3 ms·

The article links to a website where you can calculate your footprint, and buy offsets in various programs to negate that footprint (projectwren.com). It would

by roel_v 7y ago

The article links to a website where you can calculate your footprint, and buy offsets in various programs to negate that footprint (projectwren.com). It would cost me USD 17 / month to offset my (larger than average for my country) footprint. Why do I even bother with my reusable coffee cup and paper straws for that kind of money? I just don't understand. If an extra charge of $10 / month for everyone in Europe would 'solve' the problem, why don't we do it?

aetherson 7y ago
Marginal costs would increase if hundreds of millions or billions of such offsets were purchased. By how much, I don't know.
lacker 7y ago
You’re probably correct that your reusable cup and paper straws are ineffective mechanisms for preventing climate change.
- Mirioron 7y ago
  But they do make you feel like you're doing your part. I wonder how many people are just satisfied with that and whether it wouldn't have made more sense to push other solutions instead.
- lorenzhs 7y ago
  Reducing the use of disposable plastics isn't supposed to prevent climate change, it's about reducing the amount of trash. While any trash that you put in the bin in a western country is highly unlikely to end up in the world's oceans, it still sends a signal against ubiquitous single-use products. That the two are so often treated as one is really unfortunate. Because if people actually cared about reducing their individual carbon emissions, they'd have to give up things like flying and eating meat, not disposable plastics. But that involves actual changes in behaviour, so it's not exactly popular and many people find the mere suggestion offensive.
Mirioron 7y ago
>If an extra charge of $10 / month for everyone in Europe would 'solve' the problem, why don't we do it? Considering how much excise taxes Europeans pay on their gasoline, you would think that climate change would already be a solved issue. Taxes are a larger part of the cost of gasoline than the gasoline itself. Yet somehow there isn't enough money to fight climate change?! The Netherlands pays $3.53 per gallon purely in excise taxes.[0] Bulgaria, a country with an average income of $9000 a year[1], pays $1.61 a gallon in excise taxes. [0] https://taxfoundation.org/gas-taxes-europe-2019/ https://taxfoundation.org/gas-taxes-europe-2019/ [1] https://tradingeconomics.com/bulgaria/wages https://tradingeconomics.com/bulgaria/wages
ElKrist 7y ago
Basically the programs to "offset your footprint" don't scale. They do not address the fundamental causes of emissions which are steadily growing. They have some merits for mitigation of the problem but not as a long-term solution
lopmotr 7y ago
Reusable cups and paper straws aren't for climate change. They're for the quite unreasonable landfill scare. The people who subscribe to that belief have no idea beyond "plastic = bad" and "landfills = bad". Sometimes they try to link it to climate change for added credibilty though.
- wwweston 7y ago
  > The people who subscribe to that belief have no idea beyond "plastic = bad" So... you're saying that there's not an accumulation of plastic waste / microplastics in the environment, or that we know any impacts or benign or negligible? Good news if true, would like to know what position there's the most credible evidence for. > and "landfills = bad". I'm a fan of consumer goods, so naturally it's convenient for me if landfills == good, but I also tend to wonder (a) exactly how effectively they isolate waste issues from, say, groundwater or other environmental circulation and (b) if there might be some volume threshold past which landfills aren't an adequate solution for addressing waste streams.
  - aforwardslash 7y ago
    Most western countries have proper regulation regarding waste disposal. Plastic pollution is a big is a big issue, but wont be solved while big economies decide to export their waste to places with less strict regulations. This is - in my opinion - the point that needs pressure from conscious citizens. We are only now starting to measure up the microplastics impact and their origin. Switching to reusable cups is a drop in the ocean, when tons of the stuff is released by simply washing clothes or makeup off your face.
    - grive 7y ago
      > Most western countries have proper regulation regarding waste disposal. > wont be solved while big economies decide to export their waste Western countries do not have proper regulations if one of the possible outcome for waste is to be exported where those regulations do not exist.
graeme 7y ago
I think at a certain point you need more than offsets. We once had a forested world, with oil in the ground. We cut forests, and burned oil. Offsets help revert one of these things. But, we’d need to do more than that to reverse the change. So the offsets you can buy now are low hanging fruit. Actual carbon sucking costs vastly more than wren’s offsets. Though still achiveble? Would be about $10,000 usd per person at average european emissions. About $20,000 usd per person at average american emisisons. Includes children. https://climeworks.shop/?utm_source=CW-Website&utm_medium=banner&utm_campaign=teaser8#subscriptions https://climeworks.shop/?utm_source=CW-Website&utm_medium=ba... If those costs go down, the costs become realistic. I don’t mean politically realistic, just possible to do. Fwiw I use both wren and climeworks. And maybe if enough people used wren they might find non-forest offsets that are achievable at low cost. But right now it wouldn’t obviously scale if all did it.

by roel_v 7y ago

aetherson 7y ago

Marginal costs would increase if hundreds of millions or billions of such offsets were purchased. By how much, I don't know.

lacker 7y ago

You’re probably correct that your reusable cup and paper straws are ineffective mechanisms for preventing climate change.

