[cider nut]

I haven't read the whole thread so this might be slightly off topic, but this website allows you to offset your carbon footprint by taking donations and putting them towards sutainable energy projects : www.climatecare.co.uk

[SA Chris]

While initiatives like this are good, I don't like them because they allow the wealthy to alleviate their guilt by paying money rather than making changes to their lifestyle.

[Somebody's Fool]

Also they're not regulated. The forestry side of it can exploit labour in the countries where they plant trees.  Saying that planting trees seems a sensible course of action.

Don't drive, won't drive.

I presume you never get lifts anywhere either?

[Ru]

While initiatives like this are good, I don't like them because they allow the wealthy to alleviate their guilt by paying money rather than making changes to their lifestyle.

I don't really see the relevance of this. As long as the carbon is offset why does it matter that the wealthy can do it without lifestyle changes? The wealthy have lots of lifestyle options not available to those without wealth. I can see why this may be a discussion point on its own but it's not directly relevant to reducing carbon footprints.

[BenF]

There are carbon offsetting companies that offset by planting trees in this country (there is a guy in Wales who does so on a small scale), ethically in foreign countries and others who have offsetting arrangements where you pay more but the money is invested in renewable energy projects around the world rather than simply planting trees.  It's also worth checking that the offsetting company are actually planting "new" trees with your money and not just taking your money to pay for forestation that was already in progress.

[SA Chris]

I don't really see the relevance of this. As long as the carbon is offset why does it matter that the wealthy can do it without lifestyle changes? The wealthy have lots of lifestyle options not available to those without wealth. I can see why this may be a discussion point on its own but it's not directly relevant to reducing carbon footprints.

Because, as I said before, if if was only CO2 going into the atmosphere. It's reduction of waste, it's reduction of other pollutants entering the atmosphere other than CO2. It's reducing landfill. It's changing attitudes and acknowledging that it's a problem that everyone has to deal with, and throwing money at it is not the correct solution. For all of us.

[Paz]

Can someone on here then, maybe tell me (in dollars or kilogrammes of carbon) why we shouldn't build some more nuclear reactors if we make sure they don't blow up?

It seems to me that like with Baguettes and unpasteurised cheese,_{and sport climbing} the frogs have got the right idea with this one.

[jfw]

i think nuclear power will probably be necessary to address climate change - but should be used to the absolute minimum.

the cost in environmental terms and dollars of dealing with waste/materials/decommisioning over such massive massive timescales is astronomical - this in a country where we can't even maintain rail tracks!

"if we make sure they don't blow up" in this context becomes a big if.

even if you have no accidents or terrorist attacks - to wind down a site at the end of its life - and to deal with the waste produced safely - for thousands and thousands of years into the future - is a big cost

if you can do it by other more environmentally sound means you should.

[Ru]

Because, as I said before, if if was only CO2 going into the atmosphere. It's reduction of waste, it's reduction of other pollutants entering the atmosphere other than CO2. It's reducing landfill. It's changing attitudes and acknowledging that it's a problem that everyone has to deal with, and throwing money at it is not the correct solution. For all of us.

Fair point, but that really has to do with lots of things beside CO2 output, which is all carbon offsetting, and that website, seeks to rectify. It's true that CO2 is only one part of our environmental impact but surely carbon offsetting is better than nothing, even if it's not as good as not making the journey in the first place.

[Ru]

Actually this thread, and the news article on 8a.nu about environmentally aware climbing manufacturers got me thinking that the climbing media could help by placing more emphasis on ascents done by locals. It seems hypocritical for 8a.nu to run such an article next to news items praising climbers for flying halfway round the world to establish another 15ft V14 boulder problem.

[Paz]

While it would be cool to do so if we can, I don't really give a stuff about all the other environmental issues e.g. saving pandas, limiting a few localised pollutants, not having a few waste dumps in a massive country. 

[SA Chris]

Paz, do you really not care about preserving endangered species in general, or just pandas?

[SA Chris]

Because, as I said before, if if was only CO2 going into the atmosphere. It's reduction of waste, it's reduction of other pollutants entering the atmosphere other than CO2. It's reducing landfill. It's changing attitudes and acknowledging that it's a problem that everyone has to deal with, and throwing money at it is not the correct solution. For all of us.

Fair point, but that really has to do with lots of things beside CO2 output, which is all carbon offsetting, and that website, seeks to rectify. It's true that CO2 is only one part of our environmental impact but surely carbon offsetting is better than nothing, even if it's not as good as not making the journey in the first place.

