I met with Canadian startup Zerofootprint during my trip to Toronto last week for the Mesh Conference. The company, which is a non-profit, was started and funded by Ron Dembo, formerly the founder of Algorithmics Incorporated.
Their chief goal, says the company, is to raise awareness among individuals and groups that everything we consume has some impact on the environment. The company is fighting global warming in two ways: encourage carbon reduction, and sell offsets for the remainder.
First, they are encouraging people and companies to be aware of how much carbon they are emitting into the atmosphere through consumption (cars, heating, food, etc.) and encouraging them to find ways to lower those emissions. For individuals this is done through their emissions calculator. The company also creates white label websites for companies, groups and cities. See, for example, Zerofootprint Toronto, a sort of social network for Toronto citizens to calculate their emissions and interact with other members.
Second, Zerofootprint offers individuals and entities the ability to purchase carbon offsets directly at their “Carbon Shop.”
When large companies like Yahoo go carbon neutral, they will usually purchase large amounts of offsets via one of the official exchanges, like the one in Chicago or Montreal. Those are good for large organizations or consultants who represent them; but smaller buyers need a way to buy smaller offsets easily. That’s where Zerofootprint comes in. Want to offset a cross country flight? Purchase a CA$10 offset and the company says you are neutral.
The big exchanges are are sometimes criticized for not properly monitoring sellers to ensure proper carbon reduction. Zerofootrpint says they do not buy offsets from exchanges because of these concerns. Instead they work directly with sellers, usually tree growers, and make sure they are legally bound to leave the trees in perpetuity.
The company charges 10% over their cost when selling offsets. They say this helps cover their operating costs. Also, they buy offsets in bulk and in advance, and they have some capital risk.
Zerofootprint is actively trying to do deals with companies as well. They’ve recently signed an agreement with Air Canada that went live just a week ago. The program encourages customers to buy an offset when purchasing a flight ticket on the airline. They say they are also negotiating with Virgin Atlantic and others, they say.
The company has twelve employees and is based in Toronto. Competitors include TerraPass and Native Energy.
After meeting with the company and hearing their story, we decided to do more than just write about them. We are working with Zerofootprint to ensure that our TechCrunch20 Conference in September is carbon neutral. They will consult with us on ways to keep emissions to a minimum, and we will be purchasing offsets for the remainder. More on the TechCrunch20 blog.
This is a very good initiative from them (Zerofootprint). The Carbon Calculator is an useful tool. Many big companies should be aware of how much they consume and waste against the environment. We have only one planet!
‘Global Warming’ is normal. Temperature and carbon dioxide levels cycle naturally over time:
http://upload.w...bon_Dioxide.png
http://www.geoc...es/image277.gif
http://upload.w...rature-plot.png
Ergo, carbon offsets are a sham.
Great Idea.
I will defn make my company carbon neutral.
Maybe tech-crunch could raise the awarness to this by stating for each company they review, if they are carbon neutral.
This whole “offset” market is such a riot. Still, you have to love those sweet margins. Gullibility might be profitable, but naivety is priceless…
I salute them on finding a new way to take your money. Sadly, we all had to pay for this article you just, um, emitted.
i have enjoyed my visit
thx
envirment is so important
now we see web2.0 expanding behind internets:)
Global Warner is a blog which also adresses the global ecology issues.
http://en.globalwarner.org/
Are the offsets actually accredited carbon credits or just plain offsets? There’s a pretty big difference between the two… The accredited stuff comes with assurances, the other stuff doesn’t.
Good point, pookie. What is the motivation? Guilt relief? In order to make it more satisfying they need to have a “widget-badge” that people can put on their blogs or personal pages. Not sure if it should be zerofootprint’s logo, or the logo of a non-profit (existing or of their creation). I don’t believe consumers will opt for this w/o a benefit beyond “that warm feeling inside”.
Provide bragging ability! (So I can pick up some eco-feminists).
heh – Off – Sets are snake oil.
