Follow this blog:: RSS

San Francisco: If you MUST fly, why not buy some carbon offsets?

By Heather Clancy | October 9, 2009, 6:11 PM PDT

The new Climate Passport program at the San Francisco International Airport grabbed my attention a couple of weeks ago now, but frankly I haven’t really been able to figure out what I think about it.

Here’s the idea: Whenever you walk into the airport to start (or finish) a trip, you can drop by a kiosk that will calculate the carbon impact of your travel. You can then buy offsets from the kiosk manager, 3Degrees, that will go to a forestry project in the Garcia River Forest. Some of the money will also go to the San Francisco Carbon Fund. The projects and offsets purchased to support it are verified by the Climate Action Registry.

Far be it from me to deride a noble cause, because I am the first to love a picnic under the redwoods, but I have trouble believing that many people will opt to use the kiosk — even considering the demographic.

Personally speaking, traveling is enough of a nightmare without someone conspiring to make me feel guilty about it. I guess if I carried on my luggage and avoided the luggage handling fee, MAYBE I would have a few extra dollars to spend on an offset. But if I have to take the step of walking to a separate kiosk, dragging my luggage with me, who knows? Who am I kidding, I’m a sucker for stuff for this, but I’m not as jaded or put-upon as the average frequent flier.

Perhaps smarter instead for the 3Degrees organization to look into teaming up with travel agencies and travel booking web sites to offer its service at the point of sale, when travelers aren’t as stressed and when it might be more convenient for them to act on their guilt feelings. Or maybe tie it somehow to an airline affinity program. Then their carbon impact program might have a broader impact.

Start your week smarter with our weekly e-mail newsletter. It's your cheat sheet for good ideas. Get it.

About Heather Clancy

Heather Clancy is a contributing editor for SmartPlanet.

Full Bio
Disclosure
Contact

If you liked this, don't miss...

Comments

Add Your Opinion

Join the conversation!

Follow via:: RSS

Just
In

RE: San Francisco: If you MUST fly, why not buy some carbon offsets?

Actually adornoe@, in the 1930s we did have the big SUVs, or actually their predecessors, large war machines. Also planes and especially large factories. All of which did emit great clouds of CO2 and other pollutants. These factories, planes and vehicles were in full use as the world prepared for war, and none of them were very clean. So to say that we weren't contributing large amounts of pollutants during the 1930s is wrong. Also, it is mis-leading to try to convince me that temperatures have been falling for the last eleven years, when the truth is that they rose for 10 of those years and were low only last year.

Posted by guywayne

16th Oct 2009

Show:

Please Select

0 Votes

+ -

Why bother?

The evidence keeps rolling in that CO2 is nothing more than a miniscule contributor to global warming. Its impact is smaller than the uncertainties of the impact caused by sunspots or El Nino; in other words, it's significance is lost in the mud. Nor is it a poison; the US Navy doesn't classify CO2 concentrations as dangerous in subs until it reaches 8000 PPM; current atmospheric concentrations are around 384 PPM, or more than 25 times smaller.

Finally one has to consider the impact of CO2 on water consumption for food production. Plants get their CO2 for photosynethsis by opening pores to the outside air. The lower the CO2 concentration, the bigger the pore, and the more water vapor is expelled, requiring more water to grow food. The higher the concentration, the smaller the pore, and the less water vapor expelled.

So fly all you want, the more you do the less water it takes to feed our hungry world!

Posted by LarryPTL

12th Oct 2009

Reply
Flag

0 Votes

+ -

It's easier to do nothing, apparently...

I'm not sure which energy giant or airline LarryPTL has stock in, but there is an overwhelming amount of scientific evidence that CO2 concentrations in our atmosphere are at a dangerous level. In fact, if we don't turn things around in the next 5-6 years, we're doomed as a species. That's not to say that another human-like species won't evolve on Earth over the course of many millions of years, but there are no guarantees. What worries me more are the lives of people on Earth now, as they will be quite miserable in the near future if we don't turn things around NOW (including reducing air travel, the worst form of travel from a CO2 standpoint).

People like LarryPTL either have a vested interest in the continuation of poor CO2 pollution regulation, have been convinced that it's nothing to worry about by others with a vested interest (and millions of dollars to spend on convincing), or believe that the end times are coming and they might as well grab the biggest piece of economic pie they can before it's all over. Unfortunately, people like LarryPTL are holding back efforts of those of us who put our trust in science.

