by guest-blogger Craig Platt
Watch this video to understand the situation
As the saying goes, you can’t have your cake and eat it too. So goes the running argument about whether offsetting your carbon footprint is a useful contribution to our eco-system or just another futile exercise in pretending to be doing good by spending your all-mighty dollar.
It’s in the headlines: NewsCorp and Yahoo have been some of the more vocal companies offsetting their footprints. While Yahoo is quite honest that their plan is for the future, they are very hesitant to point out what they are doing to actually reduce their footprint at this very moment.
The wisecracking people of Cheat Neutral have gone ahead and pointed out the true irony in Offsetting. They’re comparing it to cheating on your girlfriend or spouse and then sending her flowers, chocolates and jewelry.
This UK-based website offers “cheaters” the opportunity to offset their infidelity by supporting a faithful couple. Register as a faithful couple or just a single person and you will receive money to nurture your pure lifestyle, “All you have to do is agree to stay monogamous or single – and if we match you with a suitable cheater, you’ll get paid to neutralise their cheating.”
And if you’re a cheater: “By paying CheatNeutral, you’re funding monogamy-boosting offset projects – we simply invest the money you give us in monogamous, faithful or just plain single people, to encourage them to stay that way.”
This ridiculous idea (argued here) is essentially the equivalent to the mindset that we can offset carbon wastefulness by paying to plant trees, or investing in the development of clean industry and research for a greener world. Further, many of the offsetting organizations misrepresent themselves, wasting equally as they raise funds that will not be put to carbon offsetting until funding has been satisfactorily raised, which could take up to ten years. Even when they do get to the work of carbon offsetting the ecosystem will likely not begin to feel its affects for another 50 to 100 years.
Why not stay faithful to your beliefs? Because that sweet looking, Styrofoam-encased smoothie was just too hard to resist, that’s why. So you just wrapped you lips around its non-decomposing edge, blissfully engaging in the excitement of it’s lusciousness.
If we’re told it’s okay to misbehave, so long as we pay the tax, it sends the wrong message. We do not need to be offsetting our disregard for the environment. We need to be correcting it. And CheatNeutral is simply putting it into terms that the layperson can understand. Keep it in your recycling bin. For more information on organizations involved in carbon offsetting see Native Energy and ICF.
An interesting point. What can I drink my smoothie in and not feel guilty?
09/17/07 » 10:51 am »
this is a great article!! so true. why try to correct our mistakes retroactively when we can prevent them in the first place? I do believe that contributing $ to the cause still helps, however people need to think more proactively. Offsetting is a temporary reflief from guilt, and probably not the most effiecient strategy overall, but it can’t hurt either, in cases where it is too late and certain environmentally harmful actions have already taken place. We just need to be aware in the present moment.
With that said, i think you can drink a smoothie in a reuseable cup/mug, i am pretty sure they sell them at the smoothie chains.
loved the video too!
09/18/07 » 1:06 pm »
This is hilarious. Great point.
09/18/07 » 9:16 pm »
brother man,
I agree with your point, it’s a sin tax basically, but with an eco-friendly PR spin.
It’s like asking an alcoholic to watch over their booze intake. Right.
It’s also sort of like the rational behind the funding for the war, which is spend now pay later with interest, serious interest. In this case it’s consume now, pay later with serious damage.
09/21/07 » 2:06 pm »
Great point. I have struggled with the whole offsetting idea for quite a while now.
09/26/07 » 7:23 am »
One thing folks are missing in this debate is that companies like NativeEnergy expect us to start with active steps to reduce our footprints. But since most of us can’t completely eliminate our electricity use, driving, home heating, etc. they give us a relatively simple way to offset the impact of these activities.
It’s not about getting a free pass to waste/pollute in the future. It’s about taking responsibility for the impact you’re having today. If you can honestly say your activities have contributed zero CO2 to global warming, you’re way better than I.
09/30/07 » 7:45 am »
Natural Living
Natural Living…
Uncovering the top organic juice resources isn\’t simply….
10/20/07 » 9:03 pm »
Totally agree that going reducing your carbon footprint is really hard. However, if we tell companies that we care about the environment they will have to change the way they act.
Look at how many energy companies now actively advertise their green credentials. Even laptops now come with energy efficiency ratings. This would never have even been on the radar 5 years ago.
04/28/08 » 12:54 pm »