I suggest that Daniel needs to go deeper in his thinking about carbon offsets. I suggest reading Paul Hawken et al.'s book Regeneration with its section on offsets--discussing those that have been successful and what we need to do to make more of them work. The UN views accurate offsets as a necessary part of meeting climate goals, but t…
I suggest that Daniel needs to go deeper in his thinking about carbon offsets. I suggest reading Paul Hawken et al.'s book Regeneration with its section on offsets--discussing those that have been successful and what we need to do to make more of them work. The UN views accurate offsets as a necessary part of meeting climate goals, but there is still debate on how we can make these work.
Daniel, ten years ago in How Soon Is Now, told his reader to "Cut down on air travel. Stop taking unnecessary business trips and vacations. Focus on creating local utopias rather than travelling long distances for exotic experiences." Like Ketan Joshi, Daniel seems to hold the idea that quickly ceasing the usage of fossil fuels is possible, while those who support offsetting as a tool tend to admit the sheer difficulty of such a task.
A personal flight creates a lot of emissions for one's own carbon budget. For instance, Daniel's flight to Turkey created about 1 lb of CO2 per mile, not including the other pollutants, but including the factor that high-atmosphere emissions cause about 2x the climate forcing as emissions on the ground. So, Daniel's share of the flight, to haul his body weight and luggage and hire the plane, emitted about 10K lbs, or 5 tons, of emissions. This is 2.5x the emissions that my personal car accounts for during an entire year of usage, but, granted, I try not to drive very much, sharing Daniel's concern about climate change.
To put this flight-emissions figure in perspective, to maintain the IPCC's 1.5C increased temperature goal (by 2100), and spreading the emission budget equally among all people, then each person's carbon budget by 2030 needs about 3 tons per year for everything (I'll double-check this figure, but I think it's correct). So, Daniel's one Turkish flight uses about 1.7x the total carbon that a single person should use for an entire year by 2030 to limit global warming. Right now, sustainable jet fuel costs at least 5x the amount of fossil jet fuel--which would raise the cost of his trip by perhaps 500%. And it's debatable if we can even produce enough to replace fossil jet fuel, so that would limit available flights too.
I write this not to shame Daniel, or other frequent flyers, but to note how difficult it is to reduce one's personal carbon emissions. We also have to consider all the other services from fossil carbon that we get: food, heating and cooling, transport, manufacturing of materials, electrifying appliances and making wind turbines and solar panels, constructing buildings, etc. Thus, and as the UN IPCC notes, we will need to devise "negative emissions technologies" until we can replace fossil fuels (which is a tremendous challenge and perhaps not possible in the near- or mid-future). So, carbon offsets are considered as a possible tool. There's also a difference between mandatory carbon markets and personal voluntary ones.
Yes, there is corporate greenwashing about carbon offsetting, as well as problematic and ineffective offsets, and offsets are currently minimally used, particularly by voluntary individuals. The core ethical idea makes sense to me: each person and entity needs to take responsibility for cleaning up their climate pollution. Offsets would also have the positive side effect of getting people and companies to pay much closer attention at how much they are polluting. Doing this, then they might stop using so much in the first place, as Daniel urged.
I also agree with Charles Eisenstein that we shouldn't become technocratic bean-counters about carbon, but rather we need to approach solving climate with an attitude of love for the living world. But I don't see these as mutually exclusive as Charles seems to; we could design carbon offsets in a way that would provide much-needed financing for ecological restoration, and we could do this with an attitude of respect, reciprocity, and indeed love for the living world.
You make some great points. The irony of Daniel traveling so often seemingly despite his own recommendations to not do so are reflective of the seeming futility of all of our best intentions, even those who are aware and care. To really slow down climate change, a large majority of people would need to agree to radically change behavior and to hold each other accountable. I don't see that happening on any scale. The pandemic is another example. We can't even agree on collective action there, how are we to do so in other areas of our lives that requiere even greater sacrifice? What the pandemic has shown me is that any attempt at collective action that is supported by the government in any measure (ei. quarantines and mask requirements) will be short lived and will end in rebellion and accusations of repression. I am coming to the conclusion that if a systems collapse is what we need, then that is what we shall have. In the meantime, I am trying to do my part to mitigate my environmental impact on the world (no driving and very infrequent flying, only to see my mom once in a blue moon). I'm also looking into supporting and protecting certain eco habitats. I'm not sure what else to do at this point.
Hi Veronica, One reason I keep traveling is that I am trying to find a place I can live. I am not really feeling like I want to live out my life in New York or America. So that is a legit issue. In other ways I try to be a good ecological citizen. I have never owned a car for instance. I think that systems collapse (but there are many possible variations on that) is most likely... reading An Inconvenient Apocalypse now, very good and clarifying.
Hey Daniel, I think finding a place to live is totally legit and I didn't meant to shame you. We are all participating in the system somehow whether we want to or not. I hope you find that special place!