His attempts to convince using "science" are some of the most insidious methods being used by people like him, as they make science out to be a game of guessing rather than the precise (and usually accurate) system that it is. If one person says that CO2 isn't a big contributor to climate change and another person says that it is the worst contributor, then science must not work, right? The truth is that CO2 doesn't affect climate as much as methane (perhaps the seed for LarryPTL's claim), but it has a long-term effect beyond any El Ni?o or solar flare. Additionally, as the polar ice caps and glaciers melt around the world, they release methane into the atmosphere at an alarming rate, which is why stopping the melting soon is so vital to our survival. The poison angle is a straw man argument, as nobody is using that as a reason for CO2 regulation and reduction. Water will be an issue for humanity to deal with, and soon, but we should be more worried right now about the rising water in the oceans than the water we use to drink and grow food, if we must prioritize.

I realize that there are complexities to climate change, making it easier to discredit. We had a cooler summer than usual here in Colorado, for example, which goes against the basic idea that temperatures are rising. Our cool summer was caused by an El Ni?o-like effect that was, in turn, caused by solar activity. That effect, unfortunately, will not stop climate change. I encourage everyone who reads posts that deny climate change and/or its dangerous consequences (which seem to dominate here at ZDNet/Smart Planet for some reason) to research it on your own and find out what the scientists have discovered through their exhaustive research. If you do your part to reduce carbon emissions (including encouraging law makers to enforce more strict regulations) and our planet still goes down the tubes, it won't be your fault, it will be LarryPTL's fault.

Posted by stancube

12th Oct 2009

Reply
Flag

0 Votes

+ -

RE: San Francisco: If you MUST fly, why not buy some carbon offsets?

Here's a decent article from the BBC:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8299079.stm

Posted by mrissman1@...

12th Oct 2009

Reply
Flag

0 Votes

+ -

RE: San Francisco: If you MUST fly, why not buy some carbon offsets?

I find it interesting that Stancube immediately tries to pigeon-hole LarryPTL. This is such a tired approach.

How about if Stancube gives his arguments about what he believes to be true providing the facts that he is aware of (if he so chooses) and ALSO allows others to give their arguments about what they believe and providing the facts that they're aware of, WITHOUT belittling everyone who disagrees.

Posted by mrissman1@...

12th Oct 2009

Reply
Flag

0 Votes

+ -

stancube; It's still junk sciene

Stanbue:

Although you seem to have all the junk science talking points down pat, and you would make the "consensus scientists" and All Gore proud, the "science" of which you speak is still no more than "junk science".

You are doing exactly the same thing that Obama does when he advocates for using science, and then says that the "science is settled" and the country and the world need to act to control or reverse global warming. Obama and anyone else that believes that CO2 is a danger or at dangerous levels, is lying through their teeth and should be forbidden to even use the word "science" in any of their speeches or writings.

You "global warming" proponents, and the so-called "scientists" who brought up the "theory" in the first place, have violated all of the principles of science from beginning to end.

But, I know how it is with you people: "the end justifies the means".

Posted by adornoe@...

12th Oct 2009

Reply
Flag

0 Votes

+ -

Say what you will, it won't save the Earth...

Being nice and just stating facts works when both sides of the argument are valid, and either might be correct - like competing theories before the facts prove one or the other or some combination of both. The facts prove that climate change is as real as gravity, and labeling climate change science as "junk science" is just another tactic used to discredit those of us who are trying to educate humanity out of the deep hole we've dug for ourselves.

The BBC article goes along nicely with my original post, as temporary temperature changes, whether higher or lower, are not indicative of the overall climate change. They are caused by El Nino, solar flares, etc.

By the way, I am not a believer in the justification that "The ends justify the means." Not with climate change, not with war, not with torture, and not with any topic of serious debate. Try to "pigeonhole" me all you like, it won't change the fact that humanity is in serious danger and that you're fighting efforts to correct that.

Posted by stancube

13th Oct 2009

Reply
Flag

0 Votes

+ -

RE: San Francisco: If you MUST fly, why not buy some carbon offsets?

Why don't we talk about something that we can all agree on? Like the economy or abortion.
The problem with carbon credits is not whether there truly is global warming or not. The problem is that they don't get us to put any less CO2 and other pollutants into the air or use any less fuel. They get us to think "hey, I planted a tree (or paid somebody to plant a tree for me) so now I can hop on a plane and generate 500 pounds of pollution today and it won't harm the planet.
That's just a dumb, feel-good 'solution' that solves nothing. If you want to create a real solution, stay home and plant a tree in your yard.

