Make this my home page
More buttons
Best of the Day
Page
The Road: A trailer for the Apocalyptic
Video
The Goddess of the Market: The Meaning of Ayn Rand
Blog
Devdutt Pattanaik takes an eye-opening look at the myths of India and of the West -- and shows how these two fundamentally different sets of beliefs about God, death and heaven help us consistently misunderstand one another.
Game
Left 4 Dead 2
Art
The Good Gods!- Addicted to Love
Cool tools
Hot links

Super Mario Flash Game Restyled for Obama

Dadaist deconstruction of new media, as a flash game.
Everything you need to know about microscopic water bears
News for nerds
For lovers of the Green Fairy
Stories and art from Australia's Yolgnu people
Australia's best science fiction author
Did the earth just move?
Don't discount journalism
Novelist and comic book legend's homepage
Museum of science fiction, utopia and extraordinary journeys
Developing tech to get the internet to its full potential
Free Culture, Open Government, Liberty
Online Buddhist meditation
Reducing harm from drug use
The Inexact Science of Carbon Neutrality

You've likely heard the term "carbon neutral." It's applied to individuals, organizations, and even products that produce a net sum of zero carbon emissions. They often achieve this tricky feat by purchasing carbon offsets or credits, which are financial instruments representing a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. In other words, to make up for emitting X tons of CO2 into the atmosphere each year, a company might invest millions of dollars in planting forests or building clean energy sources, such as solar panels and wind farms.

Unfortunately, the carbon-neutral trend is still young, and achieving carbon neutrality is an inexact science, a point well highlighted in a recent Wall Street Journal article that focused much attention on Dell's proclamation that it had achieved carbon neutrality earlier this year.

[ What's the potential cost of emitting GHGs? Please read "CO2 spewer? See you in court!" ]

Notably, Dell isn't the only company out there aspiring to become carbon neutral. You can add organizations such as Yahoo, Google, Timberland, and News Corp. to that list. (Other companies, such as HP and IBM, aren't being quite as aggressive, instead working to reduce their carbon footprints.) I suspect that the WSJ could have focused on any of these companies and found inconsistencies. I'd wager that Dell's repeatedly stated aspiration to be the greenest technology company on the planet simply makes it a more tempting target.

One of the problems with investing in carbon offsets is that it can be tough to measure what you're really getting for your money -- if anything -- in so far as reducing your company's carbon footprint. For example, in the WSJ article, the writer reports that "some of those improvements would have occurred whether or not Dell invested in them, according to some of the companies involved. That suggests Dell isn't ridding the atmosphere of as much pollution as it claims."

The article deteriorates into almost a "he said, she said" account, where Dell states that the programs it's invested in wouldn't have been feasible without its funding. In some case, the funding recipients agree: For example, a representative of Conservation International says its project to protect a threatened forest in Madagascar wouldn't have occurred without Dell's investment. The company is offsetting about 100,000 tons of carbon dioxide annually through the project.

Some funding recipients, however, assert that their projects would go on without Dell's investment, such as a trio of wind projects in Iowa owned by Mid American Energy, as well as the Elk Wind River Project, in Beaumont, Kan. Representatives of both projects attributed their profitability to federal tax credits, and that the sales of RECs (renewable energy certificates) just brought added value.

Notably, this isn't the first time questions about the value and legitimacy of carbon-offset projects have come to light. For example, according to the Christian Science Monitor, "the United Nations has set up the CDM (Clean Development Mechanism) to help companies in industrialized countries invest in projects in poorer nations that cut greenhouse-gas emissions as part of their countries' commitment under the Kyoto Protocol or the European Union's emissions plan."

A worthy endeavor -- "but Stanford University researchers who've studied the CDM say the emissions cuts are largely illusory," according to the article. "As many as two-thirds of the programs funded contribute nothing new to reducing emissions."

Clearly, picking a carbon-offset project is, for the time being, no easy task. Turning to a third-party consultant to assess the viability of each project makes sense -- except even then, there are no guarantees. Case in point: Per the WSJ article, Dell hired a consultant who concluded that the wind-power projects Dell was considering wouldn't have been feasible without Dell's investment -- yet the companies involved in the projects said otherwise.

