[ exact phrase in "" • results by date ]

[ Google-powered • results by relevance ]


News Home

Subscribe to RSS feed

Add NWW headlines to your site (click here)

Sign up for daily updates

Keep Wind Watch online and independent!

Donate $10

Donate $5

Selected Documents

All Documents

Research Links


Press Releases


Publications & Products

Photos & Graphics


Allied Groups

Carbon footprints aren't easily expunged  

Carbon offsets are for those who want to feel better about the impact they’re having on the environment.

The idea is simple: If you can’t – or don’t want to – reduce your carbon emissions, you pay someone to plant trees, which soak up carbon, or you invest in solar plants, wind farms or other activities that reduce emissions.

It works for individuals trying to salve their environmental consciences or corporations trying to burnish their green image.

But as these offsets become more popular – automakers, computer manufacturers and others are offering them to consumers to offset the emissions from their products – the question becomes whether the offsets people and corporations buy actually mean anything.

“The carbon market is a leading example of the challenge of making sure that when people put their money into what they hope will improve their planet, that there is real follow-through,” Daniel C. Esty, director of the Center for Business and the Environment at Yale University, told The New York Times.

The Federal Trade Commission, which regulates advertising claims, is taking a belated interest in the topic. The FTC hasn’t updated its environmental advertising guidelines – its Green Guides – since 1998.

The guidelines don’t deal with concepts like offsets, renewable energy or sustainability. With the growth of green marketing, “there’s a heightened potential for deception,” FTC Chairman Deborah Platt Majoras told The Times.

The FTC is asking for help to minimize that potential. It won’t be easy. “Greenwashing” – making unfounded environmental claims – isn’t always easy to spot.

A Business Week article last year, for instance, found that TerraPass, a carbon offset marketer, claims a methane-extraction system at a huge Arkansas dump as one source of offsets. (Methane is a far more potent greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide.)

But it turns out that the landfill operator essentially was forced by the state to install that system to keep the methane from contaminating groundwater. It had nothing to do with reducing carbon emissions – that was just a happy side-effect.

As Business Week concluded, “it appears that the main effects of the TerraPass offsets in this instance are to salve guilty celebrity consciences and provide Waste Management, a $13 billion company based in Houston, with some extra revenue.”

Whatever new guidelines the FTC comes up with, perhaps the lesson here should be that a checkbook is no substitute for lifestyle changes that actually reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

The Roanoke Times

13 January 2008

This article is the work of the source indicated. Any opinions expressed in it are not necessarily those of National Wind Watch.

The copyright of this article resides with the author or publisher indicated. As part of its noncommercial effort to present the environmental, social, scientific, and economic issues of large-scale wind power development to a global audience seeking such information, National Wind Watch endeavors to observe “fair use” as provided for in section 107 of U.S. Copyright Law and similar “fair dealing” provisions of the copyright laws of other nations. Send requests to excerpt, general inquiries, and comments via e-mail.

Wind Watch relies entirely
on User Funding
Donate $5 PayPal Donate


News Watch Home

Get the Facts Follow Wind Watch on Twitter

Wind Watch on Facebook


© National Wind Watch, Inc.
Use of copyrighted material adheres to Fair Use.
"Wind Watch" is a registered trademark.