Best way to offset carbon emmission

rbrt

So, I drive a petrol engine car and take multiple long-distance flights per year.

On the plus side I recycle and have a compost bin for my gardening, peels and veg etc. What's the best way for me to offset my pollution, I'm a keen gardener and no problem with planting some trees?

Bodhisopha

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YkgDhDa4HHo

banshee_bones

your long distance flights are probably your biggest contributor to your carbon footprint so any reduction on your airmiles would be a good start if its atall possible.

Since your a keen gardener maybe try growing your own veg?
Also eating less meat and sourcing locally produced/grown food.

I have a reusable travel coffee mug which cuts out the amount of takeaway cups i use, same for water, i have a klean kanteen water bottle which also cuts out more plastic packaging!

There are also plenty more small things you can do around your home to generally lower your carbon footprint like turning off lights when you dont need them/have left a room! take showers instead of baths, use energy saving bulbs, make sure your home is thouroghlu insulated, and draught proofed. Plug out chargers and all elctrical items instead of leaving them on standby. Air clothes instead of using a dryer, turn your thermostat down...etc

Capt'n Midnight

Become a vegetarian
Don't have kids
Change to Diesel - but not if it means buying a brand new car

YourSQL

buy indulgences or plant a bunch of trees

mikom

To offset your carbon you should milk yourself dry of white guilt, bottle it (recycled glass), then send by boat to Al Gore the carbon credit king.

djpbarry

Bodhisopha wrote: »

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YkgDhDa4HHo

YourSQL wrote: »

buy indulgences or plant a bunch of trees

mikom wrote: »

To offset your carbon you should milk yourself dry of white guilt, bottle it (recycled glass), then send by boat to Al Gore the carbon credit king.

I believe the OP asked for advice on lowering his or her energy consumption, not a series of sarcastic posts. If you want to discuss the merits of carbon offsetting (or lack thereof), please do so in another thread.

quentingargan

I had family reasons to travel to Australia twice last year, which accounts for more CO2 than the rest of my lifestyle during that time.

There is a plethora of companies out there offering offsetting systems, and they all differ on how they assess the impact of aircraft, and the benefits of their work.

This guide analyses different options. I personally ran with Climate Care - easy to use and seems ethical.

If you are a subscriber to New Scientist, Fred Pearse did an intersting article here - If you're not a subscriber, I could probalby send it as a PM if you're interested enough to read it. Q

rbrt

Interesting article, you should have gone with CarbonNeutral at a third of the cost :-) Not surprising to discover there are so many different calculations of costs, difficulties in calculating additionality, all within the industry which from a financial perspective is viewed as being the new Dot-Com bubble. Sounds all too familiar...

silverharp

OP, I'd focus on sustainability instead of offsetting. do you need a car or 2nd car? how well insulated is your house? Do you heat your house to 18C or 22C? , do your flights go on a cedit card that doesnt get paid off?

Pembily

banshee_bones wrote: »

your long distance flights are probably your biggest contributor to your carbon footprint so any reduction on your airmiles would be a good start if its atall possible.

Since your a keen gardener maybe try growing your own veg?
Also eating less meat and sourcing locally produced/grown food.

I have a reusable travel coffee mug which cuts out the amount of takeaway cups i use, same for water, i have a klean kanteen water bottle which also cuts out more plastic packaging!

There are also plenty more small things you can do around your home to generally lower your carbon footprint like turning off lights when you dont need them/have left a room! take showers instead of baths, use energy saving bulbs, make sure your home is thouroghlu insulated, and draught proofed. Plug out chargers and all elctrical items instead of leaving them on standby. Air clothes instead of using a dryer, turn your thermostat down...etc

Oh I thought I was the only nerd to have a reuseable bottle and tea cup (I would use nearly 2,000 cups a year)!! Love the Klean Kanteen bottles, very funky, do they ship to Ireland??

Silverharp2 wrote: »

OP, I'd focus on sustainability instead of offsetting. do you need a car or 2nd car? how well insulated is your house? Do you heat your house to 18C or 22C? , do your flights go on a cedit card that doesnt get paid off?