The question of whether carbon offsets hold value just scratches the surface of the overall carbon-neutrality question. For the time being, there isn't even a consistent approach to measuring an organization's carbon footprint in the first place. And if you don't know how much CO2 you're responsible for, how do you know how much offsetting is necessary to become neutral? It makes sense, I would say, to include the emissions produced by your company's boilers, electricity use, company cars, and business travel. But should you include the manufacturing process down the supply chain to make the parts that your company uses to build products? The fuel needed to ship products to stores where they're sold? How about factoring in the electricity consumers use to power your product?

[ For more, please read "Green demands trickle down the supply chain." ]

In short, companies such as Dell and Yahoo are carbon-neutrality pioneers, and their efforts will help decide how the market for carbon offsets shapes up. Personally, though, I'm more interested in seeing what companies can do internally to reduce the greenhouse gas emissions (while reducing energy waste and costs in the process). I know Dell, Yahoo, and other companies are doing just that -- but I could see other companies relying almost entirely on potentially worthless carbon offsets to "green up" their image.

Ted Samson writes the column Sustainable IT for Infoworld.com. Click the view button below to read more.

View the pageGo back to previous pageLeave some feedbackPrint this pageEmail link to friendsBookmark in del.icio.usAdd to Stumble ThisAdd to your favourite bookmarksDigg this article

Tags

 

Related Stories

   
Next
After spending a few hours sipping Coronas and lime I noticed a change that's come over Sydney- the change has been that instead of the boring black and whites that have adorned the arty youth for the last few years, Sydney's hip youngsters are now battling it out for the loudest shirts, preferably from Hawaii.

Is this shift to the colourful perhaps an acceptance of our Asia-Pacific identity?

If so it's good, hopefully we'll stop looking to the dreary tonal landscapes of London and New York and start to realise that all the colour and inspiration we need exists in our backyards. 

Find out about our Widget

Feedback

7 jul

The HomepageDAILY community likes to co-create both content and process. What are you thinking right now about what we do and how we do it? Tell us about the news, videos and stories and anything else you see on HPD. What you like, what you don't like, what you'd like to see in future. Recommend a website, video or article; send us pix, new stories - share it with us and by so doing you are giving us permission to share it with the world.

Leave Feedback here

 *********************************

 Re: Commoditisation of aboriginal art

dear jack do you know anything about the history of Aboriginal 'art'??? Your speculation seems based on complete ignorance of the fact that Aboriginal art was invented for white buyers - the Aborigines themselves having survived 40,000 years without needing to give their lore and laws, myths and legends and rules for survival in a hostile climate any permanent form. It was only our attempts to assimilate them into our 'society' that drove the link to canvas - though the money we paid for their art was a nice bonus, and shouldn't be ignored as a continuing motive for painting. cheers - jeremy

 *********************************

 Re: Farmers and ETS

Thank you for your commentary about farmers in a world of changing climate. Here in the Pacific NW we are not as aware of it as some other places. Our Transition Town group hosted author William Catton last night, who wrote a prophetic book called "Overshoot" back in 1980. During the discussion, a local fish biologist pointed out that of all industries, farmers are the only ones constantly limited by nature. The rest of the world ( with a few exceptions like fishermen or foresters) really do not seem to make their living in a world of limited by forces beyond their control--- or so they imagine. There is a fundamental sanity in these other ways of life that our culture is unwilling to hear. It runs away from the voice of limitation. I think farmers have a lot to teach the world. We always thought there was something wholesome about farming and I think this is exactly it; a lack of hubris. How many slaps in the face will it take before people come to their senses? - Anna Willis

 *********************************

 Re: Turning Chinese

Obama is just a puppet of the Corporate elites.He has not recinded the Patriot Act,Bushes' presidential orders nor habius corpus.Presently ,we have corporate facism. - Ross

 *********************************

 Re: Why Won't God Heal Amputees?