After the last 4 months in my former homeland ...NY and America ...getting back to Australia was wonderful ...not perfect ...far from it but still the best choice I made back in 84
I suggest that Daniel needs to go deeper in his thinking about carbon offsets. I suggest reading Paul Hawken et al.'s book Regeneration with its section on offsets--discussing those that have been successful and what we need to do to make more of them work. The UN views accurate offsets as a necessary part of meeting climate goals, but there is still debate on how we can make these work.
Daniel, ten years ago in How Soon Is Now, told his reader to "Cut down on air travel. Stop taking unnecessary business trips and vacations. Focus on creating local utopias rather than travelling long distances for exotic experiences." Like Ketan Joshi, Daniel seems to hold the idea that quickly ceasing the usage of fossil fuels is possible, while those who support offsetting as a tool tend to admit the sheer difficulty of such a task.
A personal flight creates a lot of emissions for one's own carbon budget. For instance, Daniel's flight to Turkey created about 1 lb of CO2 per mile, not including the other pollutants, but including the factor that high-atmosphere emissions cause about 2x the climate forcing as emissions on the ground. So, Daniel's share of the flight, to haul his body weight and luggage and hire the plane, emitted about 10K lbs, or 5 tons, of emissions. This is 2.5x the emissions that my personal car accounts for during an entire year of usage, but, granted, I try not to drive very much, sharing Daniel's concern about climate change.
To put this flight-emissions figure in perspective, to maintain the IPCC's 1.5C increased temperature goal (by 2100), and spreading the emission budget equally among all people, then each person's carbon budget by 2030 needs about 3 tons per year for everything (I'll double-check this figure, but I think it's correct). So, Daniel's one Turkish flight uses about 1.7x the total carbon that a single person should use for an entire year by 2030 to limit global warming. Right now, sustainable jet fuel costs at least 5x the amount of fossil jet fuel--which would raise the cost of his trip by perhaps 500%. And it's debatable if we can even produce enough to replace fossil jet fuel, so that would limit available flights too.
I write this not to shame Daniel, or other frequent flyers, but to note how difficult it is to reduce one's personal carbon emissions. We also have to consider all the other services from fossil carbon that we get: food, heating and cooling, transport, manufacturing of materials, electrifying appliances and making wind turbines and solar panels, constructing buildings, etc. Thus, and as the UN IPCC notes, we will need to devise "negative emissions technologies" until we can replace fossil fuels (which is a tremendous challenge and perhaps not possible in the near- or mid-future). So, carbon offsets are considered as a possible tool. There's also a difference between mandatory carbon markets and personal voluntary ones.
Yes, there is corporate greenwashing about carbon offsetting, as well as problematic and ineffective offsets, and offsets are currently minimally used, particularly by voluntary individuals. The core ethical idea makes sense to me: each person and entity needs to take responsibility for cleaning up their climate pollution. Offsets would also have the positive side effect of getting people and companies to pay much closer attention at how much they are polluting. Doing this, then they might stop using so much in the first place, as Daniel urged.
I also agree with Charles Eisenstein that we shouldn't become technocratic bean-counters about carbon, but rather we need to approach solving climate with an attitude of love for the living world. But I don't see these as mutually exclusive as Charles seems to; we could design carbon offsets in a way that would provide much-needed financing for ecological restoration, and we could do this with an attitude of respect, reciprocity, and indeed love for the living world.
You make some great points. The irony of Daniel traveling so often seemingly despite his own recommendations to not do so are reflective of the seeming futility of all of our best intentions, even those who are aware and care. To really slow down climate change, a large majority of people would need to agree to radically change behavior and to hold each other accountable. I don't see that happening on any scale. The pandemic is another example. We can't even agree on collective action there, how are we to do so in other areas of our lives that requiere even greater sacrifice? What the pandemic has shown me is that any attempt at collective action that is supported by the government in any measure (ei. quarantines and mask requirements) will be short lived and will end in rebellion and accusations of repression. I am coming to the conclusion that if a systems collapse is what we need, then that is what we shall have. In the meantime, I am trying to do my part to mitigate my environmental impact on the world (no driving and very infrequent flying, only to see my mom once in a blue moon). I'm also looking into supporting and protecting certain eco habitats. I'm not sure what else to do at this point.
Hi Veronica, One reason I keep traveling is that I am trying to find a place I can live. I am not really feeling like I want to live out my life in New York or America. So that is a legit issue. In other ways I try to be a good ecological citizen. I have never owned a car for instance. I think that systems collapse (but there are many possible variations on that) is most likely... reading An Inconvenient Apocalypse now, very good and clarifying.
Hey Daniel, I think finding a place to live is totally legit and I didn't meant to shame you. We are all participating in the system somehow whether we want to or not. I hope you find that special place!
After the last 4 months in my former homeland ...NY and America ...getting back to Australia was wonderful ...not perfect ...far from it but still the best choice I made back in 84