Carbon Offsetting

[FutureCompost]

Having read a lot of messages on this site and particularly I thought I might add my two pennies worth. I would like to state my case about carbon offsetting. This was proposed by the British government if I am not mistaken. You have one company who horrifically pollutes the atmosphere. The other company is say a garden nursery who grows plants and trees.

The government gives carbon credits to both companies but the garden nursery has spare carbon credits and the pollluting company guzzles up its carbon credits rapidly.

So the polluting company buys the carbon credits from the garden nursery and then calls itself a green company.

There is a van rental company near me that calls itself green I mean is this a joke.

[Rich_]

I agree with you. Carbon offsetting, is another trendy catch phrase, like "carbon footprint" "eco'" "green" etc..... Use any of them in conjunction with an idea ,product a new taxation, or even "carbon neutral" insurance (?) and prick the social conscience of as many as you can to sell it.

I'd say, if the truth were known, no government or business is going to come up with any "green" idea that is going to interfere with their economy or profits .

[DRS]

The amount of greenwashing that goes on right now is beyond a joke - and it's actually alot more harmful that people realise. It's fact that in the world of business, green credentials will only be entertained if they contribute to an all over profitable scheme.

[Blackbrook Eye]

Also, it is noticable how many companies are shouting green slogans, when all they are doing is complying with legislation that has forced them to change their ways, often after kicking and struggling not to do so.

[Ultrasonic]

It is generally the case that business exists to make profit, in the process they produce goods and services which consumers demand, provide employment and provide revenue for the government through taxes and duty on those products and services.

There is very little point at looking back at how businesses have acted in the past. For example how many of us, 5 – 10 years ago, as private citizens, were concerned about what we put in our dustbins, what sort of light bulbs we were using how fuel efficient our car was, what was coming out of the exhaust pipe.

Industry and business have been concerned about and acted upon these issues for many years. It is often easy (even trendy) to be cynical, without being in possession of information that may cause you to reappraise your viewpoint.

There has been a plethora of legislation in recent years which has driven change within business. Businesses are not allowed to pollute, beyond acceptable levels. Before ‘beyond acceptable levels’ sets off a chorus of ‘told you so’ remember we all do something that creates pollution; from driving a car to heating our homes, to requiring extra soft toilet roll.

By law, all businesses have to ‘treat’ (can mean segregate for recycling) waste before sending it to landfill, separate out hazardous waste for separate collection (that includes fluorescent tubes, oily rags aerosols etc – how many citizens do that?), pay substantial amounts (each business - £*00k - £millions annually- via the packaging waste obligations levy) to develop recycling facilities for packaging waste (the recycle-more.co.uk website is funded by this revenue).

Many sectors; manufacturing, farming, energy production etc are regulated by the Environment Agency and are required to employ Best Available Techniques (BAT), often entailing very significant costs, to ensure that emissions from processing plant are kept to an ‘acceptable’ level.

Also it is good to remember that it is in a business’s own interests to reduce energy use = reduce bills = reduce CO2 emissions. Reduce packaging around products = reduce costs of packaging = reduce CO2 emissions. Reduce water use = reduce costs = reduce CO2 emissions (from treatment).

If a business wants to keep their place in the supply chain they have to address all of these issues. No legitimate business can afford to be a ‘polluting business’: the damage to a reputation within a supply chain, is non-sustainable.

The number of seminars/help groups/forums available to and attended by, Small and Medium Sized Enterprises (SMEs) as well as big business, dispel the casual belief that ‘business’ doesn’t care and is only out for what it can get.

To return to the main point about ‘offsetting’ – I agree, it is potentially a questionable and often unproven process, but don’t forget this process is used by individual citizens as well as business.

The whole issue of ‘carbon foot-printing’ is currently being subjected to extensive investigation, ref BSI PAS 2050. The initial draft states that ‘off-setting’ should not be used to discount carbon emissions.

[FutureCompost]

I do not doubt that most companies are less polluting in Britain than from yesteryear. Whether this is through laws or new technology or a combination of both. But this is not the point I was trying to make. It is that the most polluting company in the UK can buy carbon credits from a green company and then market itself as green itself. I am not some anti-capatalist but this carbon trading scheme was thought up by Gordon Brown if I am not mistaken. It seems like a scheme that was thought up from a politician who has his hands in the pockets of big business to me.

