Comments on: David on Carbon Offsets http://valueandveracity.com/2008/05/27/david-on-carbon-offsets/ comments on economics, policy, and philosophy Wed, 08 Sep 2010 05:27:03 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.1 By: Jamie http://valueandveracity.com/2008/05/27/david-on-carbon-offsets/#comment-35 Jamie Mon, 30 Jun 2008 09:56:40 +0000 http://valueandveracity.com/?p=21#comment-35 My very general and simplistic response to a detailed discussion, but it seems to be that single solution = bad, many solutions = good. My very general and simplistic response to a detailed discussion, but it seems to be that single solution = bad, many solutions = good.

]]> By: David http://valueandveracity.com/2008/05/27/david-on-carbon-offsets/#comment-32 David Mon, 02 Jun 2008 20:26:10 +0000 http://valueandveracity.com/?p=21#comment-32 Sed, I'm sorry you feel that I have a "holier-than-thou" attitude when it comes to environmentalism. I truly do try hard not to, because I have certainly not been a very good environmentalist for most of my life and I remember how easy it is not to be conscious about environmental issues. I don't think I'm as extreme as many environmentalists: those who demand that the only solution is for individuals in the western world to drastically change their lifestyles. I do small things like take segmented showers because they give me personal satisfaction, not because I think I'm making a huge impact. It's also not at all a sacrifice for me so it's hardly flagrantly penitent... But you're wrong that one solution to climate change is that everybody purchase their own carbon neutrality. Paul, on the other hand, is right on about that issue. The amount of headway that we can make into solving the problem by means of carbon offset-type projects is fairly minimal. And since western consumers largely set the standard that many people strive to reach with their lifestyles and standard of living, without changing our own lifestyles we won't be sending the right message to those who emulate our ways of life or the industries and governments that heed our consumer and political choices. There are billions of people who resent the fact that we're asking them to live minimally because we've lived so extravagantly, so how do you think they'll feel when we say that we're still not willing to change our ways? They also won't be so happy when you congratulate them for finally reaching a level of prosperity where they can afford a car, but that if they want to drive it they’ll have to pay for carbon offsets also. We’ll also see if you can still afford your own carbon offsets at that point, when the market for renewables is so saturated that you’ll be subsidizing prototype fusion power plants since that will be the only solution substantial enough to provide for the unsustainable lifestyles of ten billion people. Unfortunately, Sed, you’re the reason why Carbon Fund will only charge you $10 to offset a roundtrip flight from coast-to-coast. I trust, though, that there are enough people out there currently who are willing to make the right decisions here and there to signal our government that the time is right to take bold steps in the direction of achieving sustainability. I trust that a new administration will make the necessary changes that you’re not willing to make. Sed,
I’m sorry you feel that I have a “holier-than-thou” attitude when it comes to environmentalism. I truly do try hard not to, because I have certainly not been a very good environmentalist for most of my life and I remember how easy it is not to be conscious about environmental issues. I don’t think I’m as extreme as many environmentalists: those who demand that the only solution is for individuals in the western world to drastically change their lifestyles. I do small things like take segmented showers because they give me personal satisfaction, not because I think I’m making a huge impact. It’s also not at all a sacrifice for me so it’s hardly flagrantly penitent… But you’re wrong that one solution to climate change is that everybody purchase their own carbon neutrality.
Paul, on the other hand, is right on about that issue. The amount of headway that we can make into solving the problem by means of carbon offset-type projects is fairly minimal. And since western consumers largely set the standard that many people strive to reach with their lifestyles and standard of living, without changing our own lifestyles we won’t be sending the right message to those who emulate our ways of life or the industries and governments that heed our consumer and political choices. There are billions of people who resent the fact that we’re asking them to live minimally because we’ve lived so extravagantly, so how do you think they’ll feel when we say that we’re still not willing to change our ways? They also won’t be so happy when you congratulate them for finally reaching a level of prosperity where they can afford a car, but that if they want to drive it they’ll have to pay for carbon offsets also. We’ll also see if you can still afford your own carbon offsets at that point, when the market for renewables is so saturated that you’ll be subsidizing prototype fusion power plants since that will be the only solution substantial enough to provide for the unsustainable lifestyles of ten billion people.
Unfortunately, Sed, you’re the reason why Carbon Fund will only charge you $10 to offset a roundtrip flight from coast-to-coast. I trust, though, that there are enough people out there currently who are willing to make the right decisions here and there to signal our government that the time is right to take bold steps in the direction of achieving sustainability. I trust that a new administration will make the necessary changes that you’re not willing to make.

