Letters to the Editor
-
Indulgences for the modern (postmodern? post-postmodern?) era
In the Middle Ages, people used to buy religious objects called "indulgences" as a way of atoning for their sins. Sinners thought they were getting closer to heaven, and the Church made a tidy profit.
I can't help but think of this every time I hear about this "carbon credits" nonsense.
-
learn the truth
Solar cycles have way more effect on global climate than co2 ever had or will.
http://weekendpundit.blogmosis.com/lastweekend/013496.html
-
The Best Carbon Offset Not Mentioned in Story
The best carbon offset is the decision to not reproduce or only have one child given the amount of resources we Westerners consume. Another good alternative would be to make a donation to a womens' rights group.
-
re: the best carbon offset...
I agree, although it's a little too late for the author. Can't stuff the kids back in, you know.
And imagine if she'd mentioned it:
Author: Well, not having kids is keeps down the amount of carbon.
Peanut gallery: Oh, so you can have kids, but WE can't? You elitist bitch!
-or-
Author: Well, not having kids also keeps down the amount of carbon. Of course, I didn't realize this until it was too late.
Peanut gallery: What?! Are you implying that you wish you didn't have children even a little bit, maybe? You MONSTER!
Yeah, I think I'd have left that out, too, even though I happen to agree (and don't have kids). (Peanut gallery: Oh, so you're one of those smug, selfish "childfree" people! Me: guilty as charged.)
-
Re: The Best Offset
This all assumes a child is a net negative. Perhaps the child you choose not to have would end up discovering the best alternative to oil, or the perfect insulation system, or the most efficient food distribution system. Mankind can do positive things too, you know.
I remember one worthwhile child who made a comment appropriate to this whole carbon credits nonsense: "The Emperor is wearing no clothes!"
-
...
"Perhaps the child you choose not to have would end up discovering the best alternative to oil, or the perfect insulation system, or the most efficient food distribution system."
Ahahahahaha. Yeah and it will also cure cancer, I'm sure.
-
Sigh...
Let me just say: Ms Ellison, you brought TWO kids into a dangerously overpopulated world. Not that they aren't wonderful kids, and not that you aren't a great mom; it's just such things are sort of irrelevant. Overpopulation magnifies every environmental problem there is. The world's human population has to decrease; if we don't do it by choice, the Four Horsemen will do it by force. But the fact is, you have TWO kids. You'd better be ready to sacrifice A LOT for those kids, lady... - "there's so much we could do, from changing more light bulbs to installing solar panels. But frankly, like most other Americans, we're not up to that level of sacrifice."- ISN"T GOING TO CUT IT!! Driving a Pious doesn't mean jack.
Even if you do EVERYTHING ego-green-vegan-enviro perfectly, you still aren't really helping matters. Have ONE kid, and do EVERYTHING right; then MAYBE you could argue that somehow you're part of the solution rather than part of the problem. Two, and you're buying carbon indulgences: I just don't think so. Three+; well I guess one's attitude amounts to either 'why postpone the inevitable apocalypse' or 'head-in-the-sand' (or up-the-ass).
Please stop at two kids, and don't drive 4 blocks because it's f***ing RAINING!! JESUS H!! If you want a clean conscience, don't worry about the offsets, get to work on the real-life eco solutions: Solar power, solar heat, bike instead of car, graywater system in your house, vegan lifestyle, vegetable garden, ZERO or ONE kid(s). Buying green legislators will work about as well as buying carbon offsets. It's fine as a bonus, but it's not a solution. Getting a clue would be more helpful.
Last, and least: Yeah- skip Pollution, Greed, & Electriciy's fake carbon offset program.
-
90% rejection needed in 50 years
If we are to reach the point where the US is no longer emitting vastly more carbon per capita than the rest of the world, and if we are to ensure that the worst case scenarios of "positive feedback" are unlikely, George Monbiot (a British journalist) believes we will need to make 90% reductions. If we are to meet these targets, simply cancelling out my own carbon through credits (which I have done because I am a sucker for nerdy one click actions) isn't enough, doing nine times that would be more useful. I like Ellison's gift to groups working for electoral reform, but there are plenty of effective NGO's doing good work on climate change, such as Step it Up. We should also fund them with our guilt money.
-
I'm confused!
I usually walk to work. But I have not factored in the emissions to produce the food I eat. Are those extra calories burned better or worse than a car? Plus the exercise means I may live longer and emit more...
When I use public transport here, it is dirtier than my car but would be running anyway, so I guess it costs nothing.
Our home energy use is efficient (our bills prove it). No heat, no AC, water heater on only an hour before showering (we all bathe consecutively), efficient fridge, TV off.
Children are adopted, so we get a "pass" there.
Maybe we should all just die? Of course there will be one-time emissions as our bodies decompose...
Nuke the world's major population centers! Use those late-cold-war "clean" thermonukes (high airbursts only -- gotta minimize fallout!) Not very appealing.
How about biological weapons? A completely organic way to dispose of surplus humanity!
I think I'll go stick my head back in the sand. A Prius and carbon credits still beat the Hummer with the bumper sticker hands down.
-
carbon credits are temporary
I agree with letter writers who say that carbon credits are not the answer. On a permanent basis, they aren't. But they might provide a temporary incentive to go green where such an incentive is necessary.
Example: as a forestry student, I'm working to quantify the amount of wood stocked in a certain type of French forests, the quantity that would be stocked if the forests were managed differently, and finally the gain in firewood production that would also result. The numbers are actually quite staggering. But when I ask if they can be used to get carbon credits under the European scheme (which, unlike the US initiatives cited by the author, is controlled), forestry officials all tell me to forget it. (1) It's never been done. (2) It's not subsidized by the French government (and so, in the French mind, not worth it). (3) The beneficiaries would be small forest owners and carbon credits go to the big players. I just hope that these problems, like carbon credits themselves, are temporary. In the meantime we will be setting up a sustainable management program but without the extra incentive that carbon credits would have given.
A last comment: several forestry officials have expressed to me a fear that carbon credits would be used to clear-cut forests. Why? Because wood heating is being subsidized as "sustainable" without anyone checking where that wood comes from. Here again, the carbon credit market is still in the infant stage. It's very, very imperfect and a perfect target for charlatans. But it can be fixed.