Rather than sending hard-earned cash to offset companies, we need to examine our lifestyles and consumptive behaviour. We must all do what we practically can to cut down or avoid carbon emissions before signing up to some carbon offsetting scheme. Purchasing offsets can be seen as a way to avoid real behavioural change by individuals in reducing their carbon emissions. Shortcuts are not the answer.

We need to take personal responsibility for the environment (e.g. acquire a carbon consciousness) and directly offset our own emissions. This includes reducing emissions at source by looking at energy conservation and efficiency measures (e.g. making our homes energy efficient, switching off appliances, changing to a ‘green’ supplier of electricity, using solar heated hot water, etc). Carbon dioxide emissions from the housing sector accounts for at least 27% of the UK’s carbon footprint.

We must make the effort to purchase products that have been made with minimal harm to or exploitation of humans, animals and/or the natural environment. Ethical consumerism is practiced through ‘positive buying’ and is a very effective tool in reducing carbon emissions. For example, make a point of buying produce that is sourced locally, is organic and/or fair trade. Think holistically about what you buy ? how was it produced, where has it come from (supermarket food travels on average 2,500 km before it gets to you), what networks were required to sustain its production. By favouring ethical products you directly support progressive companies.

Nothing highlights the importance of addressing the consequences of our actions as consumers more than what is happening in the Amazon. Every year large areas of the Amazon rainforest are being destroyed by agribusiness corporations to grow hundreds of thousands of tonnes of soy beans. These companies then export the high protein soy to Europe and China for use as cheap animal feed (90% of soy exports are fed to animals raised for meat – primarily chickens and pigs). Factory farming for meat and dairy is at the heart of a hidden chain that links the food on our plates to rainforest destruction in South America. To make them grow quickly and produce high yields, animals in factory farms are being pumped full of imported soy crops ? creating demand for vast plantations that are wiping out forests and forcing indigenous communities off their lands. The UK imports over two million tonnes of soy each year from South America to feed animals and spends £700 million of taxpayers’ money to prop-up intensive meat and dairy production in England.

Although soy is one of the main drivers of Amazon destruction the cattle industry is the single biggest cause of deforestation in South America. The Brazilian cattle industry is the leading cause of deforestation and it is estimated that cattle ranchers destroy at least one acre of Amazon rainforest every 8 seconds. Over the past decade more than 10 million hectares ? an area about the size of Iceland – was cleared for cattle ranching as Brazil rose to become the world’s largest exporter of beef. Brazil is currently the fourth biggest emitter of greenhouse gases in the world, 75% of which stem from deforestation.

Forests are vital to stabilizing the world’s climate because they store such large amounts of carbon. It is estimated that the Amazon alone stores somewhere between 80 to 120 billion tons of carbon. If the Amazon were destroyed, it would release some 50 times the annual greenhouse gas emissions of the United States. A fifth of the Amazon rainforest has been lost since 1970.

As the destruction of the Amazon rainforest is linked to a handful of the world’s largest food companies and commodity traders, you can help protect it and combat climate change by refusing to purchase factory farmed and imported meat products from supermarkets, fast food restaurants and other outlets (the UK is the second largest importer of processed Brazilian beef in the world – 50,000 tonnes in 2008). This will put pressure on supermarkets and high-street brands to clean-up their supply chains. You should also boycott goods made from cattle that have been linked to rainforest destruction (e.g. leather products and cosmetic ingredients) and the multinational corporations (global brands) behind these products. Better still, why not switch to a vegetarian or vegan diet as what the soy and cattle industry demonstrates more than anything is that meat consumption is bad for the environment and simply not sustainable. Switching to a vegetarian diet would reduce your carbon emissions by a colossal 50% and going vegan results in an even greater reduction.

The ‘Meat Free Mondays’ initiative recently launched by Paul McCartney and his daughters highlighted the impact of meat production on climate change. Cutting down or giving up meat is the single most effective act anyone can take to lessen greenhouse gas emissions. A ‘meat free’ diet is also better for your health. Fresh evidence from the largest study to date to investigate dietary habits and cancer has concluded that vegetarians are 45% less likely to develop cancer of the blood than meat eaters and are 12% less likely to develop cancer overall.

While boycotts and ethical consumerism campaigns are legitimate attempts to create market pressure to reform specific practices, while rewarding producers with favourable practices, they fail to address one of the most serious problems inherent in modern day societies – the mass production and consumption of goods. Whatever products you buy it takes energy to get them into your shopping basket (e.g. energy to mine raw materials, make the product and ship it). There will also be other hidden costs (e.g. the exploitation of humans, animals and/or the natural environment) infused in the production and sale of goods.

