In the news today, ConocoPhillips is reporting that they will spend $10 Million to offset the carbon emissions of a proposed refinery expansion in the Bay Area. I have mixed feelings about this, but basically think it's a good thing. On the one hand it lends a big boost to the legitimacy of carbon offsets, most of the money will be tied to indirect and difficult to audit projects such as wetlands restoration and tree planting. It also would seem to give people the idea that dumping a bunch of money on such projects suddenly makes it "ok" to burn a lot more oil. But unfortunately, that seems like what we're destined to do for a while whether we offset or not.
What do you think?
It’s dubious at best. Most of the money for offsets tend to end up with projects that have already been started / completed irregardless of the offsets themselves. It’s not adding any carbon-free capacity, in other words. Offsets and credits, in my mind, only work if there’s a cap that forces industry to reduce overall emissions over time.
"Oil - Last Bastion of the 19th Century" - read this "Energy Crisis or Political Profiteering?" at
http://ezinearticles.com/?Energy-Crisis-or-Political-Profiteering?&id=725936
Offsetting carbon emissions is great, but it really doesn't help to solve the bigger issue which is rapidly increasing oil consumption by the whole world.
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.triplepundit.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/2049
From Delicious » del.icio.us / ConocoPhillips / Carbon
From Technorati »ConocoPhillips / Carbon /
January 7
January 7
January 6
January 6
January 5
January 5
January 5
January 2
