British Airways gave us the option of paying extra for carbon credits to make up for our air travel. We didn’t take them up on the offer.
There are a number of reasons why I feel carbon offsetting is a bad thing. The first is that by removing the guilt, it encourages people to continue a profligate lifestyle, rather than actually changing their behavior.
For example, if Al Gore genuinely gave a crap about the environment, he would stop flying by private jet so much. But no, he’s rich and can simply buy carbon credits to salve his conscience. Similarly, John Edwards will happily lecture to ordinary people that they should give up their SUVs, then get into his own SUV secure in the knowledge that he’s bought carbon credits to make up for his own indulgence.
(In fact, Edwards owns 3 SUVs — a Ford Escape, a Cadillac SRX, and a Chrysler Pacifica — plus a pickup.)
The second reason why I dislike carbon credits is that there are much more effective ways to reduce emissions. For instance, if British Airways really cared, they would stop painting their aircraft. A fully painted 747 weighs 443kg extra, compared to around 100kg for me plus my luggage. That’s before you factor in the increased wind resistance from cracked and peeling paint, the chemicals needed for stripping and repainting aircraft, and the disposal problem of the dissolved paint and chemicals. [Update: BA could also stop flying empty planes across the Atlantic.]
The third reason why carbon credits are a dubious idea is pointed out by spiked online. When you buy carbon credits for your flight from Climate Care, what you’re actually doing is paying a bunch of Indian families to dig in the dirt via back-breaking manual labor, and pump water manually, rather than using modern farm equipment. Now, it might not be a bad idea if I personally spent some time stomping on pedals to pump water, but I don’t see why Indians should be bribed to do it so I can feel less guilty about air travel.
But my favorite argument against carbon credits is the parody site cheatneutral. If the logic behind carbon credits is really valid, why not buy some infidelity credits and cheat on your partner with a clean conscience?
Tagged: air travel, Al Gore, British Airways, business, carbon credits, carbon offsetting, chemicals, cracked and peeling paint, dissolved paint, environment, farm equipment, Ford, India, John Edwards, parody site, SUVs, travel
3 Responses to “Carbon offsetting”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
September 5th, 2007 at 17:03 -0600
I said my piece about carbon offsetting and cheatneutral back in May (and was in favour of the principle, if not the implementation).
And why shouldn’t rich people emit more carbon than poor? Most objections to rich people emitting more carbon would also apply to them, for example, having a larger house in an area where building land is scarce, or having a better burglar alarm, or… The objection seems to boil down to not minding people having lots of money provided they don’t spend it on enjoying things poor people want but can’t afford; that’s the point of having lots of money. Arguments can be made in favour of a more equal distribution of wealth, but I don’t see why they pertain particularly to carbon emission.
Similarly, that it’s cheaper to pay an Indian to pump water manually than to install a machine seems to be a separate problem.
That page on the Boeing site has a section on environment impact that implies the situation might be more complex: unpainted planes require polishing, which consumes energy and requires the use of solvents. Unfortunately, they only quantify the monetary cost of the two options, not the carbon or pollution cost.
September 5th, 2007 at 17:49 -0600
Spiked have their own agenda regarding climate change:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spiked_%28magazine%29#Spiked_and_the_Global_Warming_Debate
September 7th, 2007 at 11:32 -0600
Clive, it’s not that it’s cheaper to pay an Indian to pump water manually than to install a machine. It’s that we’re paying Indians to pump water manually instead of using machines they can afford.
Similarly, it’s not that rich people shouldn’t emit more carbon than the poor; it’s that they shouldn’t be able to buy their way out of the necessity to make adjustments to their lifestyle like the rest of us are apparently expected to.
I mean, should rich people be able to buy their way out of speed limits? Dump mercury in the Thames if they pay enough money? Skip the security lines at the airport by paying extra? Plenty of rich people would argue that being able to bribe your way out of things is the point of being rich.