it seems that your whole point and discussion is aimed at christianity. what you state is pretty thought provoking and maybe true but one thing that i have to say is that maybe the whole religion thing has just been corrupted by people and that maybe god does exist.... nomatter all the scientific bull that you and other people can come up with, there are still things that you and scientist just cant explain. ie youe exsistance and the fact that you as a human have suchbrain capacity to do what you do today, and why there is such an order in nature "ofcoures humans always fuck up the order" everything on earth is one complex puzzle that works and you and everyone found it working. not only earth but even beyond to space and shit. now you can say that all this came from a bang and what ever but even if you believe that, what created the platform for that bang and why this place and stuff. just too many things dont add up to just say there is no god. and i think most of these motherfuckers miss the point of this religious shit anyway. because god is not a religion but a spiritual bond. dont be fooled by sensationalism and think that god does not exist cos he does. at least for me. the only problem with this now is that humans have sensationalised everything to make thier shit the best and in part have missed the whole point of god. every human bieng needs something to hold on to. even you and weather it is the image of god that people have painted or not is irrelevent. there is something that you believe in.. you might not go to church and get on your knees but its just part of human nature to associate yourself with something. it could be a superstition or eating chocolate coated roaches whatever you like fact is some things are just bigger than our rational. hope to get a responce from you - esco

*********************************

Re: Safran sure to offend, but who cares?

It is an interesting question to pursue "And, is there a ratio that exists where the amount of people offended compared to those that weren't makes something objectively racist?" I suppose the most right answer to whether something is racist or not can only come about democratically. By asking people if they find it racist. Even then (in this currently impossible world where people who want to vote on everything) who gets to vote? Hopefully I do. How do I cast my vote? At the moment I abstain. - Joshua Genner

 *********************************

Re: The Pointless Question of "What is Art?"

You're article serves as a blatant example of people's lack of knowledge/interest in the contemporary art scene. Some of the most profound and revealing conversations stem from dicussions of art, politics and religion so why label them taboo subject matter? why not let the idiots add in their artistic two cents, because who knows what could happen? a change of opinion... an education... a flash of interest? Perhaps you and your friends to venture down to the COFA 09 annual exhibit and see some 200 fresh sydney artists emerge onto the art scene, unless it's too boring/inane. - Kara

*********************************

Re: The Pointless Question of "What is Art?"

I dare say the question is not pointless but rather is made pointless by overcomplications of academia and peripherals of market and status, in which Sean appears to have gotten bogged down notwithstanding the word limit. One of the things we do know about art for a fact is that we humans appear to have always had it around from the caves (who can forget the fetching bison from Alta Mira!) So the issue is cutting through the baggage of history as old as humanity to get back to the fundamentals. It took me about 35 years of research but does not take 100 words. It is this: "Art is something that is designed to communicate thoughts and feelings and to influence our thoughts and feeling through one or more of our senses."(25 words) Since we have space, a rider: "The particular art form is qualified by the particular senses involved in production and reception of that communication. If Sound then Music, If body then Dance. If we use eyes to perceive colour and shape we call it Visual art." How you work the item in question is the matter of objectivity after all some of us eat fruit raw and others make jam. If you choose to make art an investment go for it, if you choose to make it a status symbol you won't be the first. However, in my book, art is really the best at being art and in the immortal words of one Oscar Wilde, for any other purpose "All art is quite useless" - Valerie (Co-incidental author of "Why Art? The Pocket Art Expert)
*********************************

Re: John Safran ready for when skit hits the fan

The only aspect of "multiculturalism" we (or any western society)have accepted, revolves around food: sweet and sour chicken or donner kebab..nothing else is relevent, interesting or in anyway beneficial to us. The Cronulla riots were seen as well overdue by most people abroad, we should be proud of standing up to and rejecting ethnic gangs from our pure shores - "Peter Piper"

*********************************

Re: Brassed off about creationism- by Andy Coghlan

This is why we need change in Texas and why I'm running for State Board of Education. - Rebecca Bell-Metereau (www.voterebecca.com)

*********************************

Re: The Rape Tunnel

It astonishes and intrigues me this 'shock art' Being a over zealous muscled ex con looking for love, where could one find Richard Whitehursts hole?

*********************************

Re: ETS Voted Down: Rudd Proves Himself An Evil Genius

Nice to see such an insightful article, despite the snide comments.. Did you read the Quarterly Essay by Guy Pearse in writing the first 5 paragraphs- not that that's a bad thing really. Nice of you to widen your vision beyond the road ahead and take in some history- but I would add one thing- that as it stands (in the senate, especially with Steve Fielding) we won't have a real, meaningful ETS passed. The bummer is that even with a double dissolution election and the resultant simultaneous sitting of both houses of parliament (which as you point out, the greens/minor parties and labor would benefit from) would still not change the ETS from it's current configuration- not unless the Greens tripled their vote. Silly that it all came down to labor preferences to a little known party led by a little know bloke named Steve Fielding and Family First- not that that should be the reason we're in this predicament... - Shaun Lambert

