Its not zero emission either, the massive cranes they drive from Calgary to Cowley to erect and service them don’t exactly run on magic pixie dust either. Do we draw a line in the time scale and say zero emissions from this point.
The most hilarious thing about the windfarms, is all the hippy do gooders who live in that region, who bellyached about not enough wind turbines back in the early 90’s, are the same bunch now bellyaching about all the birds the wind turbines are killing.
I am largely cynical about things like carbon offsets, especially when they tout heating plant rejigging , as thats what I do for a living. More often than not, new technologies eat up any energy savings they were designed to save, in service calls and tweaking to make them work. More often than not, new fangled technology ends up being pulled and tossed in the scrap heat in our climate, as Canada’s Climate does not allow for swing and miss functionality in winter.

Can I get carbon credits for this?

just wonderin..

CarbonZero is in a business that requires a great deal of trust. I have a client in much the same business and one of my jobs, before we roll the client out, is to ensure that there is not a single question which can be raised as to their integrity. Where I start is on their website. Leave aside whether or not offsets make the slightest environmental sense (and some can as they generate positive externalities unrelated to the ostensible “carbon reduction” flim flam: if a company is in the business of selling something it owes the people who buy that something a capacity to survive due diligence.

CarbonZone put out a presser on its sale of Carbon offsets to the Kyoto Liberals. It had to know it would come under scrutiny. And it had to know that that scrutiny would begin on its website. By failing in its elementary duty to keep that website up to date it has exposed its client to even greater ridicule than that client deserved. Were I the Liberal Party I would be asking for my money back.

As to “accepted standards” Carbonzone itself admitted it needed to be audited. More to the point, when it comes to carbon offsets – and leaving to one side the other, rather quantifiable, positive externalities – those standards are based upon science which itself has not been properly audited. We simply have no idea if reducing carbon emissions will do much or anything to alter climate change. So the entire idea of “accepted standards” is based on a touching faith in computer models which are more than a little suspect. Worse, the entire Kyoto/IPCC process is now being revealed as an essentially political rather than scientific endeavor.

Yes, my pal Andy will make fun of carbon offsets as will James, as will I. The science underlying them is shaky and the economics borderline insane. Paying people not to do something they are either unable to do in any event or, rationally, choose not to do is goofy. James gets it about right when he proposes to not drive two cars to my one.

I am quite aware of the importance of pricing what we have hitherto taken as “free” in the sense that getting that pricing right will go some distance towards avoiding the “tragedy of the commons.” The trouble is that the entire premise of Kyoto (and poor Dion’s Green Shift) is that a harmless gas – of which humans create about 3% – will be bringing the apocalypse in a matter of a couple of dozen years and therefore the emission of that gas should cost money. If the science was sound rather than speculative and political I might be down with that. But, I fear, with the best will in the world, it is difficult to take seriously the projections of people who will not release their raw data and have invented an entirely new concept of “climate statistics”. (Characterized by algorithms (and there is pun just waiting to happen) which can take my Safeway bill and convert it into a hockey stick graph.) Sorry, to arrive at a price you need real numbers and the climate science people are simply pulling numbers out of their ass.

As to phoning up CarbonZone I’ll be on it in the morning. Thanks for the number.

Jay, you are simply wrong. That page is merely out of date. There’s quite a few projects supported. Since you are publishing about them, perhaps you should phone them and simply ask, like any reasonable citizen journalist? 416.640.8900

“And I don’t own a car…will carbonzero pay me to continue to be carless?”

There are accepted standards in use. I suggest you call Carbonzero and ask, rather than speculate.

In fact, there are certain sorts of projects which might well make sense by way of offsets – I am not convinced that carbonzero has any of them actually functioning at the moment.

The CPC, by running a more fuel efficient jet, is running a greener campaign than Mr. Kyoto. That is producing fewer emissions – the Dion offsets are simply lipstick on a pig. (Of course, given how little money the Liberals have they may have to leave the plane on the ground and that would be greener still. And why doesn’t Dion fly commercial? I mean, realistically, there are not very many serious potential Liberal pick up seats West of, say, Spadina. Maybe he could borrow St. Suzuki’s bio-diesel bus.)