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.
That Randy guy is exactly right. All this is nothing more than groundless scare tactics… AND imagine that the left is correct on this. Would it be possible to STOP, SLOW DOWN or even REVERSE global warming? No… It’s all a little rediculous. The earth goes through these phases with or without man’s input. How long has the earth been around? It will be here long after we’re gone.
Want to reduce your carbon footprint? kill yourself. After all, we are all carbon based lifeforms.
@Cory
See these 2 articles:
http://environment.newscientis.....ge/dn11638
http://environment.newscientis.....ge/dn11654
The *lot* of disagreeing scientists are just people who have an opinion on the subject. Which doesn’t make them scientists. None of them have serious peer-reviewed scientific publications.
If you want scientific evidences see:
http://www.realclimate.org/
Hia to all,
I just posted in my blog days ago similar article about what it’s going on in tourism.
http://e-turismo.blogspot.com/.....eting.html
Cory, with all due respect, you are asking the wrong question when you muse over the the percentage of atmospheric gases CO2 comprises. True, CO2 makes up a tiny fraction, but that’s not the point. If I were to put a spoonful of dioxin in your morning coffee, would it be any defence to suggest that the lethal chemical made up only a small percentage of your latte? To point is, the concentration does not need to be high to be dangerous.
As for your question as to the percentage of atmospheric CO2 attributable to humans, the answer is about half (atmospheric concentrations have roughly doubled since the Industrial Revolution). As for the next question–whether scientists know “beyond a shadow of a doubt” that human activity is driving climate change–it shows a willful misunderstanding of what scientists are doing. For one thing, it is not their job to explain things beyond a shadow of a doubt; it is their job to formulate increasingly accurate models, and to test them rigorously (in other words, doubt). Even so, there has not been an article in a peer-reviewed journal in years that disputes the consensus on climate change. That is to say, there are no qualified scientists out there disputing this stuff. I am aware that there ARE some people still making good money clinging to a debate that ended years ago, but they are not qualified climate scientists publishing in reputatable journals; I’m sure they’re smart men and women, and that they perform important services for the world as veterinarians, or geologists, or astrologers, but their thoughts on climate change hardly constitute a contributiion to the so-called debate.
Moreover, though climate-change predictive models are, admittedly, just sophisticated computer programs, the fact is that they can accurately “back-cast.” If you can “predict” last year’s climate, the odds are good that you can predict next year’s. Finally, the IPCC reports represent the lowest-common-denominator consensus of representatives of all member states (that is, including states that “dispute” the science). In other words, these reports are very, very watered down. Even so, the latest claims with 90% certianty that human activities are to blame for climate change, and predicts dire consequences. If you are 90% certain your house is burning down, do you call the fire department, or do you hire a lobbyist to deny the fire? Let’s put it this way: if the odds are 9 in 10 that you are going to die of a heart attack, do you think it would be easy to find insurance? Even George Bush committed to a regime of CO2 reduction earlier today.
Look, I know that people are going to deny climate change long after the hurricanes and the drought and the misery have arrived, so there is not much point trying to convince someone for whom the IPCC report is not sufficient evidence. I find it bizarre, but I suppose that’s just the way people are. But let’s be clear–anyone who denies the overwhelming scientific evidence is in no position to comment on efforts to fight climate change.
Offsets are for people who want to make a difference. For this reason, I think Drama 2.0’s concerns are the most serious. Are offsets a “moral hazard”? That depends on what you think would happen if they didn’t exist. If you think that people would continue to do nothing about their CO2 emissions, then obviously buying offsets is better than nothing. If you think people would stop flying, or would buy a more efficient car, or would retrofit their homes for energy efficiency and renewable energy, then there is some danger that offering them the opportunity to offset will defer these initiatives. But notice that the risk here is posed by the possibility that people would want to do more. There is always the possibility that people might want to do less–and if offsetting were to disappear overnight, the temptation to do less will still exist, in the form of doing nothing at all. And if people want to do more, offsetting complements their efforts, rather than distracting them from them.
But let’s be fair. No one is saying that offsetting is going to save the world. All anyone is saying is that offsetting a) helps price the environment into our transactions and b) helps aggregate small streams of money to finance projects to fight climate change. It’s one step towards making a real difference, not a complete revolution. Finally, offsets have to added benefit of provoking debate, so that untenable beliefs, like the myth of the ongoing “debate” over climate change, can be aired and dispatched.
I designed & my husband built a passive solar heated home in 1981 (2 wall envelope design)on a 63 acre property with 55 acres of presettlement forest and a spring-fed, fast flowing stream. We pay to design & have a forest management plan, yet we still pay municipal taxes on the forested area. We maintain that forest at our own expense as we realize the environmental impact from 55 acres of solid bush on the air quality and habitat of local wildlife (I mean the animals). We are in the hills north of the moraine just northeast of Toronto and are in part of the last area of good agricultural land that has not been eaten up by extensive housing development. I believe every builder should be forced to use land and plans that do not jeopardize the environment or our ability to feed ourselves. Our politicians are easily bought off and quickly overlook official plans that are supposed to promote sustainable development. I do not see how any carbon credits whould support any of the above.
@Nick Garrison
First I didn’t see you directly answer Cory’s question in regards how much of the CO2 in the air humans are responsible for. To clarify you stated:
“As for your question as to the percentage of atmospheric CO2 attributable to humans, the answer is about half (atmospheric concentrations have roughly doubled since the Industrial Revolution).”
This by no means convicts mankind for be responsible for that increase. For example this increase could have been caused by a increase in volcanic activity or wildfires. Is there any evidence beyond “atmospheric concentrations have roughly doubled since the Industrial Revolution” that would directly link mankind to these increases?
Nuclear explosions during testing cause serious reverberations through the earth’s mantle. What scientific evidence can we draw from that? Nuclear explosions are not natural….they are manmade. For every infraction mankind makes on nature, we all pay a serious price. That includes extraction of coal & oil & their burning as fuels, the removal of gravel from our moraines (part of a natural filtration system for potable water drawn from inland locations), and the clearing of forests to create development. Where I live, long ago, past, indiscriminate deforestation meant large tracts of blow sand were exposed, seriously disappointing settlers who had thought they could farm there. From our history and today’s science wouldn’t you think we could at least admit we should all try to do better for the future on earth? I firmly believe the country that protects its fresh water supply has the best insight as to what is valuable…far more valuable than any fossil fuel.
Framed Contention: Speculations on the dichotomy of the sustainability of the current free market economy versus the creation of a free market economy sustainable with Nature?
Good site, respect.
Good site.
Excellent article - it is a great primer in carbon offsets. What still amazes me is the few commenters on this list that believe that carbon offsets and to a bigger extend global warming is a “sham” and “snake oil.” I feel for their grandkids.
Hey - why are the newest posts last on the list. I would think that you could reverse the order so I don’t have to scroll all the way to the bottom to see the latest comments. Thanks for listening.
@ John thanks for the http://www.co2logic.com website it is fab. I offset my last flight to the USA.
just like to say you all go on bout it but what do we have to do! like really! everybody knows what they have to do personally but locally nationaly and globally nobody know what to do! so i surgest all u guys go join some big group sign like 10 tousand names take it to the mayor or something tell him to do something god LESS complain more WORKING TOGETHER