Flights to ruin
from http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/jan/08/...
"Money paid by green consumers to offset their flights and by companies that go carbon-neutral will be used to fund the planting [in China] of genetically modified (GM) crops under plans drawn up by a US biotechnology company."
What equivalence could there be in any case among unabsorbable (& worse) emissions above the clouds and "cool" carbon near the ground? It is arguable that flight emissions are not offsettable. It is deplorable that aviation has thus far escaped significant scrutiny in this regard. What if high altitude emissions are found to be most decisive of all regarding climate disruption? (This is not to minimize deleterious effects of other needless emitters on the ground.)
But as a (possibly respectable) exercise in prudence, while
"China has commercialised GM cotton and minor food crops such as tomatoes, chilli and sweet peppers, [it] has drawn the line so far at staple foods including rice, corn and soybeans."
Still better, eg, (http://www.atimes.com/atimes/letters_25.html):
Sanjay Suri's report on organic agriculture (Organic produce growing in China, India, Jan 31) is most welcome. This is the industry of my principal (and principled) involvement since the '70s, and I should like to note the generally superior quality of products arriving in recent years from China (as well as Latin America, also mentioned in the article; we unfortunately yet see little from India, probably attributable, as the article mentions, to growth principally being in its domestic markets). I believe it was author Gene Lo[gsd]on who commented that the Chinese have forgotten more about agriculture than people in Western lands have ever known. May they and others quickly succeed in recovery of the forgotten, so urgently required by us all. When the smoke clears from all the ongoing and impending wars on which ATol is obliged to publish reports, it is almost above all this international effort in organic agriculture and food production, even if at times less collaborative than competitive, that is to command most interest. It should never be out of place to report on the finest pumpkin and sunflower seeds, adzuki and garbanzo beans, walnuts, buckwheat (examples per my acquaintance with Chinese excellence), quinoa and sesame seeds (ditto for South America).
D Vernon
Toronto, Ontario (Jan 31, '06)
We have not been in an airplane since the '70s; and while I generally concur with some other bloggers' expressed ranking of organic over local, the time has arrived to insist now on both.
- Daryl Vernon's blog
- Login or register to post comments
Comments
"Carbon credits for a coal burner, you ask?"
(via World Bank)
see http://www.fpif.org/fpiftxt/5110
"5.3 Soutiennent la suppression de la Banque mondiale et du FMI à moins de les réformer, de démocratiser l’adhésion et la prise de décision et d’assujettir leurs opérations aux principes du développement durable et à l’ensemble des conventions internationales en matière de droits de l’Homme et du travail et de protection de l’environnement."
(CHARTE DES VERTS MONDIAUX Canberra 2001
http://www.global.greens.org.au/GGfrench.pdf)
Overemphasis on flight?
I don't see the reason why GHG emissions from air travel can't be addressed under the same umbrella as "cool" surface carbon. (Is coal smoke cool?)
Unless you believe that air travel alone is responsible for climate change and surface emissions have no impact (and I don't see any evidence for this *), then reductions in either (or both) are critical. All that matters is getting the correct ratio, based on temperature or duration. So if a tonne of high-altitude plane exhaust carbon has the same warming effect as 5 tonnes of surface carbon, then an offset of 5 surface tonnes would be appropriate. This assumes, of course, that the offset is in addition to any agreed-upon general reductions. Additionality is key in calculating offsets. If there is no surface carbon left to reduce (we should be so lucky), then such offsets won't be available.
In this case, I don't see how planting GM crops reduces surface carbon in any significant way, so I'm leery of that specific example. But a gold-standard carbon offset which reduces current emissions by increasing efficiency or decreasing consumption seems fair - at the correct ratio and cost. Stay away from cheap tree-planting offsets to theoretically absorb carbon in future decades, that's not gold-standard.
In general, it is better to offset than not. At the current time, due to the reluctance of industry or governments to make mandatory reductions, those are the choices. One positive effect, even if the carbon offsets are illusory, is that it increases the cost of air travel - helping to discourage it and approach a truer cost. The more expensive the offsets, the stronger the effect. If (for example) they were to double flight costs, it would have a significant effect on reducing air travel (or at least arresting or slowing growth). If carbon offsets were priced at proposed carbon tax levels (like $50/tonne and up) rather than the current offset prices (as low as $5/tonne) the lure of cheap air travel would fade. Another tactic is to seek verifiable gold-standard offsets, then buy double as a margin-of-error or price-signal measure. The more we pay for carbon offsets, the more the pressure to reduce so we don't have to pay. (Also, the less money left in our pockets to spend on other emitting activities).
Erich Jacoby-Hawkins
Barrie, ON
* A recent Canadian study casts doubt on the contrail-climate change connection, so I don't see particular momentum to change the consensus on air travel effects upwards. It is already acknowledged as significant and in a ratio higher than surface, so let's work on that assumption and known ratio instead of guessing at possible future revisions. Start offsetting now and adjust as future learning requires.
The views I express on this blog are purely my own and should not be construed to represent the official position of the Green Party of Canada - the same goes for all other people's posts & comments.
Erich Jacoby-Hawkins, Barrie ON - although I'm on Cabinet (Nat'l Rev. and Ecol. Fiscal Reform), views here are my own and may not reflect official GPC positions. Please visit www.ErichtheGreen.ca