– Rbowles
Good idea. Even if they don’t become uber-successful it’s good to see a startup focusing on helping the environment. Now if they can only add a social networking component and a picture slideshow it’ll be unbeatable
Emile, what do you think the “widget-badge” would be if not a “social networking component”? The widget could be used to display all off-sets purchased (revealed by mouse-over) by a person.
I think the 10% is a little high for carbon credits and they run the risk of carbon brokers reducing their mark-ups and pricing these guys out of the market. In saying that it’s refreshing to see a web 2.0 company trying to make a difference to our environment rather than playing the “let’s see how quickly I can get bought out for” game.
Their calculator also needs work, a more in depth ‘advanced’ calculator would be handy. I don’t own a car, but I occasionally ride in one for instance. Also, what about if I ride the bus? They still emit carbon. I look forward to seeing where this goes.
Some good points here. First, speaking of accreditation, Zerofootprint’s credits are all ISO-certified. This means both that the carbon-uptake model has been verified and that the sites have been inspected to ensure that the projects are taking place according to plan. It also means that the project qualifies as “additional”–that is, that the environmental benefit of the project would not take place without the revenue generated by selling offsets. As for the question of motive, well, there are a number of reasons a company or individual might want to go carbon-neutral, beyond guilt relief. Offsetting allows us to escape the all-or-nothing imperative when it comes to doing the right thing for the environment. It is also an essential first step towards setting a price on our environmental behaviour and moving towards a carbon economy. It is also good for business. In fact, if, as we advocate, companies and individual offset their emissions only after taking steps to diminish their energy use, the savings can more than cover the cost of the offset.
Nick Garrison
Zerofootprint
Carbon offsets are the biggest scam of our time. The church of global warming is selling its indulgences at a nice profit.
If you really want to “get green”, stop driving so much. Walk. Ride your bike. Make your home more energy efficient. Whatever you want to do. But buying offsets helps no one but the snake oil salesmen that profit from it.
Can we tell Mother Earth to lessen her footprint too? She is the main culprit…So is the sun. Do I just go to the UN to have those pesky polluters to lower their footprint or what?
i will use their service if they are 100% transparent on those 10% operational costs.
still great idea. initiatives like this do a long way
This is so much ap-cray.
Zerofootprint only tells half the story. What happens when trees die? They decompose. Tiny microorganisms eat the tree material and release much of the carbon right back into the atmosphere. Remember the circle of life?
I love the analogy of carbon offsets to indulgences. This way Al Gore and Cheryl Crow get to continue flying their private jets around the world lecturing me about global warming. If you really want to help, try a webex conference next time.
Because every little bit counts, right? Actually, in this case it only counts to the folks that are taking the 10% off the top. I love Cory’s comparison of this to indulgences because that’s all it is.
techcrunch’s efforts at carbon neutrality are laudible, but I have to agree with the general sentiment that carbon offsets are a bad choice. While we can’t expect everyone to de-develop into local cottage economies, we can do more than buy trees for every airplane flight. Why not have simultaneous conferences throughout the country so transportation emissions are low, and have the mini-conferences interact via web with each other?
Michael, if you’re going to start covering “startups” doing good for the planet, I’d encourage checking out some Bay Area ones that are using more Web 2.0-like ideas: kiva.org is a microfinance version of Prosper and SustainLane recently launched their green product review site.
Also, NetSquared is a great place for how non-profits can use “social web” tech
full disclosure – I work for GreenDimes which is also a startup doing good but we can’t claim any cool new web 2.0 tech (yet)
How about saving your money and investing it directly in ways that reduce carbon emissions? You don’t know what this company does with your money and just because you planted a tree, doesn’t mean you can pollute. If Yahoo wants to be carbon neutral how about building a new efficient HQ building, or providing subsidies to employees for gas efficient cars, or promoting carpooling, or giving the money to local governments so they can expand public transit. Why throw away money on some nebulous “carbon offset” when you can invest it directly in things you know will benefit the environment?
Gal
bdb , that’s true.
Another nonprofit out of Boulder Colorado is addressing the carbon footprint created through travel is Sustainable Travel International (http://www.sust...ernational.org/). They are currently partnered with Continental Airlines (http://www.cont...t.aspx?i=PRNEWS).
Interesting model . . .
Like many others here I am deeply sceptical about carbon offsets – the analogy with indulgences seems only too accurate.
At the risk of self-promotion, readers in the UK might like to visit a little site we’ve developed – http://www.carbonfootpath.com. It not only calculates your carbon footprint but records it so you can see changes year-on-year. The current version is very much a beta – various enhancements are in the pipeline.
Carbon offsets are nonsense and a distraction to the real issues. And the very existence of multiple companies “reselling” offsets themselves use yet more resources up just to sell something that doesn’t produce any real value.
Great idea..I wasn’t aware of “carbon offsets” and how much even our office here uses carbon. I definitely need to catch up on the whole issue, though.
This is all a bunch of hog-wash.
Every day, thousands of acres of jungle are burned in Brasil, Indonesia, …
The land is used once for agriculture.
They grow soy beans that they sell to Europe where bio-fuel is produced to save petrol. LOL
Then the land is abandoned and more trees are burned.
NASA can see the thick smoke around the equator from satellites.
Half of the carbon emissions can be eliminated overnight and global warming stopped if they stop burning trees today.
Carbon offsets in industrialized countries are a joke and will never be able to undo the damages to the environments caused by burning the jungles–the lungs of the planet.
‘Global Warming’ is normal. Temperature and carbon dioxide levels cycle naturally over time:
http://upload.w...30;..ioxide.png
Ergo, carbon offsets are a sham.
http://upload.w...bon_Dioxide.png
http://www.energyrace.com has some similarities, & allows you to have a live-updating ‘badge’ widget that displays c02 reduced emissions.
Carbon offsets are a massive scam. The EU just this week admitted that they have been a complete, unmitigated disaster which have resulted in higher power bills for low-income Europeans while doing absolutely nothing positive for the environment.
Want to pull of an old-fashioned con job that no intelligent person would normally fall for? Simple: attach the word “green” and then stand back as the cash from the gullible pours in.
Ripping people off over the environment is as bad as counterfeiting AIDS medications in Africa.
NOTE: I don’t know if these guys are intentionally doing anything wrong or not (probably not). I am speaking generically about the whole offset “industry”, not ZeroFootprint in particular.
Sorry, but “carbon offsets” is the stupidest idea ever. It’s like buying land on the moon.
we trade the oil and gas futures and can tell you all the alternatives need to be explored more aggressively and awareness is extremely important, it just really doesn’t seem to be sinking in that the globe consumes 30 Billion barrels of crude per year and comes nowhere near replacing it, it’s a fact that the saudi oil fields are depleting, china and india currently consume a small fraction of the oil and gas the US does and they are just starting their industrial revolutions, there is serious problems with russian oil including access and the reserve estimates appear to be overstated no wonder T. Boone Pickens made ove a billion dollars in Oil and Gas Futures last year, a great source of info on energy oil etc with daily contributions from well respected scientists telling it like it is can be found at: http://www.theoildrum.com
for current pirces: http://www.oilgasfutures.com -Patrick Kerr
Intresting I personally think that offsetting can be a useful tool when used in the right manner e.g. for the final part of the emissions which would be techinically impossible to reduce. I also think only very high quality projects should be used. I thus found http://www.co2logic.com which sells CDM type credits i.e. very high certification standard not just your mate planting a few trees in his back garden. Well done to them.
J.
Just wondering if my previous post was very clear. CDM = Clean Developement Mechanism thus these are credits validated by the United Nations under the Kyoto framework.
http://www.co2logic.com
J.
