What is your opinion about carbon offsets :) ?
Answer:
I think that on the NEGATIVE side it's an unnecessarily complicated process, mainly devised to be acceptable to major polluting corporations, because they can make it potentially profitable. It's a bit like giving a tradeable restricted license-to-kill to serial killers.
On the POSITIVE side, it allows progressive industrial adaptation (but fast enough?). It could provide financial support for clean energy through sale of credits. But this depends on whether credits are extended to clean energy corporations and on what basis - at present the credits are generally proposed to be given to major polluters on the basis of how much they are polluting!
I believe a simpler, practical, and effective alternative would be to strike a DIRECT TAX CHARGE for pollution, (at every stage of production including packaging) not deductible for tax purposes. This would directly affect polluters - both generators and consumers; and through consumers it would redirect consumption. Directly applied to transport fuels (all transport) it would rationalize transport including international trade, which would be no bad thing if you think it through. A direct tax(which would be passed on to customers obviously) disciplines consumers, and through them the whole production process - including directing energy to non-polluting sources.
I believe talk of bio-fuels is ill-conceived and impractical, and so are carbon offsets. But we'll get both, just as we've had no response to warnings from science and the Greens for decades. In all critical situations, go for the goof up and avoidance that will offer to protect those who benefit from the status quo.
If you buy them from a reliable company, carbon offsets are good. It's basically like making a donation to an environmental charity. The money goes toward a project which will reduce our greenhouse gas emissions. As long as it works correctly, you can't complain about that!
There's nothing wrong with contributing to a good cause that plants trees or whatever, that's an individual choice. However I disagree with the notion that you can pay your way out of an over sized carbon footprint. All this means is poor people are the only ones who must change their lifestyle to reduce their carbon footprint. If you're wealthy, you just pay some money to carbonfund.org and you can continue to fly your Gulfstream aircraft, heat your indoor olympic sized pool, drive your Hummer, etc. and all is forgiven. The hypocrisy of some wealthy politicians and celebrities is they don't want to change their lifestyle, they want everyone else to change theirs. They just write a check and claim that they are carbon-neutral, instead of showing real leadership by substantially cutting back on their personal energy consumption.
I KNOW it's the stupidest liberal concoction yet. Anyone that buys that concept is profoundly in need of help. God help them. Plant a tree...GREAT! Plant a forest! GREATER!! but don't say that you are doing it to counteract the gas you used to drive to the grocery. AB-freaking-SURD! You have a great weekend also.
I think it's like buying insurance, a "feel good" way to spend your money without having to change bad habits. But if it is used honestly to prevent further environmental damage at least it has a benefit.
Not just a waste of time but an excuse to do nothing useful for the enviorment whilst excusing your damaging behaviour.
If human beings were on the whole carbon neutral, and in and equilibrium state with the atmosphere it would make sense to do some thing that would return us to the equilibrium after that action.
Since we are no where near equilibrium they are a ridiculous way for the wealthy to feel better about destroying the planet
they are an absurdity
Its a scam.
If carbon credits were real... I should be getting paid for my lack of pollution.
They make a lot of sense for big companies. They're a way for companies to have carbon removed by the people who can do it for the lowest cost to society. Companies for whom removing carbon would be very expensive can have it removed instead by companies who can do it at a lower price.
For individuals they make less sense. There are so many individual factors that the idea of having carbon removed at the lowest cost to society just doesn't work. And individuals can be scammed or charged excessive fees, while companies can protect themselves.
Alright, there is a case to be for carbon offsets. Wind and solar power are more expensive than coal to produce. If you buy carbon offsets that subsidize the price of the aforementioned energy then it makes it competitive on price point with coal. Once that happens the energy can be easily sold into the "grid."
The grid only needs a finite number of electrons at any one time. If your carbon offset is allowing the wind/solar utility to sell more electrons into the grid then less coal/gas/nuclear electrons are needed at that moment in time.
The first fossil fuel plants that are displace are the least efficient, these least efficient plants often generate a disproportionate amount of CO2 relative to their size. Thus the benefit derived from displacing their generation capacity can be considerably larger then expected.
The only time this model doesn't work is when the grid is operating near maximum capacity, in which case it is buying energy from all sources anyways.
In theory the profit the green company makes goes into buying more windmills/solar panels/landfill gas plants. So it pays the benefit forward even more in a virtuous cycle.
Now actual markets never operate on these clean hypothetical lines all the time and there is a raging debate about the net benefit of these offsets. But when properly run carbon offsets are not a crackpot scheme or a scam. It is just a complex solution that is hard for some people to grasp. Also it will most likely never bring us to absolute zero carbon. But if widely implemented it would slow the bleeding.
I think they are great
Tree are just carbon loans, I think its a good idea to cut the dino fuels for green energy. But it is link a donation to the company.
I think it would be smarter to invest in the company in the stock market. Right??
If solar is way too expensive to be cost effective but you are feeling so guilty that you want to give away money to a scam artist then why not spend the money on some over priced solar for your own home, where you know darn well that you got what you paid for. That will help to increase demand for solar technology and help to lower future costs. If you still feel guilty put some solar on my house, I can't afford it.
Carbon credits are like fish. Stop giving away fish.
Teach a man to fish.
The answers post by the user, for information only, FunQA.com does not guarantee the right.
More Questions and Answers: