Comments on: A Startup That Fights Global Warming

By: Blueday.org- A blue ray telescope in to the Internet world » Environment: Carbon Reduction Startup Toronto

Sun, 06 Jul 2008 13:48:21 +0000

[...] 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. Via TechCrunch [...]

By: Waste Management Launches a Social Network

Waste Management Launches a Social Network — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 21:16:43 +0000

[...] anything else. So in a way, it’s like an advertisement. See ZeroFootprint, a Canadian company we’ve covered that also creates local social networks around carbon offsetting in partnership with [...]

By: www.ubraniaroxy.pl » Blog Archive » Ecocho Means Well, I’m Sure

www.ubraniaroxy.pl » Blog Archive » Ecocho Means Well, I’m Sure — Mon, 21 Apr 2008 19:53:39 +0000

[...] They’re a bit unclear on the exact payoff, saying only that “up to two trees” will be sponsored for every 1,000 searches on the site. The cynical side of me notes that zero trees is within the definition of “up to two,” but I’ll give them the benefit of the doubt. Plus they do say they aim to donate 70% of revenues to carbon offsets. And even though the carbon offset system is flawed in many ways, I’m supportive of it in general and we tend to offset our events through Zero Footprint. [...]

By: Ecocho Means Well, I’m Sure

Ecocho Means Well, I’m Sure — Wed, 16 Apr 2008 07:21:54 +0000

By: Greentech Media: Green Light » Blog Archive » The Morning Feedstock

Greentech Media: Green Light » Blog Archive » The Morning Feedstock — Wed, 05 Mar 2008 14:30:35 +0000

[...] The company, which traps methane from Chinese coal mines, is the latest in a line of recent carbon offsetting and trading companies to form or receive funding over the last few months. The difference between [...]

By: » links for 2007-07-18 « marksdigital

» links for 2007-07-18 « marksdigital — Thu, 17 Jan 2008 21:45:19 +0000

[...] A Startup That Fights Global Warming (tags: environment green) [...]

By: Jake Budding age 13

Jake Budding age 13 — Mon, 25 Jun 2007 10:43:40 +0000

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

By: James

James — Sat, 23 Jun 2007 12:42:19 +0000

@ John thanks for the http://www.co2logic.com website it is fab. I offset my last flight to the USA.

By: Down On The Urban Farm

Down On The Urban Farm — Sat, 16 Jun 2007 19:51:47 +0000

Tech Crunch Talks Carbon Trading…

This is a good primer article on carbon trading with some links to organizations that are educating about carbon trading. The post gives us links to three organizations: Zerofootprint, TerraPass and Native Energy that have Carbon Offset certificates av…

By: Greg Peterson

Greg Peterson — Thu, 14 Jun 2007 13:34:20 +0000

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.

By: Blue flower

Blue flower — Wed, 13 Jun 2007 22:25:02 +0000

Good site.

By: Simple Green

Simple Green — Wed, 13 Jun 2007 15:43:36 +0000

Good site, respect.

By: Zerofootprint: save the planet, impress attractive hippies »Technology News | Venture Capital, Startups, Silicon Valley, Web 2.0 Tech

Sun, 10 Jun 2007 22:33:03 +0000

[...] Read | Permalink | Email this | Comments [...]

By: Leszek

Leszek — Sun, 10 Jun 2007 22:26:04 +0000

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?

By: Anne Holmes

Anne Holmes — Fri, 08 Jun 2007 19:09:40 +0000

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.

By: Zerofootprint Gets Nod From TechCrunch - Environmental Leader

Zerofootprint Gets Nod From TechCrunch - Environmental Leader — Fri, 08 Jun 2007 16:36:09 +0000

[...] has an interesting story on Zerofootprint, a Canadian not-for-profit that helps businesses and consumers cut their carbon [...]

By: David

David — Thu, 07 Jun 2007 21:16:34 +0000

@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?

By: Anne Holmes

Anne Holmes — Thu, 07 Jun 2007 16:17:59 +0000

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.

By: Nick Garrison

Nick Garrison — Thu, 07 Jun 2007 16:09:14 +0000

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.

By: Joantxo Llantada

Joantxo Llantada — Thu, 07 Jun 2007 15:39:02 +0000

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

By: Matthieu Riou

Matthieu Riou — Thu, 07 Jun 2007 14:27:27 +0000

@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/

By: JT

JT — Thu, 07 Jun 2007 12:45:13 +0000

Want to reduce your carbon footprint? kill yourself. After all, we are all carbon based lifeforms.

By: Brent

Brent — Thu, 07 Jun 2007 08:28:11 +0000

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.

By: Cory

Cory — Thu, 07 Jun 2007 04:46:22 +0000

@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.

By: Matthieu Riou

Matthieu Riou — Thu, 07 Jun 2007 03:38:06 +0000

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.