]]> By: ptscott http://valueandveracity.com/2008/05/27/david-on-carbon-offsets/#comment-31 ptscott Mon, 02 Jun 2008 05:43:32 +0000 http://valueandveracity.com/?p=21#comment-31 thanks for the comment, sed. I think David's claim that there is a limit to the amount of available offsets may be sound. The $10 (or $80 even) price to offset a seat of a round trip East coast-West coast flight certainly represents the cost of "low-hanging fruit" when it comes to offsets, and we're talking REALLY low hanging at this point. If everybody was to pay the price of offsetting their flights, there's no way we could find such cheap reactive opportunities. The price would have to go up by orders of magnitude, and we're still only talking about one major source of emissions. So probably we simply can't plant enough trees or sequester enough carbon or whatever to offset the current level of emissions to what would be a sustainable level. But maybe when we consider "proactive" opportunities as you propose, it will be enough. I don't know; I don't think anybody does. Is it "short-sighted" to doubt that financial investments will be enough? I think it's unclear what to expect, and in the face of uncertainty, I think we ought to cover our bases by reducing emissions in every way we can, and lifestyle change is one such opportunity. "Moreover, belittling several hundred dollars of contribution due to someone’s destructive lifestyle is antithetical to environmentalism and hypocritical at best." Really, "belittling"? I don't think David is so hard, but ... I am sympathetic to the idea that there are sociopolitical reasons why "moralizing" environmental issues is counterproductive. Sounds like what those "Death of Environmentalism" guys had in mind (http://www.grist.org/news/maindish/2005/01/13/doe-intro/). I'd really like to see these sorts of arguments put forth more rigorously somewhere because I, too, have felt substantial ennui when it comes to moral debates concerning the environment. But it's a hard argument to make. For instance, I agree that increasing personal responsibility isn't enough to save the world - we need substantially improved international cooperation in policy making and increased investment in R&D of sustainable technologies - but why are these goals incongruent? thanks for the comment, sed.

I think David’s claim that there is a limit to the amount of available offsets may be sound. The $10 (or $80 even) price to offset a seat of a round trip East coast-West coast flight certainly represents the cost of “low-hanging fruit” when it comes to offsets, and we’re talking REALLY low hanging at this point. If everybody was to pay the price of offsetting their flights, there’s no way we could find such cheap reactive opportunities. The price would have to go up by orders of magnitude, and we’re still only talking about one major source of emissions.

So probably we simply can’t plant enough trees or sequester enough carbon or whatever to offset the current level of emissions to what would be a sustainable level. But maybe when we consider “proactive” opportunities as you propose, it will be enough. I don’t know; I don’t think anybody does. Is it “short-sighted” to doubt that financial investments will be enough? I think it’s unclear what to expect, and in the face of uncertainty, I think we ought to cover our bases by reducing emissions in every way we can, and lifestyle change is one such opportunity.

“Moreover, belittling several hundred dollars of contribution due to someone’s destructive lifestyle is antithetical to environmentalism and hypocritical at best.” Really, “belittling”? I don’t think David is so hard, but …

I am sympathetic to the idea that there are sociopolitical reasons why “moralizing” environmental issues is counterproductive. Sounds like what those “Death of Environmentalism” guys had in mind (http://www.grist.org/news/maindish/2005/01/13/doe-intro/). I’d really like to see these sorts of arguments put forth more rigorously somewhere because I, too, have felt substantial ennui when it comes to moral debates concerning the environment. But it’s a hard argument to make. For instance, I agree that increasing personal responsibility isn’t enough to save the world - we need substantially improved international cooperation in policy making and increased investment in R&D of sustainable technologies - but why are these goals incongruent?

