

About 60 different companies sell carbon offsets to U.S. consumers but operate under virtually no standards, the congressmen said. They cited reports alleging that some organizations get money for emissions that don't exist and that others make large profits on cleanups that would have taken place anyway."We want to understand the products sold in these markets and make sure they are doing what they say they are," said Davis, the ranking Republican on the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee. "Offsets are becoming a convenient shortcut for individuals and industry to become 'carbon neutral.' Now that we see legislation introduced to direct the federal government to do the same thing, we need a complete picture," Davis said.

Congress is considering multiple bills this year to curb global warming, including a proposal to require federal agencies to use a portion of their budgets to buy offsets. Climate campaigners have created a procedure that allows an individual, business or institution responsible for high levels of carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions -- blamed for climate change -- to buy "offsets." They do this by paying a levy that is supposed to go towards renewable energy sources such as solar and wind power. The money can also be used to plant trees -- so-called "carbon sinks" that remove carbon from the atmosphere.

Thus, according to advocates, high energy users can pay to become "carbon neutral" -- they are making up for the amount of CO2 they produce by funding eco-friendly projects elsewhere. Already Delta Air has announced that it will be the first "carbon neutral" airline by allowing passengers to voluntarily pay a surcharge directed toward forestry projects. Also, many electric companies allow customers to pay extra for conservation measures.

However, one environmental group's study into the issue concluded, "There are no widely-accepted standards, for example, as to what qualifies as an offset for purposes of making consumers carbon neutral." The study by Clean Air Cool Planet, a New Hampshire-based group that partners with companies and educational institutions in the northeast to help reduce CO2 emissions, continues, "In the absence of an accepted standard, almost anyone can offer to sell you almost anything and claim that this purchase will make you carbon neutral."

Another study, by the Tufts University Climate Initiative, also voices skepticism."Voluntary offsets are of limited value to solve the increasing threat of climate change," the Tufts study said. "They should not be seen as a way to buy environmental pardons." But the Tufts study goes on to say, "Voluntary offsets do have their place in spurring innovation and financing carbon reducing projects that would otherwise not have happened." They are especially appropriate for individuals who have done their best to reduce their personal emissions but would like to neutralize some of the unavoidable emissions that they are responsible for," it says.

Responsible people in the carbon offset industry agree that there should be greater oversight, said Ted Dodge, executive director of the National Carbon Offsets Coalition, an industry group. "At some point, we need federal standards," Dodge told Cybercast News Service. He understands some of the skepticism about carbon offsets but believes the industry does offer a positive step forward. "If you want to tackle climate change, you don't take anything off the table," Dodge said. "Is it the final answer? Probably not.

Technology will at some point pass us by."Carbon offsets gained notoriety earlier this year after former Vice President Al Gore's company, Global Investment Management, confirmed that it pays for the carbon offsets of Gore and other employees of the firm. Gore, a leading campaigner on global warming, announced that he bought carbon offsets to compensate for his high energy use. Reports indicated that he ran up average monthly power bills of $1,200.
digg_skin = 'compact'