*********************************

Re: Evil Capitalists

In response to the "100 Words" on Psychotic Capitalism: The statement, "only psychotics fail to distinguish right from wrong," has a semantic problem. What makes a person psychotic is the inability to recognize that, theoretically, actions or behavior can be right and wrong. A psychologically normal person can do this by age 5. But well- intentioned people constantly disagree about which actions are right and wrong in particular situations. This evening my husband and I re- watched "Zeitgeist--- Addendum" on youtube. We had to restrain ourselves from a festival of paranoia, anger and frustration at what appears to be an evil plot to enslave us all, to bleed us like pods in The Matrix. I cannot argue against the idea that Capitalism--- looked at as a planetary movement--- seems heartlessly destructive, yet there is no single person or even group of Illuminati to blame --- we are willing participants in this plot to rule the world, exploit the human race, rape Mother Earth. All of us are not psychotic, rather we are doing what seems right, and we are following norms set by our culture and community. I personally do my best to support those lawmakers who help us define right at wrong at the transpersonal level--- where this kind of crime being committed, with vast and ultimately very personal consequences. Indeed people can be stupider and meaner in groups than singly --- but whatever the right word is for that, it is not psychotic. Our real problem is that we seem incapable of seeing consequences beyond the local and immediate, we are selfish and shortsighted. But the writer is right: stupid, mean, selfish, shortsighted --- these terms trivialize the unfathomable crimes of Capitalists and their sheep-like dupes. - Anna Willis

*********************************

Re: Ethics Implicit?

There is one place where ethics is not "implicit everywhere" and that is television and the media generally - the only ethic is win the audience. This is the toxic environment "informing" students. - Terry McGee

*********************************

Re: Australia's Swine Flu vaccination plan

The word "pandemic" has absolutely nothing to do with a deadly disease taking over the planet. The definition of "Pandemic" is simply about the SPREAD of a disease. Any disease. It could be a relatively harmless disease like the Swine Flu, to maybe a more harmful type (like normal seasonal influenza). Nothing to do with how bad or how good it is to your health ... just how WIDESPREAD it is. That is the interpretation of "Pandemic". A word that is nothing to be scared about, but just a measure of the SPREAD of any disease (harmful or relatively harmless) around the globe. The original "Spanish Flu" in 1819 killed 50 to 100 million people worldwide. Swine Flu deaths to date? 2,800 or so. Compare this to up to 500,000 deaths worldwide from our ongoing "Seasonal Flu". People need to see things in perspective. Swine Flu is a mild flu. No need for risky & possibly dangerous vaccinations. No need to be scared. In fact NO NEED TO DO ANYTHING. Just stay cool and take whatever vitamins & health supplements that are appropriate. Good luck & stay informed. - Tim
 
*********************************

Re: Kabul-shit

A nice puncture of the ADF's mad illusions. Shooting civvies in another land used to be called murder, now we pretend its nation building. It must have struck a chord. General Jim Molan, the butcher of Fallujah, who used white phosphorous & put snipers on hospital rooftops, raves in today's SMH about staying true to the mission. What is it with these guys? Untold deaths in Iraq, bombs still exploding, millions of refugees ... and this guy thinks he's a genius. - Tina G

*********************************

Re: Why we shouldn't care about he loneliness of the University Liberal

While you have managed to approach, with a complete lack of understanding and sensitivity, the complaints of the many people who feel alienated by the overtly leftist university agenda, I also think that you have failed to address the concerns of an increasingly disenfranchised leftist populace. The article was concerning the Left Handed bigots, not the personal politics of either of the 4 people mentioned. Their concern was not with, as you pointlessly attacked, their political beliefs, but rather with their freedom to express their beliefs and how they were treated on campus because of them. I write this as a disenfranchised leftist. Apparently, freedom of speech on campus somehow took a backseat to the far left's bigotry, however well intentioned they thought it was originally. I'm not right; I'm not left. But fuck anybody that tries to censure me and revoke my right to freedom of speech, merely for believing in a political party. Anyone that thinks that's OK, well simply look up the definition of fascist. - I Swing My Vote

*********************************
12 sep
10 aug
More feedback...
© 2007-2008 homePageDAILY - All rights reserved * Terms of Use * Privacy Policy * Advertising Information * Media Kit * Contact Us