In order to live in harmony with our planet and reduce greenhouse gas emissions, we need to go beyond ‘ethical shopping’ and try to divorce ourselves from shopping altogether. We need to simplify our lives, decrease consumption, and thus shrink our economic needs. In so doing, we limit the time that we must devote to waged labour, and regain control of our time, the most precious commodity in our lives.

Simplifying your life is one of the most beneficial things you can do for the environment and your carbon footprint. On a day to day level, it’s about reducing our consumption of the world’s resources, re-using items rather than throwing them away, recycling our waste, buying local foods (or growing your own food), walking and cycling more. Other examples include swapping your car for public transport (cars are responsible for 40% of personal emissions on average) and cutting back (or eliminating) the number of short breaks on cheap flights.

Living sustainably is not only about knowing how to make greener, more ethical, practical choices in our lives. It is also about valuing our health and wellbeing, our relationships and community above the need to consume and exploit.

Proponents of ’sustainable living,’ ’simple living’ (voluntary simplicity) and ‘downshifting’ realise that quality of life is much more important than quantity. Consumerism often leads to stress and dissatisfaction because it creates a society of individualistic consumers who measure both social status and general happiness by an unattainable quantity of material possessions.

The evidence cited above clearly demonstrates that making changes to our lifestyles can be a far more effective tool in preventing climate change than the carbon offset model. Instead of paying to rectify the damage once it’s done, we should take steps to reduce our own carbon emissions by taking personal responsibility for the environment, simplifying our lives, and addressing the consequences of our actions as consumers.

Have you ever considered creating your own renewable energy? With rising energy prices, concerns about energy supplies and the environment there are many people who would love to be able to unplug from the grid. Most of these people never do anything to start generating their own energy and they also don’t realize how easy it is to do. They just continue to spend $1000’s per year without a clue that there is a better way.

With the ever increasing costs of living, there is no better time than right now to stop throwing money out the window and start generating your own electricity. However, you need an open mind and willingness to listen, because there are large economic interests that keep most people dependent on energy.

Many people are discouraged by the initial cost of setting up a renewable energy system. But what they don’t realize is it doesn’t have to be that expensive if you set them up yourself. You can create a solar system for less than $200 or a wind system for less than $100.

Imagine if you never had to pay an energy bill again. Knowing that your energy was coming from a clean reliable source. When the power goes out for everyone else you will still not be affected. And if you have a system with a large enough capacity you can even sell your excess electricity to the power company. Not only will you never have to pay them for your energy but now they will be paying you.

For full details and instructions visit my website at create your own energy.

 

http://freeworldmarketing.com/alternative/energy/home-made-energy.html

 

http://ezinearticles.com/?Creating-Renewable-Energy-Yourself-is-Easier-Than-You-Might-Think&id=1857821

 

As with any purchase, buyers need to choose their offsets carefully, particularly as the voluntary offset market is largely unregulated.

One issue to consider is the offset project type. For example, although quite popular, offsets from tree-planting projects are problematic for a number of reasons, including their lack of permanence and the fact that these projects do not address our dependence on fossil fuels. Similarly, offset projects involving the destruction of halocarbon gases such as HFC-23 have sustained numerous criticisms, including the fact that they actually result in a perverse incentive (due to the sheer volume of offsets – and profits – that they generate) for more of the ozone-depleting gas to be created. The price of offsets from these projects is also so low (due to the very high global warming potential of the gas) that they tend to flood the market and squeeze out more sustainable offset projects, like solar and wind.

Another important issue to consider when purchasing offsets is ‘additionality’. An offset project is considered additional if it isn’t business as usual. Typically this means that the project wouldn’t have happened without the extra funding from the sale of offsets. Additionality is extremely important, as the entire concept of offsetting – i.e. purchasing greenhouse gas reduction credits from a project elsewhere to neutralize one’s own emissions – is based on the premise that those reductions wouldn’t have happened otherwise. Only by buying offsets that have met additionality criteria can you be assured that your purchase is resulting in a net benefit for the climate.

Other criteria of high quality carbon offsets include: validation and verification of the project by reputable third-parties; steps by the project developer to ensure that each offset is only sold once (e.g. by listing the offsets on a public registry); and systems in place to control ‘leakage’, where the creation of a GHG reduction in one region causes an unintended increase in GHG emissions somewhere else (for example, protecting a forest in one location could simply shift logging to a forested area in a new location).

A number of organizations have published comparisons of offset vendors; these can be found in the Resources section below. For example, Clean Air Cool Planet has published a Consumer’s Guide to Carbon Offsets for Carbon Neutrality that lists some some questions that potential buyers can ask of offset vendors:

1) Do your offsets result from specific projects?

2) Do you use an objective standard to ensure the additionality and quality of the offsets you sell?

3) How do you demonstrate that the projects in your portfolio would not have happened without the greenhouse gas offset market?

4) ave your offsets been validated against a third-party standard by a credible source?