Exactly, its something I am looking at for my Thesis, its about using better not more!!!! Do you really need your house as warm as it is. Make a list of everything that is not a necessity and rethink. Certain things (flights to family in Oz) are a necessity, using 2,000 non-recyclable cups a year for tea and 400 bottles of water is not!!!!

silverharp

Pembily wrote: »

Exactly, its something I am looking at for my Thesis, its about using better not more!!!! Do you really need your house as warm as it is. Make a list of everything that is not a necessity and rethink. Certain things (flights to family in Oz) are a necessity, using 2,000 non-recyclable cups a year for tea and 400 bottles of water is not!!!!

Thanks, I try to see in bigger terms like work/life balance that kind of thing. For instance I walk to work, my wife works from home so its sets up a more sustainable lifestyle within certain parameters.

Also from a possible Peak Oil type scenario , real investment in sustainable transport etc. trumps nonsense like carbon trading and taxes.

Pembily

Silverharp2 wrote: »

Thanks, I try to see in bigger terms like work/life balance that kind of thing. For instance I walk to work, my wife works from home so its sets up a more sustainable lifestyle within certain parameters.

Also from a possible Peak Oil type scenario , real investment in sustainable transport etc. trumps nonsense like carbon trading and taxes.

Exactly, I used to cycle everywhere, but then I moved home for Final Year and cycling 60km return 4 days a week is not very practical!!!

I studied sustainability last semester and Mc Neef said its use better not use more, the American Dream is a prime example of how more is not necessiarly better. He said the many American's get the Dream (perfect job, house, family etc) and then the next thing they are not as happy as they were!

Macha

Pembily wrote: »

I studied sustainability last semester and Mc Neef said its use better not use more, the American Dream is a prime example of how more is not necessiarly better. He said the many American's get the Dream (perfect job, house, family etc) and then the next thing they are not as happy as they were!

There is research that shows once a country reaches a certain GDP, ie if the physical needs of the people are met, happiness does not increase after that point alongside GDP.

In other words, once you have what you need, amassing more physical objects that you think you want will not make you happy.

Pembily

taconnol wrote: »

There is research that shows once a country reaches a certain GDP, ie if the physical needs of the people are met, happiness does not increase after that point alongside GDP.

In other words, once you have what you need, amassing more physical objects that you think you want will not make you happy.

I couldn't find the quotes or the notes, knew there was a real scientific reason!!!

Macha

I read about it in "59 Seconds". This is the page of the book's blog one aspect the topic:

What is really possible to buy happiness?

Psychologists Leaf Van Boven and Thomas Gilovich examined whether increased happiness is associated more with spending your money on goods (that latest dress or impressive new smartphone) or an experience (going out for a meal, buying a ticket for a concert, or booking a vacation). The results clearly indicated that buying experiences made people feel better than buying products. Why? Goods tend to lose their appeal by becoming worn-out and out of date. In contrast, our memory of experiences easily becomes distorted over time (you edit out the terrible trip on the airplane and just remember those blissful moments relaxing on the beach), and also promote one of the most effective happiness-inducing behaviors – spending time with others.

59 Seconds tip: Buy experiences not goods. Go to a concert, movie, unusual place or strange restaurant: Anything that provides an opportunity to do things with others or tell people about it afterwards.

Van Boven, L., & Gilovich, T. (2003). To do or to have: That is the question. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 1193-1202.

http://59seconds.wordpress.com/2009/07/01/in-59-seconds-power-of-purchases/#more-87

Cunsiderthis

Obviously the "best" way to offset emissions is not to create the emissions in the first place.

Hence, the very best way to "offset" emissions is to have less children.

Someone with an income of $33 500 pet annum is estimated to produce 20 tons of CO2 per annum. Simply not having two children will "save" 40 tons of CO2 per annum.

In context, burning 1000 litres of oil for your central heating is estimated to release 2.682504 tons of CO2 per annum. Not having 2 children is the equivalent of not burning 14911 litres of home heating oil every year.

