This story in todays local paper ('Bristol Airport security detects toothpaste but not live bullets', Post, 13 March) raises the very serious issue of airport security, which must be got right of course. However, the fact that 'Four staff at green consultancy Carbon Managers were setting off for a tree-planting trip in Scotland from Bristol Airport...' is also most noteworthy to say the least! What are carbon managers doing flying like this?These people should surely recognise that there is no substitute for reducing emissions at source. Its hardly taking all practical steps to reduce carbon emissions if they are flying off to Scotland is it! But that is what the best advice says should be done before considering carbon offsetting, which is what these 'four staff' would probably say they have done with their emissions from the flight.
Even at the offsetting stage one has to be very careful indeed about the scheme chosen because there are some very dodgy ones out there - you just can't 'magic away' our climate problems by handing over some dosh to a consultancy. If the solution was that easy the problem would have been solved years ago!!
The solution is almost that easy, but isn't pursued because it doesn't immediately line any one's pockets. A lot of people are making good money by peddling quack nostrums so the last thing they want to see is a genuine solution that would undermine their businesses.
ReplyDeleteThe solution? Carbon emissions (or any other form of pollution) do a quantifiable amount of damage. The cost of that damage can also be quantified, in terms of the cost of repairing the damage or of compensation or full mitigation.
So we can say that the emission of 1kg of CO2 carries a cost of £x. Then it is but a small step to require that the producer of the source of that CO2 emission, say the oil company or coal mining company, pay that cost to an approved agency at the point of production. Supplements/refunds may be payable at later stages to account for more or less damaging end uses (e.g. a refund for Carbon Capture).
So we then have an agency with the funds necessary to repair, mitigate or compensate for all the damage caused. In practice this work would be carried out by a multitude of agencies which might be largely private companies competing to win the contracts awarded by the lead agencies - whatever works best. But the essential point is that the problem is thereby solved.
This is part of the solution Chris. Prevention is better than 'cure' though and I dont see the word prevention here. Raising the cost of carbon emitting activities would act as a disincentive to carrying them out, which helps prevention to a degree I guess.
ReplyDeleteThere are some significant inaccuracies in quantifying damage, repair costs, extent of mitigation and compensation though. In part this is because impacts are often due to a range of factors and are often broad in nature - we need to look beyond just carbon.
Ideally we need a whole range of policies, using market mechanisms, investment and regulation, to give positive incentives to carbon-free, low carbon and other green activities and disincentives to high carbon non-green activities.
Carbon Managers have a list of clients:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.carbonmanagers.com/testimonial.aspx
Maybe somebody should let them know how their carbon offset money is being spent?
"Ideally we need a whole range of policies, using market mechanisms, investment and regulation, to give positive incentives to carbon-free, low carbon and other green activities and disincentives to high carbon non-green activities."
ReplyDeleteBut what I've proposed does all that and acts as a powerful incentive to reduce CO2 (and other malign) outputs but is purely a market mechanism. That's all we need. All the rest is a diversion away from doing what will work.
Dont get me wrong, I favour this kind of policy. As you know my view is that market mechanisms alone wont deliver the extent of carbon reductions we need.
ReplyDelete