So my advice would be that they should be more transparent, also about the results, what they do … and then it can be a real good start.

Let’s put some of this energy toward initiatives with some real substance. Our planet and species need the assist.

a little light reading about the halt and the owner, who seems shady anyway

Who owns the website and what relationship does it have to advertising company Found Agency?

Doesn’t soliciting people to use your Goodle Adsense site constitute a breach of the Google Adsense policy? https://www.google.com/adsense/support/bin/answer.py?answer=48182&topic=8423

You guys have, quite fairly, been stating your concerns and views on the site and we really welcome this feedback. We really want to address the issues you’ve raised and also to chip in our thoughts.

Some of you have made the valid point of questioning whether carbon offsets are the answer, rather than green technology investment. (There’s also the issue of getting people to consume less and actually make a smaller impact on the environment in the first place.) We actually do intend to invest in other avenues but we saw offsets as a good place to start. Our first goal is/ was to create a buzz and raise awareness - because we know that carbon offsets are a temporary solution rather than a permanent fix. Unfortunately, finding the “right” credible alternative technology scheme to fund is not our immediate field of expertise, and after consulting a range of experts in the field, our advice was that offsets were a good interim measure. We also wanted to only use Government-run schemes, and to involve a respected auditor (KPMG), to put some credibility and independence behind our process.

For us, ecocho is a start; a means for everyday people to make a really small but beneficial switch that takes very little initial effort. Everybody on the internet uses web search, so we felt that this would be a potentially powerful way to involve everyone to do “a bit” - particularly those that feel they can do nothing without ‘expert’ knowledge. We want to challenge the elitist idea that only millionaire philanthropists and authorities on global warming can get involved. Unless we start to include everyone by relating change to something everybody knows, most people will continue to think that they can do little.

I’ve read that many people have questioned our policy of allowing 30% of revenue to cover running costs, but how sustainable would this project be if we didn’t? We hope that this site will be successful long term, so that we can plant a great number of trees and further down the track invest significantly in other projects that show significant promise. But we have to be realistic; we have to allow for our running costs to make this project work.

We’ve had a massive amount of positive input and support from everyday users and we really, really have appreciated that. In fact, we’ve been overwhelmed! However for those of you that are asking big questions, we don’t want to hide behind anything - we are just a small team of guys, there’s only a few of us and we are all hopeful that ecocho can make a positive impact and involve everyone - not just policy makers.

We want to hear feedback - good and bad - and we hope to respond to all issues people have.

Thanks for reading,

Alex
Ecocho

If I read the graphic right randy posted here, it shows the last 500 million years of CO2 quantenary average. If so, the funny thing is, that humans seem to be around on this planet since 160,000 years. I cannot see the point of the graphic then. It does not say anything about carbon doxide and it s concentration on earth in a relevant period of time.
“[...]what year on this graph they desire to be THE everlasting, eternal concentration of CO2 on Earth[...]” LOL!!!

I think no scientist has a doubt about changes in the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere. And there are many causes. One might be burning fossil energy sources. You cannot deny that CO2 is set off by doing so.

Even if carbon dioxide would not be a main reason for global warming, it does seem to get warmer and warmer. Now. So, what ever the reason for this is, we have some problems with the environment. I guess it would be reasonable to quit hanging on to theories of conspiracy and become a bit more open minded to the fact that rapid changes of environmental conditions are critical to human societies and economies.

I do agree that the earth warms and cools naturally. But I do think that mankind has an effect on concentration of gases in the atmosphere just by existing in present state. And concentration of several gases in the atmosphere has an effect on global warming (or cooling).

#22: (-:

One way to prove your argument that C02 is Not a pollutant, and therefore could Not be contributing to global warming, is to seal yourself into your gargage and keep the engine running on your car or truck.

Before you do you might want to actually read the definition of ‘pollutant’:

“Pollution, in one sense, is the introduction of contaminants into an environment, of whatever predetermined or agreed upon proportions or frame of reference, that causes instability, disorder, harm or discomfort to the physical systems or living organisms therein.[1] “Pollution can be in the form of chemical substances, or energy such as noise, heat, or light. Pollutants can be naturally occurring substances or energies, but are considered contaminants when in excess of natural levels.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pollutant

Carbon offsets are a SHAM, because Carbon Dioxide is NOT a pollutant.

“Human-caused Global warming” is an absolute HOAX.

Not only are we in the midst of a declining ice age (which peaked just 12,500 years ago), but just the very stipulation that carbon dioxide is “pollution” to begin with is absolutely hysterical! Carbon dioxide, like water, is an essential ingredient for life. Our atmosphere’s concentration of Carbon Dioxide has throughout history varied INSANELY! We’ve experienced thousands of periods, some millions of years long, where CO2 and temperature variability was jaw-droppingly greater than the measly 150 ppmv and 0.5deg we are experiencing now!

http://tinyurl.com/39gnm4

What is What is an “excess” of CO2? What year does one declare to behold the baseline concentration beyond which any additional quantity is “excess”? LOL, it’s ridiculous! Carbon Dioxide should no more be considered “pollution” that an “excess” of raindrops on a rainy day!

Before we submit ourselves to the cost and insecurity of ANY globalwarmingists’ anti-CO2 agenda, we need to DEMAND that these people declare first exactly what year on this graph they desire to be THE everlasting, eternal concentration of CO2 on Earth:

http://tinyurl.com/39gnm4

That’s right, we have them do it right up front, BEFORE carbon caps are “LAW”!

Carbon Credits are a SHAM! Pollution from REAL atmospheric contaminants — such as sulfur dioxide, nasty free radicals, and industrial particulate (crap that ACTUALLY DOES make people sick) is NOT ameliorated by “Carbon Credits”, OR hiking CAFE standards (yet again), or any other of these ridiculous, politically-motivated anti-carbon tax/profit schemes.

All you people who elect globalwarmingists into government, and willingly pay more for services like advertising as demonstrated here, what the hell do you think is the result? A cooler planet? LOL! Get out of here! The planet continues on its path (cooling or warming, who can tell?) UNCHANGED IN THE SLIGHTEST.

Here is the real result: WE PAY more for the things we buy, WE PAY MORE in taxes, and the GOVERNMENT squanders it all on social dependency programs.

Meanwhile Earth continues to WARM and COOL naturally — continues its natural tendencies; deep ice ages followed by periods of undulating warmth that have existed peacefully on this beautiful planet for all of eternity.

And after your email-sig-print post… I thought you were greenie bashing. While green washing and green pimps need to be called-out, truth is pro-green propaganda is still better than the alternative.

Funny(”flaw”), though, how ‘Zero Discharge’ morphed into ‘Zero Footprint’ … where you discharge, then ‘offset’.