Saving 40 tons of CO2 per annum is the equivalent of not driving 175000 kms per annum ins a 2.4l van, every year.

silverharp

Cunsiderthis wrote: »

Obviously the "best" way to offset emissions is not to create the emissions in the first place.

Hence, the very best way to "offset" emissions is to have less children.

Someone with an income of $33 500 pet annum is estimated to produce 20 tons of CO2 per annum. Simply not having two children will "save" 40 tons of CO2 per annum.

In context, burning 1000 litres of oil for your central heating is estimated to release 2.682504 tons of CO2 per annum. Not having 2 children is the equivalent of not burning 14911 litres of home heating oil every year.

Saving 40 tons of CO2 per annum is the equivalent of not driving 175000 kms per annum ins a 2.4l van, every year.

talk about middle class guilt. Your suggestion sounds silly. Assuming there is no compulsion to your idea, the only likely audience would be a small minority of middle class people who tend to have less children anyway.

djpbarry

Cunsiderthis wrote: »

Obviously the "best" way to offset emissions is not to create the emissions in the first place.

Hence, the very best way to "offset" emissions is to have less children.

If we take that argument to its logical conclusion, then nobody, anywhere, should have any children.

The problem is not the children. The problem is the unsustainable lifestyle that those children are leading.

Cunsiderthis

Silverharp2 wrote: »

talk about middle class guilt. Your suggestion sounds silly. Assuming there is no compulsion to your idea, the only likely audience would be a small minority of middle class people who tend to have less children anyway.

I am not at all guilty and don't actually believe much of the propaganda of the green movement. I drive a 3.0l V6 soft top, and have never felt even the smallest twinge of guilt at flying to foreign destinations for pleasure. That's not to say i don't think recycling is a good thing, it's just I think we've forgotten how to do it, in the way our grandparents did it all the time, and much more effectively than we mostly do, without having to create an industry around it.

But the children thing is obvious, although its not something which is politically correct to say. A child in the western world uses hundreds of tons of carbon over their lifetime. For every 1 child less that is born, all those hundreds of tons of carbon will be saved.

quentingargan

Cunsiderthis wrote: »

...That's not to say i don't think recycling is a good thing, it's just I think we've forgotten how to do it, in the way our grandparents did it all the time, and much more effectively than we mostly do, without having to create an industry around it.

Our grandparents recycled because it was expensive not to - there was a refund on bottles, paper was expensive and got re-used - they were regarded as precious. Part of the reason we have to build an industry around recycling is because packaging is both cheap and ubiquitous.

Cunsiderthis wrote: »

A child in the western world uses hundreds of tons of carbon over their lifetime. For every 1 child less that is born, all those hundreds of tons of carbon will be saved.

Not all childeren will do this, or have to. I don't think the next generation will be driving 3L V6s.

The object is simple - make life sustainable. Population control may be a part of our sustainability, but it isn't the only one. It is an obvious statement of fact that if life isn't sustainable, there will be no future in it.

Cunsiderthis

quentingargan wrote: »

Our grandparents recycled because it was expensive not to - there was a refund on bottles, paper was expensive and got re-used - they were regarded as precious. Part of the reason we have to build an industry around recycling is because packaging is both cheap and ubiquitous.


Not all childeren will do this, or have to. I don't think the next generation will be driving 3L V6s.

The object is simple - make life sustainable. Population control may be a part of our sustainability, but it isn't the only one. It is an obvious statement of fact that if life isn't sustainable, there will be no future in it.

Thats absolutely true and, of course, packaging has become much more complicated and convoluted.

I certainly hope the next generation will be able to drive the equivalent of a 3.0l V6, and am sure technology will ensure that will happen.

Of course life should be sustainable, and no one could argue against it. Population control sounds awful, and i hope we never have to countenance that!

djpbarry

Cunsiderthis wrote: »

I certainly hope the next generation will be able to drive the equivalent of a 3.0l V6...

Do you think it would be sustainable for everyone to drive a 3.0L V6?