Offsetting carbon footprints! Are the companies who 'offer a service to offset your footprint' taking?

Question

advantage of gullable people, surely the dept of agriculture/forestry etc will have put aside how many trees they plan to plant in a given year anyway!

Answer 1

I am the founder of an agroforestry operation in Kenya. My intentions so far have been more about community development then carbon offsetting, but as I become more established in my operations implementing a carbon offsetting program is definitely an option. I personally do not believe that if I took this approach that it would be taking advantage of gullible people though. In fact if I implemented a program like that then I would use the revenues as a subsidy program so that I could increase the volume of trees that could be planted by the local community so as to be able to increase the economic growth and output of the community. I would not give trees away for free however just make them really cheap. My experiences in Kenya have shown me that free trees die because of the lack of "invested interest" on the part of the farmers. Instead it is best to implement education programs that demonstrate proper care and utility of these agroforestry species and then charge a nominal amount so that if they do encounter a problem that they are sure to come back to myself or my employees so that they can enquire on how they can save any trees which may be ailing. So far I have done such activities as a private entrepreneur, although I'm not sure if I should say entrepreneur as so far my revenues have only broken even with my expenses. Anyways, if I was ever to accept carbon offsets, I don't think that I would be taking advantage of anyone but instead such an activity would allow me to greatly expand my operation for the greater betterment of the community.

On a separate note, much of my education and influence so far has concentrated on the planting of fruit and nut species, and other species which make good natural green manures and/or animal fodder. As of such the economic benefits are seen in the harvest of produce from these trees, but the tree itself remains in the ground holding and increasing its carbon stores annually. Another benefit of the area that I have established my agroforestry operation in is that it is the heart of the Kenyan carving industry and luckily many of these trees (the nut trees especially) do produce good carving material so when it is time for the tree to be cut it will be able to convert it into another commodity that can bring revenue to the community while at the same time holding the carbon in a stored form that would brake down at a very slow rate depending on it's storage conditions.

Now, let me address some of your other answers. I read something about their not being enough land space to offset the carbon being emitted by human related activities by planting trees. This may very well be the case, but the planting of trees is only one piece of the equation and no one forestry/agroforestry operation is proposing that their activities are going to single handedly remedy the Earth's atmospheric carbon problems. Still even if it is not going to unilaterally solve the carbon problem; it is still a major part of the solution! That same poster also said that there is not enough water to promote these trees sustainability. Now, I don't know what planet they're living on, but forested areas reduce the evaporation potential and create micro climates where precipitation increases naturally. Many trees that I promote are also naturally drought resistant and only require extra watering resources for the first year of their growth and typically after one year these trees are self sustainable. I also read that in developing nations trees can be planted for as little as 50 cents. Not in Kenya! (1 US dollar = 70 shillings) Typically non grafted fruit or nut trees in rural areas of Kenya sell for 25 shillings each (15 shillings each to graft later), or grafted seedling sell for 50 - 60 shillings each. The labour costs for digging the proper sized hole and mixing manure into it is considered cheap at 25 shillings. Like I said earlier, watering is typically needed over the first year as the area of my agroforestry project is a semiarid region. There is a government damn there but there are still labour costs to get that water to one's trees. Easily this could add on 10 shillings per tree over the next year. If you encounter termites then you either have to hire a local expert who digs the queen out of the ground, or else you can treat the base of the trees in the effected areas with anti termite medicines. The expert termite digger charges 100 shillings per queen; the medicines cost about 15 shillings per tree. Anyways, 50 cents per tree equals a lot of dead dried up termite eaten trees. If you actually want to do the job correctly then the minimum best case scenario price is about 1 dollar, although in reality it will more likely end up costing $1.15 - $1.25 depending on what hardships are encountered. This figure is based on my planting on my farm and selling to the community tens of thousands of trees. It is based on providing the education that my organization provides so that farmers will see their trees reach a mature and productive age. Remember, I'm a permanent feature in this community and need to maintain a reputation of success where as NGO and non-profits can walk in with all the best intentions and free trees, but in their wake very little good is actually accomplished as they don't maintain accountability and their follow up services are very weak. These may be the 50 cent trees which that answerer was talking about? Most of these trees die.

Answer 2

Some are, some aren't. Anyone considering using the services of a carbon offsetting company should check out the company's credentials, past record and whether they're adopting the right approach to carbon offsetting.

Simply planting trees doesn't always work, get it wrong and it does more harm than good. There are some companies that take a person's money then plant the wrong trees in the wrong place - that's bad financially, ethically and environmentally. There are others that have a remit to plant X number of trees and then they go and sell offsets as a way of generating money to plant the trees that would have been planted anyway.

There are of course some genuine companies that know what they're doing and will plant the right trees in the right place and charge a realistic price for doing so.

My recommendation would be to use a company that plants native species in tropical regions and uses local labour. It's cheap, effective and benefits the local people. Costs can be as little as $0.50 per tree planted.

Answer 3

The entire concept is horrible. If every company made a real effort at reducing their carbon footprint a real difference would occur. Instead slimy corporate executives have found a way out of even making an effort. They are paying off another company to reduce their carbon footprint, but that is not really happening.

The slimy corporation is putting just as much carbon as before and perhaps much more than is actually reported. But the corporation pats itself on the back in TV commercials for helping to stop carbon output.

The whole thing is a sham. We need real corporations to make a real effort. The most ridiculous part of this issue is that as corporations make a real effort they actually save money. Reducing paper usage has saved thousands of dollars for corporations.

Corporations started using flourescent light bulbs because they cost less to use. This type of cost savings is how we save the environment and even at a profit.

The only thing that costs corporations in the immediate is stopping the pollution from smoke stacks, but even that in the long run saves corporations money. Reducing that smog and cleaning the air used in their machines reduces the overall pollution and the clean up costs if the company is caught by the government.

Doing what is right is not only good for the environment it is good for the corporate bottom line.

Take care,
Troy

Answer 4

a million. Offsetting utilising schemes that plant bushes on their behalf in different elements of the sector two. Invest in offsetting tasks in establishing nations that construct infrastructure to lower carbon emissions three. Invest in self iteration applied sciences - for illustration corporations like Sky TV have invested in biomass boiler, which has reduce emissions from their structures four. Retrofit their structures with insulation to reduce vigour charges and carbon

Answer 5

Carbon footprints are merely a modern myth. Having been interested in science since I was a kid I have a low tolerance for bad science. Carbon Dioxide is being portrayed as a pollutant or a contaminant. Not only does it make up a relatively tiny percentage of the atmosphere (0.054%) but C02 is how all living things grow. Methane and sulphur dioxide are more dangerous gasses and water vapour is by far the greatest so-called greenhouse gas there is. So perhaps there should be incentives to reduce our "fartprints" and kettle steam?

Answer 6

This is part of a program used in europe. Turning pollution into a credit a polluter can buy and then pollute as much as they can afford is a bad idea, and didn't work there. It takes much less time to burn a tree and return its carbon to the air than it does for one to grow and remove the same amount of carbon. If we can end the stonewalling going on in America that's the thing that would benefit the world the most right now. Waiting for a government program that will be effective in the face of organized opposition is a formula for failure. This is the responsibility of every citizen.

Answer 7

If all those companies do is plant trees, they they are just taking money under false pretenses. There isn't enough land in the world, and not enough water to keep them growing, to absorb all the CO2 that is being emitted by all the burning coal and oil in the world. And when the trees die, they will decay and emit that CO2 back into the air. Trees are not the main source of oxygen and not the main absorbers of CO2. Life in the oceans is.

Now it they instead use the money to fund fusion reactor research or advanced solar power or something like that, they might do some good.

Answer 8

The forest service is doing their part by allowing all that down timber to decompose naturally (or provide fuel to our devatating forest fires) The forrest service also does a poor job of restoring forests when compared to commercail timber growing operations. Maybe because they have no profit motive, and the more problems they maintain without solution the more forest rangers they need to mismanage things.

Answer 9

YES!!!

There is big money to be made by selling "carbon credits".

It's not only planting trees though:

Oil companies want credits for carbon sequestration (pumping CO2 into their wells, which helps their pumping)

Chemical companies want credits to close obsolete plants that they plan to close anyway.

Insurance companies want to profit from the "global warming threat"

Companies like GE want to regulations forcing consumers to use their expensive "green" technology.

Just look at the companies involved with the US Climate Action Partnership - a group of big businesses lobbying for CO2 regulation.

Answer 10

Many of these companies are non-profit or donation based organizations that can only purchase land and plant trees based on donations. For these groups, then, the more donation, the more trees they can plan, and the more CO2 they can offset.