A Startup That Fights Global Warming

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.wikimedia.org/wi.....ioxide.png
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFoss.....age277.gif
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wi.....e-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.sustainabletravelinternational.org/). They are currently partnered with Continental Airlines (http://www.continental.com/web/en-US/apps/vendors/default.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.wikimedia.org/wi…..ioxide.png

Ergo, carbon offsets are a sham.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wi.....ioxide.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.scenewon.co.uk/scen.....?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.

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