English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

I am currently studing a BTeC Science diploma (which is basically high school science) in UK and I was asked this puzzling question by physics tutor. As I am have trouble search web sites I am hoping someone here might be able to give me an answer in everyday english not like web sites which involves a degree in quatium physics to understand. Please help me.

2007-02-04 10:15:15 · 4 answers · asked by Cilla D 1 in Science & Mathematics Engineering

4 answers

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

The concept is simple. Carbon neutral means that there is no net increase in greenhouse gases

2007-02-04 10:18:45 · answer #1 · answered by arbiter007 6 · 0 0

It's funny how you are considered a troll when proposing a question to debate the efficiency of using present dollars for carbon reduction versus other issues. There is no way to quantify the pay-back, if any, of spending money to reduce CO2. If CO2 is not the prime forcing agent in GW, then every last dollar spent on CO2 reduction/sequestering has been wasted. On the other hand, if you give money to any reputable charity or relief agency, 80-90% of that money will be used to help feed, shelter and clothe people that are going to die this year otherwise. So, if it makes you feel good to live in your comfortable home and spend $10-15,000 to add solar panels to partially reduce your "carbon footprint" while children in America and around the world go to bed hungry tonight, then by all means do it. We live in a free country and you have the right to do just that. ADDED: Dear DW (below) - I didn't see the question as sneaky. Perhaps it depends on what your opinion is concerning GW as to whether this question seems trollish or not. He simply brings up Yahoo as an example of someone (or some company) spending resources on something with unknown benefits versus spending it where benefits are more measurable and visible. And, I didn't ask the question, "Do you think this question is written by a troll?" So, I am confused why you chose to respond to my answer but never answered the original question. If you didn't like the question, that's fine. Find something else to answer. If you think I need education, I provide an e-mail link just for that purpose. That is how I would have normally responded to you, but you have chosen not to receive e-mail from other users.

2016-05-24 06:49:05 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

Most experts on climate chang view 'carbon neutral' as nothing more than a marketing gimmick. 'Buy this car with terrible gas mileage, and I'll plant trees in Sri Lanka. Then you don't have to feel bad.' Sure it's nice and gives you a warm, fuzzy feeling, but at the end of the day, it will not solve the problems humantiy is facing. Experts are worried tactics like this will do more harm than good because they deflect attention from the real solutions that, while harder, will actually do some good.

2007-02-05 00:53:58 · answer #3 · answered by BP 2 · 0 0

Basicly it means that you offset all the carbon the you put into the atmosphere through daily living (central heating, driving the car etc.) with things that absorb EXACTLY the same amount of carbon from the atmosphere.

This can be achieved through, burning wood as to get wood you need to plant tress and trees absorb about the same amount of carbon that they let off when burnt, use renewable sources of energy and not to burn fossil fuels (which is basicly carbon that has been stored up for billions of years), buy food etc in bulk as this reduces the packaging and delivery costs all of which have a carbon cost associated with them, etc.

That's what I understand by the term, hope it helps.

2007-02-04 10:27:27 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers