Carbon Neutral?

May 15th, 2008 -- Posted in Uncategorized | No Comments »

Today I’ve been contemplating this whole idea of carbon neutrality. I have a vague notion of what it’s all about, but thinking about it, I wondered - how did paying a few extra dollars for my most recent flights, or for my tickets the the John Butler Trio concert make these things ‘carbon neutral’? The plane was still spewing out the same emissions, and the concert was still using the same amount of energy to power it. Even my web host claims to be carbon neutral! It seems to be the ‘in’ thing at the moment for companies to make this claim. But what does it actually involve, and how much difference does it really make?

So, I’ve started looking into the concept. I think the move towards using more renewable forms of energy is fantastic, as is reducing emissions by using our vehicles less and attempting to move away from oil as our main source of fuel - though the environmental concerns about using biofuels like ethanol leave me a little worried. However, the whole idea of buying carbon credits sounds a little dubious to me.

An interesting critique of this practice can be found at The Carbon Neutral Myth. Obviously, as the title suggests, they are against the whole concept, and they have some good arguments for being so. The most scientifically interesting part of their argument for me is the following:

“The carbon cycle can be divided into two
parts: active and inert. Trees are part of the active carbon cycle, a continual
movement of carbon among plants, organisms, water and the atmosphere. In
contrast, reserves of fossil fuels are inert: the carbon they contain is locked up
and does not come into contact with the active part of the carbon cycle unless
we burn them. Movement of carbon between the active cycle and the inert pool
is one-way - once carbon is released from the inert pool by burning fossil fuels,
it enters the active cycle. It will not return to the inert pool unless it undergoes
the same sort of millennia-long geological process that transformed it into a
fossil fuel in the first place.” -accessed 15 May 2008-

On the other hand, there are companies like Carbon Neutral, a non-profit organisation that seems pretty upfront about how long it will take to actually offset your emissions. According to these guys and their emissions calculator, I come out at the following figures:

total emissions: 15.6
trees to offset: 94*
donation: AUD$296.4

Now, for most of the questions I used the average, so I think in reality my carbon footprint is probably a bit less, but it’s still hugely more than the Sustainable World Average, which is apparently 2 tonnes - as opposed to my 15.6 tonnes!

I’m not yet convinced that planting trees is the best way towards climate change. Don’t get me wrong - every tree planted is a fantastic thing, and I’m all for us trying to reverse the horrible deforestation we’ve subjected the planet to over the last few hundred years. But I think the best ways towards living a more carbon neutral life involve the changes we can make ourselves - using the car less, using less electricity and more from renewable sources, reducing our waste by composting and recycling.

So, the jury’s still out on carbon offsetting for me. I think perhaps more research is in order!