]]> By: SED http://valueandveracity.com/2008/05/27/david-on-carbon-offsets/#comment-30 SED Mon, 02 Jun 2008 04:11:25 +0000 http://valueandveracity.com/?p=21#comment-30 David, "If everybody decided to just maintain a destructive lifestyle and pay a couple hundred dollars every year to call themselves carbon neutral, there wouldn’t be enough offsets to go around and we wouldn’t be really solving the problem." You seem to scold people in your tirade who hope to pay a price to offset their carbon emissions without major changes in their lifestyle. Is that not exactly what you are doing? You're flying across the country and back and you're paying $80 to offset that carbon use. Isn't that what everyone should/could do? If enough people paid a few hundred dollars each year to offset some (or even part) of their carbon footprint, then everything would be great! That sort of behavior is a goal. Environmentalists such as yourself grimace at the thought of purchasing of a 'green future'--when in fact it is really the only truly viable option--and bemoan others who hope to 'buy' a clean conscience. It is completely short-sighted to think that all of the offsets can/would be used up. More money from more people means the availability of more offsets, period. Perhaps these offsets will not be simply reactionary (clean-up) but also proactive (tech-development, etc). Moreover, belittling several hundred dollars of contribution due to someone's destructive lifestyle is antithetical to environmentalism and hypocritical at best. You seem well-trenched in the idea that environmentalism is "supposed to hurt a little bit," when you tout "segmented showers" to reduce hot water usage. That seems flagrantly penitent and relatively futile. You live in a building with shared hot water heaters--you save mere gallons of hot water. This painful and expensive environmentalism that you practice seems the only effective means by your standards. Personally, I'd rather someone flew a few times a year, donated a hundred bucks to whatever fucking carbon sequestering NPO they wanted, and lived a life with (1) hot-showers or other penitence, (2) a clean conscience, and (3) no 'holier-than-thou' attitude about environmental impact. David--you're the problem. The only differences between you and the people you condemn are your cold showers and scolding tone. You make it seem like people's contributions aren't effective or worthwhile unless they are penitent and experience hardship. Keep thinking like this and you'll see the ship of environmentalism sink to the bottom, captain and all. The first lines of defense when it comes to environmentalism is producing a means to 'green' that appeals to people who aren't masochistic or feeling guilty. sed PS Don't split infinitives. David,

“If everybody decided to just maintain a destructive lifestyle and pay a couple hundred dollars every year to call themselves carbon neutral, there wouldn’t be enough offsets to go around and we wouldn’t be really solving the problem.”

You seem to scold people in your tirade who hope to pay a price to offset their carbon emissions without major changes in their lifestyle. Is that not exactly what you are doing? You’re flying across the country and back and you’re paying $80 to offset that carbon use.

Isn’t that what everyone should/could do? If enough people paid a few hundred dollars each year to offset some (or even part) of their carbon footprint, then everything would be great! That sort of behavior is a goal. Environmentalists such as yourself grimace at the thought of purchasing of a ‘green future’–when in fact it is really the only truly viable option–and bemoan others who hope to ‘buy’ a clean conscience. It is completely short-sighted to think that all of the offsets can/would be used up. More money from more people means the availability of more offsets, period. Perhaps these offsets will not be simply reactionary (clean-up) but also proactive (tech-development, etc). Moreover, belittling several hundred dollars of contribution due to someone’s destructive lifestyle is antithetical to environmentalism and hypocritical at best.

You seem well-trenched in the idea that environmentalism is
“supposed to hurt a little bit,” when you tout “segmented showers” to reduce hot water usage. That seems flagrantly penitent and relatively futile. You live in a building with shared hot water heaters–you save mere gallons of hot water.

This painful and expensive environmentalism that you practice seems the only effective means by your standards.

Personally, I’d rather someone flew a few times a year, donated a hundred bucks to whatever fucking carbon sequestering NPO they wanted, and lived a life with (1) hot-showers or other penitence, (2) a clean conscience, and (3) no ‘holier-than-thou’ attitude about environmental impact.

David–you’re the problem. The only differences between you and the people you condemn are your cold showers and scolding tone. You make it seem like people’s contributions aren’t effective or worthwhile unless they are penitent and experience hardship. Keep thinking like this and you’ll see the ship of environmentalism sink to the bottom, captain and all. The first lines of defense when it comes to environmentalism is producing a means to ‘green’ that appeals to people who aren’t masochistic or feeling guilty.

sed

PS Don’t split infinitives.

]]>