5) Do you sell offsets that will actually accrue in the future? If so, how long into the future, and can you explain why you need to ‘forward sell’ the offsets?

6) Can you demonstrate that your offsets are not sold to multiple buyers?

7) What are you doing to educate your buyers about climate change and the need for climate change policy?

Because it can be difficult for offset buyers to get clear answers to each of the above questions, a good way to ensure that your offset purchase is making a positive contribution to the climate is to purchase offsets that meet recognized standards. Just as consumers can feel confident when purchasing food products that meet strict third-party standards for organic agriculture, standards for carbon offsets provide assurance that certain criteria are met when the offset is developed and sold.

A number of standards exist for carbon offsets, including the VCS, Green-e, and The Gold Standard. More standards are being announced regularly, and WWF recently published a comparison of the most common offset standards. Each of these standards differs in key ways, with some being more rigorous than others.

The Gold Standard is widely considered to be the highest standard in the world for carbon offsets. It ensures that key environmental criteria have been met by offset projects that carry its label. Significantly, only offsets from energy efficiency and renewable energy projects qualify for the Gold Standard, as these projects encourage a shift away from fossil fuel use and carry inherently low environmental risks. Tree planting projects are explicitly excluded by The Gold Standard.

First, Gold Standard projects must meet very high additionality criteria to ensure that they contribute to the adoption of additional sustainable energy projects, rather than simply funding existing projects. The Gold Standard also includes social and environmental indicators to ensure the offset project contributes to sustainable development goals in the country where the project is based. Finally, all Gold Standard projects have been independently verified by a third party to ensure integrity.

Currently, The Gold Standard is restricted to offset projects in countries that don’t have emission reduction targets under the Kyoto Protocol, which are primarily developing countries. Supporting offset projects that meet The Gold Standard therefore helps these countries ‘leapfrog’ us technologically so they don’t go down the same fossil fuel path as developed countries – which would be disastrous for the climate.

The Gold Standard is supported by over fifty non-governmental organizations worldwide, including WWF International, and Greenpeace International.

It’s certainly no secret: the cost of renewable energy production and its implementation can be extremely high. This is the very reason why tax credits are often used to enable renewable energy sources to compete with fossil fuels.

With rising oil and natural gas prices, the war in Iraq and environmental problems centering on global warming and air pollution, our nation is concerned about their energy security and environmental issues. The United States is recognizing the need and power of renewable energy and is supporting its development through federal income tax credits and incentives.

President George Bush signed the Energy Policy Act of 2005 into law on August 8, 2005. It took over four years for Congress to pass after reviewing several different versions. It extended tax credits for wind and biomass energies for two more years and included additional tax credits for solar, geothermal and ocean energy.

Solar tax credits apply to residential and business users. This tax credit would pertain to eligible equipment installed between 1/1/06 and 12/31/08. The equipment installed would include those solar systems that generate electricity, heat and cool or provide hot water to structures. It must also be operational in the first year the credit is taken and the taxpayer must be the original user. The credit is 30% with a $2,000 cap for each unit for residential taxpayers and it is 30% with a no business cap specified for corporate users. After 12/31/08 the corporate tax credit will return to 10%.

The geothermal corporate credit remains at 10% with no maximum stated. This credit does not apply to geothermal heat pumps and is limited to geothermal energy equipment that produces, uses or distributes energy derived from geothermal deposits. A personal tax credit of 10% with a $300 maximum can be taken for geothermal heat pumps.

The federal government also included production tax credits for renewable energies. These credits allow companies to invest in renewable technologies and write the investment off against other investments. This was a major push of support for renewable energy technologies. The credit was extended until December 31, 2008. The credits are 1.9 cents per kWh for wind, geothermal, closed-loop biomass and 1.0 cent per kWh for hydroelectric power, landfill gas, municipal solid waste and open-loop biomass. These pertain to the first ten years of operation

Similar to production tax credits, there were also provisions for renewable energy production incentives (REPI) for state and local governments, as well as, nonprofit electrical cooperatives. The enacted law included new qualifying energy generation facilities for solar, wind, biomass (excluding municipal solid waste combustion) landfill gas and certain types of dry steam geothermal energy. It was extended through fiscal year 2016 and also included ocean and wave energy.

These credits will be applied to any amount that remains after any other state or utility incentives have been taken. There are numerous states that do offer incentives also. Some new state incentives include a California state rebate program for photovoltaics, an Illinois state grant program for wind energy, a New Jersey state rebate program for geothermal heat pumps and a Pennsylvania property tax assessment for wind energy. These are just a few of the many state incentives that exist.

The United States government and the individual states are promoting renewable energy sources as an energy source to be encouraged. With all the incentives available, this may be one of the best times to make your air cleaner with a commitment toward this energy. With everyone’s support we can recharge renewable energy’s development.