3 ms·

I offset all my flights now (I probably fly about three round trips per year). My wife and I recently went to Greece (from Toronto), which were two trips of 10+

I offset all my flights now (I probably fly about three round trips per year). My wife and I recently went to Greece (from Toronto), which were two trips of 10+ hours and IIRC almost 7 tons of carbon emissions. I purchased $170 CAD of offsets from a Canadian nonprofit (https://www.less.ca/ https://www.less.ca/). Not a perfect solution, but it’s something. I’m also considering calculating our family’s total yearly carbon emissions and offsetting all of them. But here’s the thing: why aren’t offsets just baked into the price of all air travel? It would not be a huge increase in ticket prices. I would guess perhaps 10, maybe 15%. We need to change the idea that we have some god given right to externalize our environmental impacts.

baq 7y ago
how is the price of the offset calculated? that sounds rather cheap.
goodcanadian 7y ago
I've always been somewhat skeptical of the offsets. It isn't as though there is a company (or non-profit) that is sucking an equivalent amount of CO2 out of the air. Planting trees only goes so far. I guess that generating funds to pursue other reductions is worthwhile, but it doesn't really undo the damage from the CO2 that was emitted in the first place. The cynic in me thinks it is simply a mechanism for people to buy away their guilt without actually accomplishing anything. why aren’t offsets just baked into the price of all air travel? Sounds like a carbon tax to me, which I am completely in favour of. If the proceeds are used to develop renewable energy or subsidise electric car purchase or other such things, so much the better. Call it a carrot and stick approach.
- bryanlarsen 7y ago
  > undo the damage from the CO2 that was emitted in the first place. CO2 is fungible: one CO2 molecule is the same as another. And global warming is a global problem, not a local one so yes, removing one from location A at the same time as creating one at location B is very similar in effects to just not creating it in the first place. Air travel is one of the few exceptions: altitude has a large effect in the damage caused by a CO2 molecule. And of course it's not just CO2 that's being reduced when you limit CO2: most of the other pollutants emitted by combustion have very local effects. > > why aren’t offsets just baked into the price of all air travel? > Sounds like a carbon tax to me, which I am completely in favour of. If the carbon tax is below the cost of sequestration a carbon tax is not fully effective: it's still cheaper to pollute than to sequester or offset. A carbon tax above $100 per tonne or so will have the effect you desire: everybody will either reduce or will pay to offset/sequester rather than pay the tax. And if nobody pays, there are no proceeds.
  - goodcanadian 7y ago
    CO2 is fungible: one CO2 molecule is the same as another. What I am skeptical of is that the offsets really are preventing an equivalent amount of CO2 from being released elsewhere.
    - esotericn 7y ago
      It probably helps to not speak in generalities here. If you pay a person $5 to replace one of their light bulbs with LED bulbs then you have really prevented some CO2 from being released. I agree that it needs to be easier to navigate the landscape of offsetting programs and that a lot of businesses are simply buying feel-good certificates.
    - bryanlarsen 7y ago
      > What I am skeptical of is that the offsets really are preventing an equivalent amount of CO2 from being released elsewhere. I think you're throwing the baby out with the bathwater here. Your concern is quite valid and I would bet that there are a lot of offsets with questionable accounting. However offsets & sequestration are an essential tool to fight climate change. We can replace gas cars with electric cars, but there are many industries which have not yet developed viable alternatives. To dismiss sequestration means we must either dismantle those industries or give up on fighting climate change. You can argue for effective auditing and accounting of offsets, but please do not kneecap effective mechanisms for climate change mitigation.
      - goodcanadian 7y ago
        I didn't dismiss sequestration. I expressed doubt that purchasing carbon offsets actually accomplishes what is being advertised (who is actually doing sequestration?). Meanwhile, people are led to believe that it does no harm to fly (or whatever), because they bought offsets.
        bryanlarsen 7y ago
        > Meanwhile, people are led to believe that it does no harm to fly (or whatever), because they bought offsets. The harm they are doing is substantially less than flying without offsets. You're letting the perfect be the enemy of the good-enough.

baq 7y ago

how is the price of the offset calculated? that sounds rather cheap.

goodcanadian 7y ago

I've always been somewhat skeptical of the offsets. It isn't as though there is a company (or non-profit) that is sucking an equivalent amount of CO2 out of the air. Planting trees only goes so far. I guess that generating funds to pursue other reductions is worthwhile, but it doesn't really undo the damage from the CO2 that was emitted in the first place. The cynic in me thinks it is simply a mechanism for people to buy away their guilt without actually accomplishing anything. why aren’t offsets just baked into the price of all air travel? Sounds like a carbon tax to me, which I am completely in favour of. If the proceeds are used to develop renewable energy or subsidise electric car purchase or other such things, so much the better. Call it a carrot and stick approach.

bryanlarsen 7y ago
> undo the damage from the CO2 that was emitted in the first place. CO2 is fungible: one CO2 molecule is the same as another. And global warming is a global problem, not a local one so yes, removing one from location A at the same time as creating one at location B is very similar in effects to just not creating it in the first place. Air travel is one of the few exceptions: altitude has a large effect in the damage caused by a CO2 molecule. And of course it's not just CO2 that's being reduced when you limit CO2: most of the other pollutants emitted by combustion have very local effects. > > why aren’t offsets just baked into the price of all air travel? > Sounds like a carbon tax to me, which I am completely in favour of. If the carbon tax is below the cost of sequestration a carbon tax is not fully effective: it's still cheaper to pollute than to sequester or offset. A carbon tax above $100 per tonne or so will have the effect you desire: everybody will either reduce or will pay to offset/sequester rather than pay the tax. And if nobody pays, there are no proceeds.
- goodcanadian 7y ago
  CO2 is fungible: one CO2 molecule is the same as another. What I am skeptical of is that the offsets really are preventing an equivalent amount of CO2 from being released elsewhere.
  - esotericn 7y ago
    It probably helps to not speak in generalities here. If you pay a person $5 to replace one of their light bulbs with LED bulbs then you have really prevented some CO2 from being released. I agree that it needs to be easier to navigate the landscape of offsetting programs and that a lot of businesses are simply buying feel-good certificates.
  - bryanlarsen 7y ago
    > What I am skeptical of is that the offsets really are preventing an equivalent amount of CO2 from being released elsewhere. I think you're throwing the baby out with the bathwater here. Your concern is quite valid and I would bet that there are a lot of offsets with questionable accounting. However offsets & sequestration are an essential tool to fight climate change. We can replace gas cars with electric cars, but there are many industries which have not yet developed viable alternatives. To dismiss sequestration means we must either dismantle those industries or give up on fighting climate change. You can argue for effective auditing and accounting of offsets, but please do not kneecap effective mechanisms for climate change mitigation.
    - goodcanadian 7y ago
      I didn't dismiss sequestration. I expressed doubt that purchasing carbon offsets actually accomplishes what is being advertised (who is actually doing sequestration?). Meanwhile, people are led to believe that it does no harm to fly (or whatever), because they bought offsets.
      - bryanlarsen 7y ago
        > Meanwhile, people are led to believe that it does no harm to fly (or whatever), because they bought offsets. The harm they are doing is substantially less than flying without offsets. You're letting the perfect be the enemy of the good-enough.