04-23-2006
Carbon offsets are gaining momentum and newsprint. The April 22 New York Times recently wrote about them (above the fold no less), and numerous web sites are devoted to these strategies to reduce pollution, specifically carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions. How does it work?
You visit sites such as carbonfund.org, terrapass.com, or nativeenergy.com. Typically using an online calculator, the visiting citizen figures out how many tons of CO2 are associated with their activities and lifestyle (airline trips, miles driven in a car, kilowatts used in the home or apartment, etc.).
The visitor then pays a fee, based on the calculated CO2 emissions. The money is generally invested in renewable energy companies and activities, such as wind or solar-energy projects. As the Times article snickered, it's a way of “buying yourself into heaven.”
I'm certainly not against carbon off-sets as an easy and growing conduit of money flowing to renewable energy projects. Oil has certainly been subsidized to a giant degree throughout the years, by a vast, hugely expensive, global oil-protection service run by the U.S. Pentagon, correct?
My family will probably purchase a carbon off-set associated with a Europe trip this summer. There is, however, a guilt-tax aspect to these programs. For example, these mechanisms do not strictly reduce the contributor's CO2 emissions. The person is simply paying a more ecologically redeeming organization for the right to pollute.
If the organization was wealthy enough, they could blithely go on polluting, and buy enough off-sets to clear their conscience.
This is different than riding a bike or walking for an errand, which actually prevents the CO2 emissions from the car you might otherwise have been tempted to drive; or taking other actions such as living in a smaller house (reducing methane emissions from the propane heating of the living space) or buying a hybrid.
I'm not convinced that carbon off-sets can actually reduce carbon emissions in the aggregate. Unless, of course, the off-setters are doing other things that legitimately reduce their pollutants (which is usually the case among the people and companies that buy these off-sets). Why quibble about TerraPass, NativeEnergy, and the rest, you might ask? At least it's a step in the right direction, and it's certainly better than doing nothing.
04-15-2006
I did an informal count of the types of cars that were parked in my section at the local supermarket. [Okay, so I wasn't doing this errand on my bike; shame me!] 19 of 27 autos, or 70 percent, were of the sport utility vehicle (SUV)/light truck variety. These are the least sustainable or economical vehicles as we head into a period, with compelling acceleration, of oil depletion and high gas prices.
Get with it folks! It's time to adapt to a leaner and meaner world (not to mention one that receives fewer carbon dioxide emissions from us). Funny, I noticed that the highest intensity of over-sized vehicles, almost 100 percent, were clumped the nearest to the supermarket entrance. I'll let the reader draw their own conclusions from this observation.
04-10-2006
Could Walmart, the bete noir of suburban sprawl, be reacting to the realities of Peak Oil? No company stands to lose more business if people can no longer drive unlimited distances, just to save a few bucks on a new toaster oven. I haven't seen too many Walmarts near train depots (I could be wrong, of course).
If gas reaches the price of milk within a year or two, roughly $9.50 per gallon, then your typical hinterland Walmart is in deep do-do. It's interesting to see that the metastasized mega-store plans to open dozens of new stores in the inner city, ostensibly to help the less fortunate get jobs.
An underlying theme could be to ensure that at least some of these stores remain busy and accessible to public transportation during a severe, semipermanent energy crisis.
On the other hand, they also plan on opening dozens of more new stores in the conventional manner, by paving over former farmlands, parks, and open fields.
04-09-2006
What's the best way to wake up sleeping companies to their contribution to and the role they can play to deal with global warming? By “voting with your wallet” and only purchasing products from or investing in companies that are trying to reduce their global-warming emissions. Or, at the very least, adapt their organizational models to a rapidly changing environmental and energy climate.
Some companies certainly have a greater sense of awareness of these issues; others, based on their behavior, appear to be in a coma. The organization CERES has released a scorecard for dozens of major corporations.
CERES “is a national network of investment funds, environmental organizations, and other public interest groups working to advance environmental stewardship on the part of businesses.” It's worth a download of the PDF file for the report and at least a quick perusal of the executive summary.
The report “evaluate[s] how 76 U.S. companies and 24 non-U.S. companies are addressing climate change through board oversight, management execution, public disclosure, emissions accounting and strategic planning.”
04-03-2006
I watched the April 2, 2006 Sixty Minutes episode on General Motors. I guess the U.S. car industry still doesn't get it. GM should be applying their engineering expertise (I assume they have it in abundance) to the best hybrid and zero-emission vehicle designs. Further, they should be generating these vehicles in commercial quantities, as soon as possible. With oil-depletion already happening, these are the vast majority of vehicle types people will be buying, when they are not mostly walking or riding a bicycle.
Portrait of a Dinosaur
Why doesn't GM start developing the absolute best high-speed commuter train? GM should be working with local communities and consultants to create new sustainable forms of public transportation, not based on petroleum.
Look what Toyota is doing, in terms of their recent announcement to create a hybrid version of every one of their cars within a few years.
Myopia
In the news story, ne'er a hybrid or other kind of sustainable vehicle could be seen. Instead, the news story depicted gray-beard car-industry guys drifting around exhibit halls showing off Camaro concept cars and new designs of Cadillacs. It was a portrait of a corporate dinosaur entering extinction. It's not all because of the medical costs GM is carrying. This sorry condition has a lot to do with the failure to see the future dynamics of transportation accurately. Myopia.