FOXe's Blog

There are a couple of ways to look at a carbon offset. First, the positive. I try to always start out positive. For corporations that have done everything they can to reduce carbon emissions, but still want to do more, this might be the way to go. If there just isn't any other feasible way for the business to continue to be profitable while cutting back even more on carbon emissions, buying offsets will at least send money to help fix the environment it is endangering. Of course, families can do this as well, but how many can actually afford to buy offsets. We know the former veep Al Gore is doing it. We also know he has oodles of money. We also know he jets around the country talking about reducing carbon, but I digress.

Now, the cynical side. Isn't this just a way to make ourselves feel better? I mean, if you are still driving a gas-guzzler, jetting around the country, cranking up the air conditioning, doing laundry in the middle of a hot day, leaving the lights on, charging cell phones constantly, and all those other things we are supposed to cut back on, but you buy offsets, is it o.k.? Sure, you are sending money to some organization that you hope is using the money for the environment, but aren't you still sending those carbon emissions into the air? Of course you are! Perhaps you feel better about it by sending out the money, but you have still done the damage. Better to just cut back on your emissions in the first place. The average family is not going to be carbon neutral. We depend way too much on electricity to ever be carbon neutral. Offset

KEVIN I ONCE HEARD THE ONLY REASON CARS HAVE A CAT CONVERTOR IS BECAUSE THE CAR MAKER TRY TO LOWER EMISSIONS THAT THEY CAUSE A NEW GAS. IS THIS TRUE

Not sure about that, rudym. However, I understand the cynicism that we all feel at times toward industry. This will kind of go along with what you are saying, Christine.

We have a local utility company here that is offering the opportunity for customers to purchase a portion of electricity from renewable sources, such as wind. My problem, and here is the cynicism, is that I don't know how we will ever know the utility company is actually buying the electricity from a renewable source. Further, the renewable power is at a higher cost. Last I checked, windmills require little manpower, and the wind is free. I like the idea, but there is, as of now, no accountability.

Which came first? The supply or the demand? I find it ironic that it is the responsibility of consumers to police the various industries and corporations that create the products that increase carbon emissions. It is doubly ironic when you consider that it is our very own elected government (you know, the people who are supposed to be protecting us) that allow industries like the automobile industry to create products that are harmful to our environment. Why would they do this? Hmmm, could it possibly have something to do with money in the form of political contributions? No, of course not!
I truly believe that the only way we will change the amount of carbon emissions is to change the economy first. As long as profit is rewarded over good behavior we will not see a significant reduction in emissions. I don't mean to sound cynical, but I am really tired of all of the rhetoric about the environment when any clear thinking person can determine that it is mostly talk. Granted, there are baby steps being taken like the ones you mentioned and they are good, just not good enough.


Daniel