For some time now, small pockets of momentum (and hype) have accumulated around companies like TerraPass and NativeEnergy. But it’s time we question the premise behind these programs.
What companies like TerraPass and NativeEnergy do is enable a climate-concerned consumer to “offset” their carbon emissions by funding alternative energy projects. So if you use 4000KW / year of electricity, you can “offset” that by paying to add 4000KW of alternative energy derived electricity back to the grid.
But when you think about it, these programs sound incredibly like the church selling indulgences back in the 1500s. Sin all you want, “offset” your sins by donating to the Church, and you still get a one-way ticket to Heaven. Thomas Friedman of the NYTimes hits on a similar idea in his column, Live Bad, Go Green.
In a thought provoking post, my colleague Justin Label sheds more light on this moral loophole: By putting a price on carbon emissions, consumers who once felt an ethical obligation to cut emissions might feel less of that obligation when they can pay to undo their carbon footprint.
Consequently these programs shift the emphasis away from changing our behavior (e.g., buying a Prius) to instead paying to “make it all better” (e.g., offsetting my Hummer’s omissions). A Carbon Indulgence by any other name.
Although I like the original intention of these programs, I can’t in good conscience keep the NativeEnergy badge on my blog anymore. Dialogue around our Carbon Footprints should be more about making us (and the government) change our behavior (by making us feel damn guilty about our footprints), than about paying to offset them.
Sunday, July 8, 2007
Carbon Indulgences (And Why I'm Removing My NativeEnergy Badge)
Posted by
Unknown
at
4:05 PM
Labels: La Environmentalista
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)