Not a bad BUSINESS idea because there are a lot of naive people willing to spend money if it makes them “feel good” about supporting a cause, but I agree with the posters who express skepticism that this will really change anything. I think it’s already well-established that the actual effectiveness of carbon offsets is highly questionable.
If you buy into the notion that global warming exists, and is primarily driven by human activity, then you can only conclude that our consumer culture is most responsible for the damage being done. So what should we do? In a sane world, we would change our consumption patterns, discourage waste and invest in and transition to new technologies as fast as possible. Instead, there’s a lot of excitement about letting consumers (and companies) BUY offsets that supposedly negate the harm caused by their continued excesses. Brilliant! The only problem is that this don’t address the actual CAUSES of environmental destruction. At best, these carbon markets and offset services are band aids that make it convenient to avoid actually facing tough issues for which there are no easy solutions.
Consumer culture is driven by the idea that everything you need and want for survival, health and happiness can be purchased if you have enough money. Is it then not somewhat ironic to suggest that our continued damage to the environment caused by this consumer culture can be offset through a purchase?
If you have enough money, go ahead and buy that gas-guzzling SUV. Someday soon the dealer might just say “For an additional $10,000, we can include a carbon offset upgrade that will help protect the environment with your purchase of this great vehicle. We can even include this in your low APR financing package. Would you like me to go ahead and add this protection to your purchase?” Isn’t capitalism great?
article should have been called “zerofootprint” a startup that fights imaginary threats.
One surprising thing about offsets is the renewed interest they have provoked in the Reformation. If offsets are like indulgences, so the reasoning goes, then what we need is a Martin Luther. And there is no shortage of people putting themselves forward for the role. But let’s take the theological argument a little further. Indulgences were part of the Catholic imperative to good “works”–the idea was that one could redeem oneself by doing the right thing. Not so, said Luther; one can rely only on grace and faith.
In other words, if you don’t believe you can make a difference by doing the right thing, all you can do is hope for the best.
Now, the Catholic church never said that the ONLY way to mitigate the unpleasantness of the afterlife, and I doubt there is anyone in the world who says that offsetting your emissions is the only thing you can do to fight climate change. In fact, Zerofootprint argues that the first thing to do is cut your emissions and find new efficiencies–and then to offset the rest.
Moreover, to answer “Gal’s” concern above, you don’t buy offsets INSTEAD of doing something about the environment; the revenue from the sale of offsets is invested in projects that make a massive difference. By all means, if you’d like to go out and buy a wind turbine, that’s a great idea. But if you can’t afford a turbine, you can flow money into a wind project in proportion to your energy consumption. In other words, you can offset.
As for the supposed failures of the EU Emissions Trading Scheme, sure, there were some early problems, primarily because emissions allowances were grandfathered rather than auctioned. But we know that emissions trading works, because the Montreal Protocol has already saved the planet from cooking by ozone-layer depletion. And we should keep in mind that Kyoto itself is based on offsetting. It’s Flexibility Mechanism ensures that money spent on mitigating climate change will do the most good. That’s all we want. If you’d prefer to install solar panels and commute by bicycle and grow your own food, please do so. Cut your carbon footprint down as far as possible. If like, you can still offset whatever is left. What is not an option is sitting around, hoping for the best.
Nick Garrison
Zerofootprint
I am trying to think of a way to capitalize on the whole global warming movement as I see that there is a profit to be made by forward-thinking people the world over.
Gosh, a one degree celsius rise in the earth’s temperature has us all worried and believing ever marketing ploy that comes along.
How can I cash in?
This calculator is funny and completely inaccurate.
I plugged:
Toyota Prius Hybrid @ 25000 m
1 x Cross Country Flight
$60 Electric Bill
$16 Gas Bill
And I am AVERAGE! Thats a load of bull if I have ever heard it.
To make me average the majority of people would have to drive
less miles than I do and a lot more efficient vehicles.