'I say Gordon these green folk are really bishing my oil refinery company you must do something old chap or my labour donation is gone.'

'Ok let me think, ok I have it carbon offsetting'

'Will that get these so called green people off my back.'

'Of course you are a very rich company and when you buy some carbon credits...'

'Yes'

'You will be carbon neutral '

'What if that does not work Gordon.'

'Don't worry all the smeggers will be on an ID Card soon anyway then there will be no complaining ever again.'

[Ultrasonic]

I can only present you with the facts....

Otained from: The EU Emission Trading Scheme | Carbon Trust

"On 2nd July 2003 the European Council formally adopted the Emissions Trading Directive. The Directive laid out the framework for the European Emissions Trading Scheme (the 'EU ETS')".

The UK began an experimental voluntary scheme in 2002, the EU�s carbon market, launched in January 2005. This scheme is in its early stages - and is not perfect - but was certainly not done at the behest of Gordon Brown.

Interesting piece:LRB · Donald MacKenzie: The Political Economy of Carbon Trading

[FutureCompost]

I know I must seem cynical Ultrasonic but I guess my point is that emissions trading or carbon trading does not actually reduce pollution at all.

[Poirot]

I think Companys should only be able to call themselves green if they run their own charity that cares for a habitat e.g. woodland. If all companys did this then think about all the wildlife that would be saved, and the impacts of moden day operations on our landscape would hopefully be counteracted.

[nightshade]

So all the trees planted for carbon offsetting are then cut and used as biomass fuel instead of oil where does the carbon go?

[Mercadante]

Carbon trading is a total scam, IMO, but it's absolutely not the product of this government. The Kyoto Protocol was finally agreed in 1997 after long negotiations. In those negotiations the US insisted on emissions trading being included in it; the EU (and environmentalists everywhere) opposed that, but gave way at the end. Then, of course, the US didn't ratify the agreement anyway.

[Poirot]

Originally Posted by nightshade

So all the trees planted for carbon offsetting are then cut and used as biomass fuel instead of oil where does the carbon go?

Its not helping the enviroment like you said as the offsetting doesn't do anything, for it to work you have o leave the trees in place. When are companys going to learn?

In Brazil they grow their own fuel, the process is carbon neurtral as the carbon absorbed by the plant is the same as released by the fuel. However fermentation, harvesting methods e.t.c. Mean it isn't actually fully carbon neutral, but i suppose it is better than oil

[matt_xyz]

Originally Posted by Mercadante

Carbon trading is a total scam, IMO, but it's absolutely not the product of this government. The Kyoto Protocol was finally agreed in 1997 after long negotiations. In those negotiations the US insisted on emissions trading being included in it; the EU (and environmentalists everywhere) opposed that, but gave way at the end. Then, of course, the US didn't ratify the agreement anyway.

there's nothing wrong with carbon trading per se. It has been used for other pollutants very successfully and before the Kyoto Protocol. A permit scheme will lead to a reduction in emissions because the whole point is that fewer permits are released than current emissions (e.g. current emissions are 1million tonnes, so only 900,000 permits are released). It has also been show to be far more cost effective than traditional pollution control methods (and no less effective).

This thread is muddling permit trading, which is fine in principle, with carbon offsetting. The latter is quite different and is all about creating carbon sinks to absorb concentrations. I am sceptical about carbon offsets but think pollution permits are the way forward.

Matt

[nightshade]

So when land is dedicated to growing crops for fuel where does the burgeoning population go,it seems this is an insoluble problem with
the baddies making money all the while

[Meta menardi]

I do what seems sensible, less heat, don't use a car much, recycle, low energy light-bulbs etc.

Can anyone tell me the best and most green way to plug my ears when combat jets are pratting about for a few hours each day? Don't want to waste energy on un-green ear-defenders.

[eeyore]

Originally Posted by matt_xyz

I am sceptical about carbon offsets but think pollution permits are the way forward.

Matt

a big problem with carbon offsetting is that the money goes only to plant trees (after a percentage of profit is skimmed off) - in a lot of these schemes there is no provision for aftercare meaning that many will die from being too close together and even those that survive may be felled very early in their lives - many of these schemes are little more than a con

It would be better if the carbon offset money went into a fund (like landfil tax arrangements) which was used to fund woodland improvements and sustainable tree planting.