Carbon offsetting

[Alex]

OK, so I'm feeling slightly guilty about my car's 284g/km output and went looking about on the direct.gov website - and they had a link to Carbon Passport.

I have a few thoughts about this - first that we should all have some responsibility to deal with CO2 and climate change, but second that it thinks it'll cost about £70 a year to offset my carbon emissions from the car. Now if I spend £2500 a year on petrol, then the government gets, what, £1500 of that? If it only costs £70 from £1500 to negate the effects of car CO2 emissions, why is there a big problem?

Do you guys think it is worth it - offsetting your CO2?

[Butcher]

No, load of bollocks. If they were really serious about it, they'd tax beef (less beef = less cows = less methane) and sort out all the other stuff that wastes loads of energy. Cars are just an easy target.

[Andeh13]

No, load of bollocks. If they were really serious about it, they'd tax beef (less beef = less cows = less methane) and sort out all the other stuff that wastes loads of energy. Cars are just an easy target.

Well said that man, bollocks n all! Motorists are an easy target, they are easy to blame and just as easy to tax. Jump. Bandwagon. On.


Spend money offsetting my carbon footprint? ill be alright thanks. Just wait till you see what China & India are going to do....

[Whiternoise]

Some people would argue that it's a gimmick (it's likely to be planting trees which is good, but you won't see the effects for another 10 years) and so if you feel you're morally obliged to do it then do so - £70 isn't really that much. Personally i think it's a good idea, provided the benefits are there, but it's basically like paying a voluntary (moral) tax for spewing out CO2. Bear in mind who you give your money to and what it's going on, there are better things you could be spending money on in some areas - and some people are basically doing this (as chuckskull says below me) to guilt-trip people into giving them money.

Spend money offsetting my carbon footprint? ill be alright thanks. Just wait till you see what China & India are going to do....

Funnily enough cars are the easy target because the vast majority pump out CO2 like nobody's business. The graph below shows our emissions as a country in 2004, road users make up around 20%. Currently, transport is still the second largest emitter, next to power generation.



However, it's very naive to say that just because China and India are going to produce more than us then why bother at all. It's like saying, well logically they're going to have more kids than us so we should just stop having sex - the world's already pretty crowded as it is. Sorry, but it annoys me when people use other countries as scapegoats for not doing anything about carbon emissions.

http://getonboard.wwf.org.uk/aboutMythBusters.php#3

You have to look at the bigger picture, yes it's a larger country so it stands to reason that they're going to produce more. But they still produce, because a large proportion of both countries are dirt poor farmers, less CO2 per head than we do by a long long long way. If we even have a hope of cutting emissions then the west has got to start setting examples.

To be honest, you'd be better off just trying to use public transport more often (or just walking/cycling). Or, just cut down your emissions in other areas - turning off lights, recycling, buying local produce, and so on.

People will get serious about it when petrol rises to silly-high levels again. Hit people in their wallet and they'll listen. Sadly the government seems to think that Nuclear Power will solve all our problems...

[chuckskull]

These are a scam IMO. If you want to make the world a better place, donate £60 to your favourite charity and the rest on some seeds or plants.

[Barakka]

My Car Insurance policy includes carbon offsetting (IBuyEco.co.uk) and they pay to offset the emissions based on my car and annual mileage. Was pretty much equal to the cheapest quote I got elsewhere too, I think it was about £10 more expensive (per year) than the cheapest so I went for it. Would I do it otherwise ? Doubt it.

[Lucio]

All this talk of "carbon offsetting" is a result of PR men getting their hands on scientific research that they're not equipped to deal with. It's yet another reason why we really need to get over the idea of our leaders winning a popularity contest and face the fact that instead we need leaders who can prove they're up to the job.

[TheAnimus]

The problem is with environmentalisim it is an incredibly complex problem, without knowing an environmental 'cost' of any action, how do you know which is best?

A girl in the office asked me why we re-cycle paper, but don't print on re-cycled paper. I treid to explain that to clean up the re-claimed paper pulp would require tonnes of water, lots of nasty chemicals like bleach etc, vrs just planting another tree. She didn't get it.

Its been said that the road to hell is paved with good intentions, in my mind its normally paved with gardian readers who all to often disengage logic and rational for emotive arguments that have a thin veneer of logic. Recycling and Carbon offsetting are all to often of that ilk, which is a shame because they could be used to great effect.

One of my previous employers, a german company plants trees, and maintains parks as part of its charity actions, by not focusing on trying to achieve a net zero change in carbon, they actually really rather nice parks etc. This is the best way of doing things.

The question to ask yourself is why is carbon such a money spinner right now? What about RoHS (Reduction of Hazardous Substance)?

For a classic example of the evil that is often pushed as green, lets look at Apple. Apple where been slated left right and center not too long ago for their 'Green Credentials' (whatever that means) so they've fort back with "their greenest macbook ever". To me that is like saying well X was less of a Pedo than Y, marketing it as a good thing, when in fact there is still tremendous room for improvement. The notion that a manufacturer who has ANY product which doesn't have removable batteries, claiming to be green is to me abhorent. My sony HDD based music player from 6 years ago had instructions for disposal, which included of course removing the battery. I don't understand why they would overlook something so simple, so cheap to design into many of their products (air,iphone/ipod etc.) that would have such a good effect on the environment.

But back on topic, remeber that in building your car, odds are much more environmental damage will have been coursed than you will do by driving it. If you want to give the world a great big hug, then just dispose of it kindly, ensuring its properly recycled.

As commodity prices have dropped, fewer and fewer things will be properly recycled, because its not worth the cost of seperating out the good (semi precious metals) from the bad (nasty chemicals in batteries, coolents etc.)

[DeludedGuy]

Carbon offsetting is just a way to keep the poor poor and the rich rich. It also benefits traders who have another "commodity" to trade in.

China is the key.

[TheAnimus]

No thats Carbon Trading, which is a totally different kettle of fish.

Carbon Offsetting is just some marketering sold to stupid people.

[Steve]

If you care about the CO2 produced by your car, use it less, or get a different one.

Carbon offsetting is a waste of time, intended for those with disposable income, who are lazy, but feel guilty.

[matty-hodgson]

if you're really at the point where you want to make a difference, you could always look like a rubbishrubbishrubbishrubbish in one of these

[DeludedGuy]

if you're really at the point where you want to make a difference, you could always look like a rubbishrubbishrubbishrubbish in one of these

Electric cars are not actually that green, I'm sure we all know that now, dont we?

[matty-hodgson]

Electric cars are not actually that green, I'm sure we all know that now, dont we?

fine then.

[DeludedGuy]

Ah yes matt, thats much better . Really it is!

[GheeTsar]

Any reduction in C02 (or any other GHG for that matter) is a definitely a good thing, irrespective of how it is achieved. "Offsetting carbon" is just a marketing term to encourage people to invest in carbon abatement projects and yes, is targetted towards people's conciences, but still achieves a good outcome and shouldn't be knocked. That's not to say everyone should feel they ought to sign up.

As it has already been pointed out in this thread, there are many other ways to lower your personal impact on the planet and frankly anything you can do, no matter how small, is a step in the right direction. Most measures you can take can even save you money at the same time as reducing carbon and these, to me, are a "no-brainer".

It's also important to note that all sectors need to take whatever steps they reasonably can, not just motorists. The industry I work in is very energy intensive and a lot of investment and time is being put into lowering its impact.

Sorry if this comes over as "preachy". :/