The comments are interesting. I think liberals are really screwed on this issue. The conservatives fight it saying its all b.s., and fascist-left fights it because they think offsets don’t go far enough.
The comments always get hyper-heated whenever a political issue comes up.
this is another way to make you feel guilty…
seems like a .org, although a useful and necessary .org
Come to think of it, this is a great idea. What else can we use to guilt people into thinking they need to pay offsets to reduce their (insert something bad here) footprint?
Just some ideas…
1) Alcohol Offsets – Drink as much as you want, and buy alcohol offsets to make yourself alcohol consumption neutral. Lindsey Lohan could have used these to get out of her recent trouble with the law. “I’m not driving under the influence, officer. I’m alcohol consumption neutral. Here are my offsets.” “I see. You are indeed alcohol consumption neutral. Carry on.”
2) Smoking Offsets – Smoke like a chimney, and don’t worry about the ill effects on your health. Just buy smoking offsets, and you’ll never get yellow teeth, bad breath, smoker’s cough, emphysema, or lung cancer.
3) Child Abuse Offsets – Beat your kids like there’s no tomorrow. With child abuse offsets, you’ll never get in trouble with the law, and your kids will never suffer the traumatizing effects of having an abusive parent. Leave a footprint in your kid’s back, but don’t worry about your child abuse footprint. You’re child abuse neutral with child abuse offsets.
Any other ideas?
->Cory
http://www.scen...e.php?movie=485
“I am trying to think of a way to capitalize on the whole global warming movement as I see that there is a profit to be made by forward-thinking people the world over.”
This is true on both sides of the spectrum (i.e. there’s money to be made by doing nothing about global warming). In fact, the amount of wealth that will be “transferred” to opportunists if/when global warming becomes a global disaster is probably greater than the amount that will be created by companies trying to “do the right thing” barring a concerted effort by the major governments of the world to force change through strict legislation and subsidies.
When you look at the impact of worst case global warming scenarios would have on the global economy and things like commodities, I think it’s fairly obvious that well-positioned people will be able to make vast fortunes as the environment becomes much less hospitable to human life.
Nick Garrison: in the ideal world people would try to cut emissions and offset the rest, but my experience is that most people take the path of least resistance. The majority of those who have the desire to do anything at all are most likely to look at buying offsets as being the quickest, easiest solution. After all, all I have to do is charge some offsets to my Platinum Visa and I’ve done my part. This is much easier than doing something difficult, like changing my behavior. When you’ve got kids, a job, a mortgage, $10,000 in credit card debt and student loans, you don’t want to deal with inconvenient truths and inconvenient changes to your daily routine. You’re just trying to survive until the next paycheck. The best hope is that the economics of being a above-average emitter will force a change in behavior, but the libertarian part of my brain doesn’t think that the government should enact strict legislation to do this, since most things implemented by the government end up being ineffective anyway.
On a macro level, I don’t think concepts like offsets can eliminate the fact that we suffer from a certain kind of inertia. We have a consumer culture that is only getting stronger, a system and infrastructure built on feeding that consumer culture as much as possible as cheaply as possible and an economy that is wholly dependent on both.
Here’s a good example that highlights the magnitude of the challenge of effecting real change: there are probably a trillion barrels of oil left in the ground. If we assume that oil prices will eventually hit $100/barrel (even if there’s no natural, legitimate reason for it), that’s potentially $100 trillion in revenues to be extracted from the ground. Do you think the entities who have a vested economic interest in realizing that potential are truly going to do anything that limits that potential? How many carbon offsets need to be purchased to offset the emissions that will be caused by those trillion barrels? How many carbon offsets need to be purchased to offset the deforestation that occurs on a daily basis (potentially to the point where a major rainforest like the Amazon dies completely)?
I think any sensible person can see that this is a lose-lose situation. We’ve probably already passed the point of no return. The only sensible solution is to colonize the moon and Mars. Fortunately, I have been accumulating from the The Lunar Embassy one of the largest portfolios of prime lunar land and will be developing luxury condos starting from the low $100,000s. Instead of buying carbon offsets, you’d be better off putting up a down payment and taking advantage of my interest-only Moon Mortgages(TM).
