Ideal Bite

I think this is a great example of how to offset carbon emissions with behavioral changes. The Ideal Bite tip today mentioned buying carbon offsets, but that ignores the important role our behaviors play in climate change. Instead of buying a "green tag" to offset a vacation plane trip, consider changing behaviors that lessen the other carbons you offset, like commuting via mass transit or car pool for a certain number of days. Or maybe going vegetarian or eating locally for a month. Not only does this behavioral approach to carbon offsets show a much more significant personal commitment to the cause, but it is likely to lead to long-term behaviors that can make a lifetime's worth of difference. Three cheers for Jennifer's great change!!

Personally, I was only able to reduce energy costs by about 50% this year. However it took moving to a new house to do it. The old house we were living in was a rental and we couldn't make the changes needed to reduce energy usage. It was poorly maintained over the years and at 1000 sq ft. took over 3 times what it should have in energy. Now we live in a newer home that is 1400 sq. ft. and uses less energy. Our carbon usage is around 10 tons annually now. I hope to reduce it even further by replacing the freezer, clothes washer and dryer with energy efficient models. I also purchase 200 tons worth of green tags from Native Energy every year. I feel their projects are substantial and am all for helping the tribes of my ancestors become self-sufficient.

Most people, including me, are more likely to speak up when peeved, so just so you know I'm not all negative, I love most of the Ideal Bites. =) Keep up the good work! Carbon offsets are a pet peeve for me, and have been looking forward to Alternate Energy Tips all week, so this one is just a double whammy for me. =) At best, this has very little to do with Alternate Energy, so I am a bit disappointed this morning. Please save such things for other weeks in the future. However, my main reason for writing is that I agree with Greg above, and would like to emphasis the point that carbon offsets are a bit of a cop out. For now, they are a good way for people with more money than time and interest to do something, which is good because it is better than nothing. However, for example, paying some foreign country to plant trees that they should be planting anyway because they cut/burned them down in the first place is not as effective as spending that money on planting trees in your own back yard. How does that slogan go again, "Think globally, act..." As a side, I also doubt that the efficiency with which the trees are planted is very high, not to mention that if the area were just left along to allow vegetation to grow in naturally, it would have the same, if not a better, CO2 absorption rate. You want a super easy way to make a difference? Stop mowing your lawn. ;) I don't like the term neutralize, because your GHGs are still going out there, no matter how much money you spend on other people's problems. Some carbon offset programs are a good way to spend your tax deductions, but it does not mean you should not always be looking for ways to reduce your own emissions. I'm preaching to the quire, I'm sure. =)

Sorry for the double post, but Wayne's post came in while I was writing, so I wanted to add that clearly there are exceptions, and Wayne has the absolute right idea about how to spend money on carbon offsets. Go wayne!

I was excited when I first heard about carbon offsets, because my family lives far away and I wind up taking at least one long-haul flight a year. But after doing a bit of research it seems like carbon offsets aren't the miracle cure we thought they were. This article (http://www.newint.org/features/2006/07/01/keynote/) in the New Internationalist suggests that offsets are a temporary fix, as the trees only hold carbon for a while, that offsets contributes to large-scale (and unsustainable) tree plantations, and also that poor environmental managing means offsets just don't work. What does Ideal Bite think of this? Are offsets really a lost cause?

One of the problems with offsets is that you are buying renewable energy credits from projects that ALREADY exist. How is this "neutralizing" your carbon emissions? I don't really think it is. If they were actually using the money to replace coal power plants and construct new solar, wind, and methane-powered plants to replace the fossil fuel-produced energy, then I think that would be actually reducing your carbon footprint. I'm torn on carbon credits. I think it's good because it creates awareness, but at the same time it's a false sense of having done something good for the Earth. It's definitely most important to reduce your carbon emissions as much as possible first. And THEN use carbon offsets if you have to.

This story in the LA Times uncovered some of the waste/redundancy in the carbon offsetting programs: http://www.latimes.com/news/science/ la-sci-offsets2sep02,1,249680.story? ctrack=3&cset=true (s/b all one line so cut and paste the link)

Oh, that CheatNeutral site is brilliant! Here's a link to the Daily Mail op-ed that the guys read a piece from in the short film: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/newscomment.html?in_...

Not all offsets are a lost cause, but those used to grows trees are suspect for the reasons sited above and more. If a carbon offset program is near and dear to you, then it is very worth considering. Outside of that, it is likely to be more difficult to research than it is worth, IMHO. The main thing to remember about vegetation, and any vegetation will do, is that it only holds the CO2 while it is alive: it is released again eventually one way or another. If a plant dies and is replaced with the same volume of vegetation, then the CO2 is recaptured. So, the key is to increase the global volume of vegetation in the long term. Now, the easiest, and probably most efficient, way to increase vegetation in a given natural area is to leave it alone for a long time. It is probably more effective to spread around some seeds of canopy plants (trees) so that they fill in faster, but rigorous planting is pretty much a waste of time and, in the case of offsets, money. You don't have to bury an acorn to get an oak! With all that said, it is far more effective in the short term to prevent the existing plants from continuing to be destroyed by the acre. So, if you are thinking of paying some one to do the work nature will do without out help anyway, then think again, and buy some rain forest land instead to preserve the work that has already been done.

Renewable Choice Energy http://www.renewablechoice.com/ offsets your energy use with wind energy. It's only $5 a month for an individual. Check it out!