carbon offsetting

im sure that people who offset their carbon have the best of intentions but the majority of offsetting schemes out their are highly contentious, for example - the majority are profit driven and only about 40% of offset money only goes on direct project costs (usually some kind of monoculture tree planting scheme in the global south). I dont want to go off about it too much, and there is lots of info on the net for anyone whoe is interested, but perhaps the biggest problem with offsetting is that it fosters a business as usual approac - a simple credit card transaction, no matter how well intentioned, is not going to change anything. If we as a society are going to prevent any serious degree of climate change then real, fundamental social change is required. There is really no way that flying aeroplanes can ever be made sustainable...

Hug a tree

I do agree with you Robin in that flying can't really ever be sustainable unless there is some radical new technology or the price becomes so high that it's only used for critical situations, such as air ambulances - and that some people may use tree planting as a fix for their environmental conscience without making any fundamental changes to their life styles - But I do believe that the benefits of encouraging people to get involved with tree planting far outway the -ve aspects. The more tree planting schemes that become available must surly reinforce the message across the board that changes need to take place and there is no doubt that planting trees *does help* in a whole variety of ways:

- They do soak up carbon.
- They enhance bio diversity
- They provide natural cleaning systems to purify water run off.
- Promote everyones well-being be increasing the green space - where you go to chill out and dress up as a bear to find you true natural spirit and become at one with nature (just joking!! man what do you take me for?)

I agree that regulation of these schemes are important - but lets not let cynicism hold us back from doing a good thing and moving forward a little?

Get that oar in there....

Im all for encouraging

Im all for encouraging individuals to reinforce their connection with the natural environment and its important to avoid being unnecessarily cynical - but i also think there is a danger that many of these attempts to profiteer from climate change or the green pound are part of the old paradigm that created the problem in the first place. Personally I see the market based system that most of these schemes exist in as the main problem and climate change is a symptom of this very system.

As for tree planting schemes in particular it is of course true that trees (and plants) absorb carbon dioxide as part of their fundamental life processes but in the word of Oliver Rackham - 'telling people to plant trees is like telling people to drink water to keep the sea levels down'. Overloading the natural carbon cycle with carbon dredged up from the bowels of the earth is the main problem - prevention is better than cure and we need to prevent the emissions of 'fossil' carbon in the first place. The ability of tree planting schemes to increase biodiversity is also highly contentious as most of the schemes are simply monocultures which promote the abundance of a very select few species able to thrive in such an unnatural environment. Then there are the arguments that these schemes amplify existing local environmental problems - for example aquifers already over stretched from agriculture etc can become overburdened and result in increased water shortages - a problem we are only just beginning to see the tip of. Then there are issues of social inequalities where land is taken away from indigenous peoples for such schemes... the main problem is that there is no regulation of these companies...thats why they were exluded from the European emissions trading scheme...I bet i sound like a right miserable bastard...im not (usually) it just bugs me when people try and make money out of a freaking huge problem and distract people from the issues...ill shut up now...

halibut toasties

I want it all and I want it now!

Ahh so much for good old argument - I actually totally agree with you Rocket....nearly. I'm not very knowledgeable when it comes to Sociology and Economics (ie alternative ideologies - Marxism etc) but I am aware that consumerism and every day marketing are driving the majority of people to buy buy buy. In fact as I have little money myself and have been reading a book by Alan De Botton 'The Consolations of Philosophy' (very easy to read not as high brow as it sounds) and in it he covers a philosopher called Epicurus "Send me pot of cheese, so that I may feast whenever I like". Epicurus believe that the purpose of life is pleasure but he distilled it down to some very simple necessities:

Friends - Freedom - Thought - Food - Shelter - Clothes

Now if you have these things there isn't much to complain about - what he basically says is that people buy lots of unnecessary stuff because they are confused about what actually brings them happiness. So although I went off on a bit of a tangent what I'm trying to say is that I agree with you in that we need a massive change (philosophical one across society) in the way that people lead their every day lives - I don't think that it's going to happen - businesses need to make money.

There definitely are many problems with tree planting schemes, most of these problems you've highlighted. Lets pretend that there's one that plants native trees in an area that had trees previously and it is managed in a top down approach considering the whole spectrum of wild life, the local people and their resources - it's a drop in the ocean but it does help. Tree planting schemes that people support should be chosen carefully. I do find a few schemes a bit 'icky' - especially things like "Every time you buy a surfboard we plant a tree" - I don't feel that this is a genuine concern for the planet but just another marketing ploy, it worse pretending that you're helping the environment - surfboards are quite bad that's the long and short of it.

Anyway I don't think that you're a miserable bastard, you got to talk about this stuff sometimes (before we all fry ha ha ha) - what else is the internet for? Good on ya mate - keeping us all real...

Status Anxiety

"Every time we seek somthing we cannot afford we grow poorer, whatever our resources. Everytime we feel satisfied with what we have we can be counted as rich, however little we own" Alain De Botton from Status Anxiety, another very easy to read book by a great social commentator.

I can understand your sentiments regarding tree planting but as IOMH hinted at, If it encourages society to look at the bigger and question more unethical retailers/marketing companies then it can only be a good thing. The 1% for the Earth (1% of all company profits) scheme piloted by Yvon Chouinard of Patagonia is another applaudable effort (not to mention the $millions they've spent on researching alternative materials for surfboards AND wetsuits).

It's down to us at the end of the day.. for instance buy The Surfers Path instead of all the other mags and I guarantee they'll soon starting printing on recycled paper and using soya inks (you can start doing this with no sacrifice by waiting until the new issue of your fav mag is out and buy last months for a quid (the retailer will be happy 'cos otherwise he's gotta chop the tops off and send them back to the distributor to get some moneyback)).

I could go on and on... so I'll stop now!

Print magazines

Most print mags only sell about 40% of what they print, the rest are recycled and turned into next month's edition. If they sell more than 40%, they print more next month to make sure they don't sell so many again! There's a good article about this here:
http://dansdata.blogsome.com/2006/10/22/oh-no-were-selling-too-many-magazines/

Recycling

Couldn't find the bit about recycling and using for next months issue. It says "usually" pulped. Most small retailers only have to chop the top of the covers off to reclaim a percentage of their outlay this is where you can pick up back issues for peanuts. Of the mags that do end up pulped people like The Surfers Path reuse this "post consumer paper", most other mags use brand new glossy stuff.

Dialogue or what?

To slightly misquote what Roz Doyle (the station producer on Frasier)used to say about some smart dudes she dated .. "you guys must have a degree in brainiology". So thoughtful and considered are the follow up comments from my original post that I have to echo Ian Dury's ditty "there ain't half been some clever bastards" - good to see them posting here, eh?

By the way, I flew by turbo prop - it wasn't a jet - that must be better uh?

Life's A Beach...
http://www.s-e-x-wax.blogspot.com