by Ethan Johnson
April 27, 2007

Hey, remember that time when I wrote:

One thing I do want to touch on regarding wind power is that there seems to be a scam in the making: Rather than sell you wind power, some companies are encouraging people to do a study of their conventional power usage (such as 1500 kW/h per month) and buying "wind credits" to offset the emissions generated the "bad" way. The problem as I see it is a potential lack of oversight, and worse, a trade in an intangible good. These "credits" are said to be used to invest in wind power anywhere on the globe. How do I know that they're actually doing this? Are my emissions truly being "offset"? This strikes me as really shady, or at best a guilt-trip. I'd like to see something more "solid" before I buy any wind credits.

Guess what? I wasn't too far off the mark. Substitute "carbon neutrality" for "wind credits" and we're in the right neighborhood. As told by The Financial Times:

A Financial Times investigation has uncovered widespread failings in the new markets for greenhouse gases, suggesting some organisations are paying for emissions reductions that do not take place.

Here's the news: I'll go so far as to say that there is no such thing as "carbon neutral". It seems that people like to sling that term around for its guilt-reducing properties, but really, what does this mean?

The answer lies in an another article I wrote last year:

"Zeroing out" is at the core of the expressed desire to make the Earth more "carbon neutral". In short, the idea is that if Factory A produces 10,000 pounds of carbon dioxide per day, then enough oxygen needs to be produced (such as by trees) to offset this. But is this realistic? Here is my concern: What if we adopted a policy of "trash neutrality"? This would mean that for every square mile of trash, there must be a square mile of cleanliness to offset this. The problem is, the area with the trash is still, well, trashed.

Carbon neutrality sounds like a great idea on paper, and don't get me wrong, planting trees and/or reducing pollution is all good in my book. However, this really doesn't address the issue of pollution in the first place. This is a feel-good workaround instead of finding ways to clear the air. How do we "zero out" toxic emissions? Obviously, we're not willing to go back to the 800s or some other idyllic yet unadvanced state of living. Not in the aggregate, anyway.

Naturally, the scam that I raised concerns about has indeed manifested itself in reality. If you're really committed to improving Earth's environment, to the extent that human intervention can accomplish this, it's not going to be the result of credits and vouchers, or similar feel-good gimmicks. It's going to take verifiable, sustainable actions. Such as:

• All new construction (read: homes and buildings) must be equipped with solar power in the southern states. For as much sunlight as we receive down here, there's little or no excuse not to, short of not having enough solar panels to go around. But honestly, I'm not seeing any builders even trying.
• Compact fluorescent bulbs are fine and all, but they only work to save money and energy under certain conditions. Learn what those conditions are before assuming that the CFL bulb you just paid $6 for is somehow reducing our dependence on nuclear power and coal. (Hint: Occasional use bulbs like closets don't necessarily benefit from CFLs unless you plan to keep then on for extended periods of time.)
• All major metropolitan areas must use a minimum of lights so as to serve the public good, as opposed to making the skyline look pretty at night. Check out the average night-time aerial view of a city and tell me that X amount of electricity usage isn't anything more than complete waste beyond visual aesthetics. Remember, airplanes should be flying over the city, not banking between buildings. Those red safety lights do not consume as much electricity as 36 floors of the Prudential building. The case could be made to replace inefficient lighting with CFLs, therefore realizing an energy and cost savings, but I argue that plain turning the lights off saves far more.
• An equivalent number of fans must walk to the local NASCAR (or equivalent) car race. If there are 26 racers, then 26 cars should remain in the garage for the distance and duration of the race. If the race is 150 miles, then the car has to stay off the road for the equivalent of 150 miles of regular driving. Carbon neutral, right?
• The secret to saving the environment does not lie in buying things, but rather the resistance to do so. How much energy is burned producing and distributing what amounts to, well, crap? Businesses can't survive by flooding the marketplace with sheer tonnage of crap that nobody is buying. Although symbiotically the waste management crowd might cheer this strategy on.
• A novel idea: Invest in improvements globally (read: everywhere around the world) rather than assuming that domestic improvements will completely solve the problem while everyone else stinks up the planet with coal exhaust, etc. As with many solutions, there are huge political hurdles in play with such a naive sentiment, but hey.

Of course, buying made-up "credits" that don't actually reduce or offset anything, other than reduce the size of your wallet and offset your credits into debits is another option. Operators are standing by. <EM>