Yelloe! Goodness gracious, what exactly in the world is Mother Earth 'evolving' into? Really, a whale more of sedulousness(& of course much more)has to be put in, aside from all the 'Saving Gaia' efforts and organisations, to save our lovely planet from utter destruction; causé if all of us still were to remain adamant with regards to this 'impending' problem, we will only be digging our own graves! Look at the recent spate of natural catastrophes- reasons for their occurrences can all be traced back to the issue of global warming and climate change! Anyway, let's steer away from digressing and discuss about the issue of carbon offsetting.
So, the question of the day is: Can giving money to plant trees far away really make up for our lifestyles' environmental impact? And, is the concept of 'carbon offsetting' itself feasible? Basically, the idea behind carbon offsetting is that you do something to remove the equivalent amount of carbon from the atmosphere by making whatever it was that you did "carbon neutral" - as if it had never happened in the first place. This is usually achieved by paying a company a fee based on the amount of carbon dioxide you have released or caused to be released.
Carbon offsetting is a relatively new concept for most people and, as such, has generated a good amount of debate. While simple at first glance, the market mechanisms supporting the generation and sale of offsets, as well as the way in which this activity results in actual emission reductions, is somewhat complicated. For this reason, a certain level of skepticism has been aroused. As for me, I do agree with what the article has justified, that is, there are no widely accepted standards as to what qualifies as an offset. Moreover, many retail offset marketers provide bantam information about where the money is being spent or what criteria are used to select the reductions they sell. True, this market in environmental absolution is remarkable unregulated and secretive. Also, the lack of transparency simply connotes that it is often impossible to be sure that money invested in carbon offsetting makes the difference that is claimed for it. I also agree that efforts to portray offsets as simple, quick fixes pose serious incertitudes of both commercial and ecological legitimacy. It is mentioned that skeptics argue that there is no substitute for cutting emissions. Furthermore, I too think that buying an offset implies a degree of certainty that we simply do not have here. and at the very least, there should be an urgent need for regulation so people can be sure that the way they offset is actually making a difference and not just some phony implementations.
Therefore, with regards to the second question, I would say that, in my opinion, this carbon offsetting project is not that feasible. Why? The problem of global warming is due to there being too much carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. This carbon dioxide has largely come from the burning of fossil fuels starting with the industrial revolution about 150 years ago. This carbon was safely locked up in a "carbon sink" but was released back into the atmosphere. as such, the only way that any act of releasing carbon dioxide can be fully "neutralised" is by locking that carbon equivalent up again in another carbon sink, not to be released again. And in view of this, none of the ways of carbon-offsetting I have heard of have yet devised do that.
Perhaps the greatest criticism of carbon offsetting is that it lulls people, individuals and businesses, into a false sense of security in thinking that they can carry on acting exactly as they always have and as long as they pay some money, it's all made better, when in reality it isn't. In addition, certain news sources have also quoted that " it may be often be cheaper to purchase offsets than to eliminate or reduce emissions, so big polluters just carry on as usual while paying some conscience-money. It may even encourage people to make unnecessary journeys that otherwise they wouldn't consider." As such, some companies have been accused of causing damage in the developing world while making no difference to curbing climate change. So, having said all these, I'm sure that there will definitely be queries such as, "Doesn't it even work a little bit?", so on and so forth. Hmm, I am glad to inform that, it does do good as things happen that would otherwise not have happened and those things are positive in terms of global warming. And in the grand scheme of things, it is claimed that carbon offsetting schemes help to raise awareness and reduce the impact of carbon emitting actions. But however, a point that must be accentuated is that, carbon offsetting is not the end-solution to global warming. Yeap, so to all those companies or organisations which have already signed a contract(s) to so-called 'neutralise' the amount of carbon and other maleficent, pernicious or pestilent greenhouse gases through this carbon offsetting efforts, try as you might, but it seems that is too late for salvage now!
Alright, anyway, let's now gain deeper understanding on some of the epistles and animadversion that have been tagged to some of the schemes that claim to "offset" the carbon dioxide we produce. First, for tree planting and reforestation, comments that have put buyers in a quandary are that, to be a real solution, the forests created would need to be there untouched forever. It can cause more harm than good in Northern countries. Finally, inappropriate species can (and have been) planted and workers in the developing world can be exploited. Wait a minute, I know some of you are already summing up more questions...... Next, in terms of Renewable Energy Investment, some drawbacks are: Nothing happens about the carbon dioxide you emitted, it is still in the atmosphere. Not sustainable as a solution to continuing to emit carbon dioxide. But then, as we all know, or probably most of us are aware of, there may still be certain benefits and one of these is that, investment can lead to technology and uses that continue to be effective potentially indefinitely, so the benefits can really be long-term. Lastly, in terms of Promoting Energy Efficiency, some of the impedimenta includes the smoky and traditional open wood fires which cause illnesses for millions of people. More efficient fires will reduce this problem though. As for the perquisites, more efficient light bulbs reduce the further production of carbon dioxide (which is still produced) rather than deal with any already produced; and more efficient wood stoves lead to better usage of renewable natural resources - trees that provide fuel.
So, is it all worth our time, effort and money? If carried out correctly - these methods are "worth doing" - but NOT for the purpose of ameliorating the effects of profligate carbon dioxide production, because they are simply NOT a cure. (Oops, did I seem a little agitated? ) Anyway, of these methods, rather surprisingly, I think that reforestation is the most controversial. It is the one that seems the easiest, straightforward and should be the most effective, but it is also the one that can be carried out in such a way as to actually be harmful rather than useful.
Deforestation has been a feature of human civilization from the earliest days when we first realised there were benefits from cutting down trees - wood to use as fuel, as a building material and for a million and one other uses. Open land rather than forest was good for hunting some animals and then later on it was a way of getting more land for farming. Planting trees is a good and useful thing to do almost anywhere in the world. It helps stop soil erosion, has an effect on climate stabilisation on a local and global scale, provides wood for fuel and building , and a habitat for wildlife. So, appropriate tree planting is always a good thing. But, to be useful, trees planted would have to be maintained in perpetuity (forever), if they were felled and used at any time, the carbon dioxide they have sequestered would simply be released back into the atmosphere and it may as well never have happened in the first place. In the worst cases, tree planting carbon-offset schemes are just ways of getting some subsidised forestry planting for future use, they can be a way of getting someone else to pay to plant trees that would have been planted anyway. Therefore, helping to fund these schemes may not necessarily deal with any carbon dioxide you have already emitted. However, it can be of increasing value for the future as such schemes can potentially last indefinitely and they result in NO further carbon dioxide being emitted over what is sustainable (such as biomass energy where the emitted carbon dioxide is used by the next crop).
The thing with a lot of this stuff is that we just don't really know where it's all going and investing in renewable energy is the place where it can possibly make the biggest difference in the longer term, don't you think? Still,I would like to mention that, even though energy efficiency does not help in any reduction of carbon dioxide, it helps other people (in developing countries) to act to reduce their carbon dioxide output. Energy efficient light bulbs are cheaper in the long run however and so are efficient wood burning stoves, so it's more to do with poverty than global warming.
Therefore, even though carbon offsetting projects are not likely to stop global warming, and are currently unsustainable as a long term approach, they still help to expostulate and inspire people all over the world to reduce their carbon emissions and assist in tackling climate change.
1 comment:
Post a Comment