@Gordon – What a great way to illustrate the absurdity of carbon offsets! Thanks for sharing.
Man, I am amazed by the scepticism towards the concept of Carbon Credits. I work for Carbon Planet, another retailer of accredited carbon credits, and since I work with the converted, I have never actually known anyone to be so openly abhorrent towards the idea.
The facts are that the human race is emitting 3000 times the carbon it was 150 years ago, and emissions are increasing (on average) 3% every year. At the same time there is a distinct rise in global average temperatures that matches the rise CO2 output of the human race. A *lot* of scientists agree that the human race is contributing to the change in climate.
Predicted out comes of continued warming of the climate (whether human induced or not) are generally thought to be not exactly great for humans, and there are a lot of people that believe the human race, in order not to die out in the next 200 years needs to adjust the way money gets spent to curb emissions, and to encourage efficient resource usage.
The whole idea of Carbon Trading is to encourage expenditure on things that are good for the human race. Whether it’s planting and maintain forests, or clean, renewable energy sources, or more resource efficient technologies.
The industry is young, and there are still plenty of cowboy operations out there, so a healthy dose of scepticism isn’t entirely bad. Right now, there aren’t a massive range of accredited Carbon Credits that are available. There are forestry credits, and emission prevention credits – and perhaps a few others. Eventually there will be a much more interesting choice, like solar panel credits, forestry conservation credits (give farmers enough money not to burn down trees), electric car credits etc.
Basically, anything that can measurably be shown to be reducing emissions can be turned into a carbon credit – even stuff as trivial as committing to riding your bike everywhere and not using a car.
The whole things was designed to reward people for trying to behave in a sustainable way, because before carbon trading came along there was no financial reward for doing that.
It was never really about guilt – although clearly the die hard sceptics here are feeling guilty as hell and hating it (sucks to be you).
I don’t like too much what is promoted. The site is very much on the carbon offsets side, it’s actually the whole purpose of the site: measure your footprint and buy offsets. So the tone is pretty much “use as much as you want and buy these good offsets and everything will be fine”.
However the offsetting technique is based on forest sequestration (planting trees that will absorb CO2 when they grow and then store it). And this technique is more and more recognized as not being effective. Trees die or burn eventually, releasing all the stored CO2 all over again. Using the wood for houses keep it captive a bit longer but there’s only so many houses that you can build. And there’s also so many trees you can plant (reducing the US production by 7% would mean creating a forest as big as Texas). WWF, Friends of the Earth and Greenpeace issued a statement saying they do not support forestry projects to offset carbon emissions.
So their way to go carbon neutral is not really helping, quite the contrary actually. Which is not to say that carbon offsetting as a whole is bad, just that the way this company does it is bad.
@Dallas Ransom…
Your argument would hold more sway without that last line, “It was never really about guilt – although clearly the die hard sceptics here are feeling guilty as hell and hating it (sucks to be you).”
I am one of those “die hard sceptics [sic]” you mentioned, and I feel absolutely no guilt whatsoever. I know that I have not contributed significantly (or even insignificantly for that matter) to “global warming”.
As for your argument about humans increasing carbon output 3000 times over 150 years ago, that is irrelevant. What percentage of the molecules in the air does CO2 make? What percentage of that is produced by humans? Is there conclusive evidence that proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that the existence of CO2 contributes to global warming? These are questions that you should be answering, not the amount of CO2 now compared to 150 years ago.
Also, a *lot* of scientists disagree with the notion that the human race is contributing to the change in climate. The truth is what it is whether or not scientists agree about it. High Priest Al Gore’s Church of Global Warming has its beliefs about what the truth is, and many people have different beliefs. You cannot currently prove either side conclusively, which makes the whole carbon offset racket so lucrative.