Carbon offsetting provokes a powerful emotional response in some people. They just don't like the idea that you can pay someone else to mop up your carbon emissions. It smacks of indulgence and cheating. Critics say buying an offset while continuing to fly, or drive an SUV, or live in a mansion with all the lights on, is at best hypocritical, and at worst, downright dangerous. It simply avoids the issue, which is that we should be reducing our carbon footprint, and simply encourages the delusion that we can go on living in an environmentally profligate way.
Some even compare offsetting with the Papal indulgences of the late Middle Ages, where Catholics were offered redemptions for their sins in return for donations to the Church - buying their way out of punishment for wrongdoing. Critics say this is exactly what modern-day carbon offsetters are trying to do. They think money will buy them a clear conscience while they continue to fill the sky with fumes.
Certain high profile stories, mainly about celebrities trying to offset carbon-intensive lifestyles, give credence to the criticisms, but it is far from the whole picture. Offsetting is something that is practiced by thousands of individuals and organizations who are neither hypocritical or delusional. Let's look at the argument more closely.
First, let's acknowledge that our number one priority must be to reduce our carbon output in every way possible - switching to a renewable energy supplier, insulating our homes, driving less, etc. But let's also acknowledge that even if this is done with the best intentions in the world, most of us will reach a point where we cannot easily, or perhaps affordably, do much more in the short term. Few of us have lived our lives entirely by environmental priorities, and most of us have woken up to climate change at a point where we inhabit houses or offices, or own cars, or hold down jobs that were never designed with carbon neutrality in mind.
Even if we take whatever steps we can to reduce, recycle and reuse now, and make a commitment that our next car will run on biofuel and that we will fit solar panels to our house, etc., most individuals or organizations endeavoring to go carbon neutral will be left with a residue of current emissions. Now we have two choices - we can ignore them or we can offset.
Ignoring them might avoid having to think through the ethical issues around offsetting, but it is not going to help the planet. On the other hand, offsetting them will ensure that as long as we continue to produce emissions, they will be counterbalanced by a saving or sequestering somewhere else. It is the environmentally responsible thing to do.
We've been talking about the residual emissions left after taking a reduction strategy as far as we can. Now let's go back to the case of the pop star or movie actor who appears to have no immediate intention of giving up flying, or selling their SUV, but who decides to offset. On the one hand, we could cry, 'Hypocrite!' and denounce them for trying to buy environmental redemption. Or we could recognize that they have at least acknowledged that their lifestyle has an environmental price. For the wealthy, this price is relatively trivial at the moment if they are simply accounting for their flying or driving, but it is the start of a cultural process - a process of accepting the cost to the planet of our actions, and building this into our economy.
Over time, the cost of carbon will rise and will be factored into all the products and services we consume, and this will begin to have greater impact on our behaviour as the price differential between our old habits and a new greener lifestyle increases. Celebrities have a part to play in highlighting issues such as climate change, and in endorsing the concept that we must pay for our impact on the planet.
We need to be realistic too. Many people are going to continue to take long-haul holiday flights, drive SUVs and run high energy households no matter what anybody says. The process of persuasion and change will be slow. Denouncing people for taking a step towards environmental awareness and carbon neutrality is counterproductive. It will discourage positive action, and polarise the debate. We should be trying to move people on in their environmental thinking, not alienate them.
Some individuals and organisations will no doubt abuse offsetting in order to indulge environmentally irresponsible behaviour, but to condemn all offsetting on this basis is to overlook the best intentions and goodwill of the majority who participate. We are all trying to find a way forward with global warming. We know it will take a combination of many individual, community, corporate, government and international efforts. Offsetting has a role to play. It is empowering at the individual level. And, unlike the Papal indulgences of the past, offsetting can have a real effect in reducing the carbon levels in our atmosphere, and slowing the pace of climate change.
Effects Of Carbon Emissions
The U.S. EPA and other international government agencies have stated that carbon dioxide is a great danger to the health of the public in general and will be strictly regulated in the near future. A measuring, managing, and mitigating greenhouse gas emission places the foundation for future carbon emissions trading schemes within the United States.
Around the country a comprehensive initiative, which includes mandatory carbon emissions reporting has been introduced by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) with the intention of controlling carbon dioxide (CO2) and greenhouse gases (GHGs) that have an effect on global climate change. Unfortunately, some substances like refrigerant gases not only have high global warming potential but they also destroy the ozone layer when emitted into the atmosphere.
The U.S. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), working in cooperation with many international governments, reiterate a common message related to the dangers of carbon emissions. CO2 and its unrestricted use will only lead to more environmental damage therefor more regulations will continue to limit carbon emissions in the future. A measuring, managing, and mitigating greenhouse gas emission places the foundation for future carbon emissions trading schemes within the United States. The European Union has worked on carbon emissions reductions as part of The Kyoto Protocol for a number of years. Later in 2009, the world leaders will meet again to hammer out details for the successor to The Kyoto Protocol. The U.S. under leadership form President Obama plan to be active participants.
As part of the draft greenhouse gas (GHG) regulations, any organization that uses refrigerant gases or other regulated substances would be required to comply with mandatory carbon emissions reporting. In addition to refrigerant gases, the following 6 chemical compounds all factor into a comprehensive carbon accounting. The Kyoto Protocol establishes legally binding commitments for the reduction of four greenhouse gases; carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), sulphur hexafluoride (SF6), and two groups of refrigerant gases; hydrofluorocarbons (CFCs) and perfluorocarbons (PFC.)
Refrigerant gases are known to affect the atmosphere and contribute to global warming. Numerous gases are listed in the EPA regulations including nitrous oxide, methane, carbon dioxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, nitrogen trifluoride, and ethers. These substances are important to track in relation to existing regulations such as The Montreal Protocol and are partially covered under the proposed mandatory greenhouse gas (GHG) reporting regulations.
The EPA's mandatory carbon emissions reporting plan comes into effect in 2010. Companies must file a first report in 2011 covering the previous year. These requirements cover those facilities with HVAC systems, refrigeration and AC systems, companies that make industrial chemicals, as well as fossil fuels, engines and automobiles. The following chemicals used in these industries have been identified as causing harm to the environment: chlorofluorocarbons, hydrofluorocarbons, halons, methyl chloroform, chlorine, fluorine, bromine and carbon tetrachloride amongst others.
The U.S. Clean Air Act, in addition to the mandatory emissions reporting by amounts, calls for the facilities and municipalities alike to monitor and track and subsequently report harmful substances, such as refrigerant gases that are in common use. Organizations that either cannot comply or choose to not follow the environmental regulations will be fined by the EPA. On top of regulatory fines, companies may experience a financial loss when they are required to buy carbon credits to meet the cap requirements.
A business can address mandatory carbon emissions reporting in two ways. Monitoring and tracking can be handled manually and the reports completed by hand. However this approach can be very time-consuming and error-prone, and many will opt to use a software program or a web-based application to automatically handle the monitoring and tracking requirements of greenhouse gases (GHGs). Automation helps to ensure that reports are accurate and timely. Service automation or CMMS systems can lead the way to effective company operations. It is more efficient to maintain assets at optimal working conditions and collect relevant carbon related emissions data across distributed enterprises or systems.
Mandatory carbon emissions reporting will definitely lower this country's greenhouse gas emissions. The government has said that 13,000 facilities are responsible for between 85 and 90% of the harmful substances in the air.
The U.S., by enacting a carbon emissions management, tracking, and reporting protocol, helps to educate and lead organizations of all sizes down a path that will lower overall carbon emissions. This will help reduce global warming, tighten the efficiencies of many organizations, and ultimately lead to a more sustainable future. This initiative is being repeated at various locations worldwide with the aim of addressing climate change head on - in as straightforward of a manner with immediate financial incentives to drive rapid and economy wide adoption of carbon reduction and market-based trading.
Both James Nash & Daniel Stouffer are contributors for EditorialToday. The above articles have been edited for relevancy and timeliness. All write-ups, reviews, tips and guides published by EditorialToday.com and its partners or affiliates are for informational purposes only. They should not be used for any legal or any other type of advice. We do not endorse any author, contributor, writer or article posted by our team.
James Nash has sinced written about articles on various topics from Environment, Painting and Environment. James Nash is a climate scientist with Greatest Planet (). Greatest Planet is a non-profit environmental organization specialising in carb. James Nash's top article generates over 368000 views. to your Favourites.
Daniel Stouffer has sinced written about articles on various topics from Blogging, Health and Entrepreneurship. To learn more effective refrigerant management tactics and the tools that support them, you can contact Daniel Stouffer, the Product Manager for Refrigerant Tracker. This web-based software makes it easy to monitor, manage, and report refrigerant gas usag. Daniel Stouffer's top article generates over 27100 views. to your Favourites.
Commercial Business Liability Insurance Make sure to compare rate of interests of different lenders providing online commercial business loans for a beneficial deal. And pay off the loan in time for avoiding debts