As originally stated, even though strong evdence points towards the fact that climate change is due to CO2 output, what if it is not? I think that all people being made to rethink all aspects of how they live their lives is more important, rather than them being offered a quickfire solution to just one aspect.

[Falling Down]

My Carbon Footprint is very large indeed.  All largely down to work travel; mostly advising large oil and gas companies on efficient hyrdocarbon production .  European flights at least once a week; 50+ long hauls over the last 2-3 years and that's with trying to utilise as much videoconferencing and telecommuting as possible.  That said, I am in a position to influence company policy and trying to get us as near as dammit to carbon neutral.

Bring on the personal market in carbon emmissions with tax incentives - I'll buy Houdini's, Widdops and anyone else leading more low impact lifestyle.

[Paz]

I care about preserving humans.   <must resist temptation to start thread about cool animals>

[Johnny Brown]

There are carbon offsetting companies that offset by planting trees in this country (there is a guy in Wales who does so on a small scale), ethically in foreign countries and others who have offsetting arrangements where you pay more but the money is invested in renewable energy projects around the world rather than simply planting trees.  It's also worth checking that the offsetting company are actually planting "new" trees with your money and not just taking your money to pay for forestation that was already in progress.

Carbon offsetting by planting trees is nonsense. Fossil fuels come out of the ground where the carbon they contain has been locked up for millions of years. The only way to offset this is to put it back into the ground in a way that is permanent on a geological timescale.

I'm not against planting trees to make folk feel better about flying or driving, god knows the treecover of the world needs all the help it can get, but suggesting it is actually compensating is crazy talk. The best way for folk to reduce their carbon footprint is to live in the most energy efficient manner you can and reduce fossil fuel use as much as possible.

[Paz]

That's probably why it's kind of a gimmick.  a), I would've thought you want to make sure that the trees aren't going to get cut down again in 40 years time but the companys've probably thought of that and have got a charitable trust or something.

b), it's not a long term solution, if everybody in the world turned round tomorrow and said `I want to offset', then would there really be enough land
(or would it be practical/ cheap enough) for everyone to do it?

c) You can lock carbon into trees, but existing natural forests don't actually filter out much external CO2, if I read a book correctly (I really should check now), but it's all released when they're destroyed.  Conservation in this respect is as good as planting new forests.

Offsetting won't make the problem that we're fucking the world up go away, it'll just make the relatively few people who can afford to offset feel better about the damage they've done. 

[Falling Down]

The only way to offset this is to put it back into the ground in a way that is permanent on a geological timescale....

Somewhat paradoxically this is one of the projects (large scale CO2 sequestration) that I spend time flying around the world about.

[SA Chris]

Is that the same as what they have started doing up at St Cyrus, using CO2 from the Power Station to substitute for conventional Gas Injection? Didn't know you were involved in that.

[Johnny Brown]

The only way to offset this is to put it back into the ground in a way that is permanent on a geological timescale....

Somewhat paradoxically this is one of the projects (large scale CO2 sequestration) that I spend time flying around the world about.

Good, good. before I wad you, is the main aim of that to get rid of CO2? Or to repressurise the oil fields to get more oil/ gas out, CO2 being a convenient gas that improves PR?

[SA Chris]

I think the idea is two birds with one stone. Natural Gas or Water is traditionally injected to increase productivity of the wells; so CO2 is being proposed instead. Make of that what you will. There is debate still ongoing regarding costs and alternatives.

If you google "CO2 injection" you will find loads of articles and papers if you want to know more.

[Johnny Brown]

Yes, that's what I thought. Just be nice to get it from the horse's mouth. I dare say if it had been the unlikely altruism of the former he might have mentioned it along with the flights.

[Falling Down]

Good, good. before I wad you, is the main aim of that to get rid of CO2? Or to repressurise the oil fields to get more oil/ gas out, CO2 being a convenient gas that improves PR?

It's both.... as Chris say's CO2 is often used as a means of pressure maintenance; BUT two of the super-majors are looking into subsurface CO2 Sequestration as a commercial business in it's own right - they have the capability to get hydrocarbons out of the ground so it's a 'simple' case of reversing that chain - there are some quite interesting R&D projects that are looking at complete recovery from auto-engine, back up through the supply chain and into the ground.

I didn't mention it along with the flights as it would have probably looked like a lame attempt at justification.

[SA Chris]

I do wonder about the long term effects of shoving all our waste back into the Earth though; might make for a good episode of Futurama? Or a scenario like the Simpsons one with the garbage being stored underground.

[Paz]

I thought the energy costs of liquefying it or pumping it undergroung made it uneconomical.