Posted by guywayne

13th Oct 2009

Reply
Flag

0 Votes

+ -

Stancube: You can be dismissive all you want, but

the fact remains that "global warming" science is nothing but "junk science".

The scientific method was bastardize from beginning to end in order to create the illusion of "global warming". Yet, after real science, from real scientists, started demolishing the so-called "facts" from the consensus or "junk scientists", the "global warmists" had to change their terminology and now they've change to "the climate is changing". Well, DUH! Nobody can deny that the "climate changes". The climate has been changing ever since the "Big Bang". But, changing their mantra to "climate change" does not change the facts that the original "global warming" science was violating the "scientific method" every step of the way.

When the science starts with the need to prove an idea, or to arrive at a "desired result" instead of a real observation with undeniable proof, then it's nothing but "junk science".

And, hey, the BBC article is but one of the many of those reports that have converted from their original beliefs. In fact, many scientists who had "believed" in the original versions of global warming are not on the opposite end of the spectrum.

No matter what, the fact remains that government has no business acting on a "theory" in order to implement political and massive economic hardships on the people. A theory with so many holes in it doesn't even deserve the title of "theory".

Posted by adornoe@...

13th Oct 2009

Reply
Flag

0 Votes

+ -

RE: San Francisco: If you MUST fly, why not buy some carbon offsets?

I have something else to think about, unless you are a creationist, in which case you are probably opposed to thinking, and you are absolutely right about everything and I won't argue with you.
Since we are talking about science, and the argument seems to be about science that isn't widely agreed upon, let's open this up to things that are generally agreed on, and think about what comes from that.
Billions of years ago, the Earth's atmosphere contained Methane, Sulfur Compounds and Carbon compounds. There was virtually no free Oxygen as it is too reactive to exist for long without being replaced. Then, the geology of the Earth changed and certain microorganisms formed which allowed for some of the Carbon to get locked up, cooling the Earth and releasing some of the Oxygen to become available to evolving life that was becoming viable. Over some eons, the Earth changed and became what it is today, bla bla bla. The Important thing here is that much of the carbon that had been in the atmosphere was now locked up in minerals and the decaying bodies of trillions of plants and animals.
So, now it is 2009 and what are we arguing about? We are digging up those plants and animals and putting their carbon back into the air. Why then, don't we think that the temperature will go back up?

Posted by guywayne

13th Oct 2009

Reply
Flag

0 Votes

+ -

guywayne: Yeah, "problem" is, termperatures aren't going up...

No matter how much "fossil" fuels we dig up, the temperatures aren't going up. In fact, in the last 11 years, as a whole, the temperatures of the globe have actually cooled. Ans, taking the last century in perspective, we had warmer periods in the 1930s than we had in the latter half of that century. And, fossil fuels were in use at just a tiny fraction of the use we have today. So, we didn't have SUVs and large airplanes and large factories spewing CO2 into the atmosphere. Yet, the temperatures in the 1930s were higher than in the rest of the century.

With the "cooling" of the last 11 years, some scientists are speculating the we may actually be at the beginning stage of a cooling period which could last 30 to 40 years. So, instead of worrying about "global warming", should the government be trying to do something about "global cooling"? We heard about that kind of "global cooling" fear back in the 1970s and 20 years later, we started hearing about the "global warming" fears, and now we may be headed into another "global cooling" fear period. It's just madness and stupidity.

Posted by adornoe@...

14th Oct 2009

Reply
Flag

0 Votes

+ -

One last note...

This thread is one of many in which climate change deniers are trying to convince everybody else not to do a thing about the most dire situation humanity has ever faced. The burden of proof is on them, as the facts are clear that we must act immediately. Question their motives. More importantly, go out and research the science yourself if you're not sure what to believe.

I've attempted to deconstruct their "arguments", but there are so many deceitful tactics being used that it's impossible to point them all out. That's why it's important to find out for yourself whether or not measures need to be taken to get us back down to pre-industrial greenhouse gas levels.

Don't trust the deniers, and don't trust me. Talk to an ecologist (or anyone in the natural sciences) or read one of the thousands of articles that have been written on the subject. Figure it out for yourself and then decide to either push for CO2 regulation or not.

Posted by stancube

14th Oct 2009

Reply
Flag

0 Votes

+ -

RE: San Francisco: If you MUST fly, why not buy some carbon offsets?

Posted by guywayne

16th Oct 2009

Reply
Flag

Join the SmartPlanet community and join the conversation! Signing up is fast and free. Don't wait -- we want to hear your opinion!