Mirioron 7y ago
But they do make you feel like you're doing your part. I wonder how many people are just satisfied with that and whether it wouldn't have made more sense to push other solutions instead.
lorenzhs 7y ago
Reducing the use of disposable plastics isn't supposed to prevent climate change, it's about reducing the amount of trash. While any trash that you put in the bin in a western country is highly unlikely to end up in the world's oceans, it still sends a signal against ubiquitous single-use products. That the two are so often treated as one is really unfortunate. Because if people actually cared about reducing their individual carbon emissions, they'd have to give up things like flying and eating meat, not disposable plastics. But that involves actual changes in behaviour, so it's not exactly popular and many people find the mere suggestion offensive.

Mirioron 7y ago

>If an extra charge of $10 / month for everyone in Europe would 'solve' the problem, why don't we do it? Considering how much excise taxes Europeans pay on their gasoline, you would think that climate change would already be a solved issue. Taxes are a larger part of the cost of gasoline than the gasoline itself. Yet somehow there isn't enough money to fight climate change?! The Netherlands pays $3.53 per gallon purely in excise taxes.[0] Bulgaria, a country with an average income of $9000 a year[1], pays $1.61 a gallon in excise taxes. [0] https://taxfoundation.org/gas-taxes-europe-2019/ https://taxfoundation.org/gas-taxes-europe-2019/ [1] https://tradingeconomics.com/bulgaria/wages https://tradingeconomics.com/bulgaria/wages

ElKrist 7y ago

Basically the programs to "offset your footprint" don't scale. They do not address the fundamental causes of emissions which are steadily growing. They have some merits for mitigation of the problem but not as a long-term solution

lopmotr 7y ago

Reusable cups and paper straws aren't for climate change. They're for the quite unreasonable landfill scare. The people who subscribe to that belief have no idea beyond "plastic = bad" and "landfills = bad". Sometimes they try to link it to climate change for added credibilty though.

wwweston 7y ago
> The people who subscribe to that belief have no idea beyond "plastic = bad" So... you're saying that there's not an accumulation of plastic waste / microplastics in the environment, or that we know any impacts or benign or negligible? Good news if true, would like to know what position there's the most credible evidence for. > and "landfills = bad". I'm a fan of consumer goods, so naturally it's convenient for me if landfills == good, but I also tend to wonder (a) exactly how effectively they isolate waste issues from, say, groundwater or other environmental circulation and (b) if there might be some volume threshold past which landfills aren't an adequate solution for addressing waste streams.
- aforwardslash 7y ago
  Most western countries have proper regulation regarding waste disposal. Plastic pollution is a big is a big issue, but wont be solved while big economies decide to export their waste to places with less strict regulations. This is - in my opinion - the point that needs pressure from conscious citizens. We are only now starting to measure up the microplastics impact and their origin. Switching to reusable cups is a drop in the ocean, when tons of the stuff is released by simply washing clothes or makeup off your face.
  - grive 7y ago
    > Most western countries have proper regulation regarding waste disposal. > wont be solved while big economies decide to export their waste Western countries do not have proper regulations if one of the possible outcome for waste is to be exported where those regulations do not exist.

graeme 7y ago

I think at a certain point you need more than offsets. We once had a forested world, with oil in the ground. We cut forests, and burned oil. Offsets help revert one of these things. But, we’d need to do more than that to reverse the change. So the offsets you can buy now are low hanging fruit. Actual carbon sucking costs vastly more than wren’s offsets. Though still achiveble? Would be about $10,000 usd per person at average european emissions. About $20,000 usd per person at average american emisisons. Includes children. https://climeworks.shop/?utm_source=CW-Website&utm_medium=banner&utm_campaign=teaser8#subscriptions https://climeworks.shop/?utm_source=CW-Website&utm_medium=ba... If those costs go down, the costs become realistic. I don’t mean politically realistic, just possible to do. Fwiw I use both wren and climeworks. And maybe if enough people used wren they might find non-forest offsets that are achievable at low cost. But right now it wouldn’t obviously scale if all did it.