Carbon Credit or Indulgence?

November 26, 2008

From the December issue of INC. Magazine, there was an interesting article about “Going Carbon Neutral”.The first line sums up the marketing of going carbon neutral.

“If it were cheap and easy, would you reduce your carbon emissions to zero?”

The whole article is a propaganda piece for carbon “offset” providers. They want you to hire them, so they can estimate how much carbon you offset a year, charge you a small fee. Enough to make you feel like your helping the planet, but not enough to make you feel like your getting robbed.

Most carbon providers take your money and fund some kind of green technology such as solar or wind power. They say it encourages people to reduce the amount of energy they use. I simply don’t think that will work.

2 different issues

But we are dealing with 2 different issues. Individuals who want to reduce their carbon foot print can easily do it without buying carbon credits.

Start recycling, unplug appliance that aren’t in use. reduce how much you consume, take your coffee mug to Startbucks instead of using a paper cup. Make your home more energy efficient.

Big corporations on the other hand would much rather just pay the fee. That way they have a scapegoat for why they haven’t changed their business practices. “Well we are carbon neutral because we buy carbon credits from so and so.”

But it goes against common sense!

If you take 100 flights overseas every year, but buy carbon credits to off set it, your still taking 100 flights a year. You didn’t reduce, reuse or recycle your way to carbon neutral. You took the easy way out.

And that’s what these carbon providers are hoping for. That there are millions of people who will pay to relieve their guilt. even suggest you buy carbon offsets for your friends and family for the holidays and give them the gift of a better future! They reinforce their belief with their slogan:

Reduce what you can, offset what you can’t

Or Terrapass has a whole gift section of green gadgets that will help save the world. I wonder if you order a gift and they ship it to you, if they pay for the carbon offset to ship it too?

It’s so great lets make it mandatory

These companies are lobbying congress and Washington to make carbon credits mandatory. you own a car, now you owe a carbon tax. You want to buy a new washer and dryer, better stick a carbon tax on top of the sticker price to offset the carbon.

You have an older home, oops sorry that’s not as efficient as newer homes, your going to have to make up the difference in carbon offsets.

I’m not against people reducing, reusing, and recycling,we all should be. People should examine their lifestyles and make some changes. We have lived without consequences for too long, and we need to replace our short term outlook with a long term vision.

What I am against is corporations making huge profits off of selling snake oil, by duping their customers with slick presentations, psychological babble about how they are saving the earth and providing a future for their grand kids.

Carbon Credits the new indulgence

Buying carbon credits is the same thing as the Catholic Church selling Indulgence’s in the 1500’s. You sin, no problem you just need to buy this little indulgence to limit the consequence of your sin. It didn’t change the fact that you sinned, it didn’t even promise to forgive you, only Jesus could do that. The indulgence was strictly to avoid punishment for your sins.

Say like owning a factor and polluting local rivers for the last 40 years. Or shipping tons of toxic toys across the world. Our letting 5% of the worlds population consume 40% of the worlds resources.

“Oh we shouldn’t do that, well we’re carbon neutral”

It’s a crock. These company’s are profiting off of a think tank’s idea that global warming is man made and killing the earth. Just read the Club of Romes report “The first Global Revolution“, page 75

The Kyoto Protocol Would Only Save 1 Polar Bear A Year!

June 26, 2008

*source of story

One Expert says we can NOT save the Polar Bear by making significant lifestyle changes in order to reduce co2 output.

The Interior Department listed the polar on its threatened species list because of the risks of shrinking sea ice. But Bjørn Lomborg, a Danish author and professor at the Copenhagen Business School, told the U.S. Chamber of Commerce on June 25 that the threat is exaggerated and wouldn’t go away even if every country in the world signed and followed the Kyoto Protocol.

Lomborg, author of “Cool It: The Skeptical Environmentalist’s Guide to Global Warming,” explained during the speech in Washington, D.C., how inefficient and ineffective it would be to try to improve the polar bear population via massively curbing greenhouse gas emissions.

“The polar bear has become the icon of global warming and certainly [former Vice President] Al Gore was a part of doing that,” Lomborg said. “A lot of people think polar bears are threatened right now – actually that’s not the case.”

According to Lomborg, global polar bear population was about 5,000 in 1960. Since then, the population has quadrupled. Now there are an estimated 22,000 polar bears. But, Lomborg warned the polar bear still eventually could be threatened by the effects of global warming.

“My point is simply: if we actually care about the polar bear, why is that we are so intent on only discussing one option – that is cutting carbon emissions?” Lomborg said. “Nobody ever talks about what would be the effect of cutting carbon emissions. Well, let me show you – if everybody did the Kyoto Protocol all the way through the century, which is very, very far away, but if everybody actually did that, we’d save one polar bear every year.”

Lomborg said he was all for saving that one polar bear a year, but questioned the costs. He estimated the worldwide annual cost of the Kyoto Protocol to be $180 billion. Kyoto is a treaty supported by Gorethe United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. He proposed a simpler solution: and

“It strikes me as odd, that in this conversation, nobody seems to mention the fact that every year, we shoot somewhere between 300 and 500 polar bear,” Lomborg said. “Wouldn’t it be smarter to first stop shooting the polar bear?”

Global Warming Made Up By A Think Tank

June 18, 2008

I have serious doubts about global warming. Not that the earth is in a warming trend, but that man is the cause and the world will come to an end if you don’t stop living our lives.

I think it’s easy for the corporate media to use global warming as their reason to scare us into surrendering our life styles, liberties, and our guaranteed constitutional freedoms in order for the government to step in and save us.

Problem Reaction Solution

It’s called Problem > Reaction > Solution and government, media, and corporations have mastered it. You state your goal that you know congress will never pass, or your customers will never buy. and then you come up with a way to move them into a position where their willingly want the solution you offer, as if they had free will and choose it themselves.

It’s very simple actually, you confront your society, consumers, or clients with a problem. Whether it’s real or not has very little importance in this equation.

You wait for the reaction. Public outrage, phone calls flooding your office, petition, strikes, protest, or what ever other form it takes.

Then you take the lead in offering a clever solution, the one you planned from the beginning. The media calls you a hero, the public feels saved, and you got response you wanted in the first place.

So this whole idea of man made global warming gets under my skin. I can’t help but feel like our own government is setting us up for something that we other wise would of never tolerated.

Like personal carbon credits.

Global Warming Made Up By A Think Tank

just check out the “First Global Revolution” by the Club of Rome. on Page 75 they state they need a common enemy that the world can unite against. so they came up with the idea of using pollution and global warming to trick the public into changing their attitudes and behavior. And that it’s not global warming that is the real enemy it is man kind since it’s human intervention that causes it.

The problem is: Global warming

the reaction is: people are scared and worried

the solution is: the government and corporation will step up and offer carbon credits to help reduce co2 emissions.

the only problem is we the people change our attitudes and behaviors and in the process give government more control over regulating our lives from what appliances we can buy, to what kind of car we drive and make these corporation filthy rich by buying their carbon credits.

Did I mention Al Gore happens to own a company that will sell you carbon credits. How convenient  that someone so concerned with the environment will make so much money.