> To me the biggest question is, would this project have existed regardless of whether or not I purchased offsets? I choose not to take this attitude of helplessness. I choose to fund, with my own money, scientifically verified and audited projects like this as opposed to doing nothing.
Sounds like repackaged charity. Giving money to good causes is fine, but that doesn't mean your emissions are not contributing to climate change.
Is it ok to expose children to cancer hazards like second hand smoking if you buy cancer offsets in the form of funding cancer research? Wouldn't it be better to not smoke around kids and still give money to charity?
It is literally impossible to not emit carbon in the modern world.
I don't fly, but I still donate and pay for for carbon capture and offset, because it's unavoidable. The laptop I'm typing on to you right now would not be carbon neutral otherwise, for example.
Reduction is better where practicable, but let's not throw out the baby with the bathwater.
I'm not suggesting you shouldn't give money to charity, including the ones that work to minimize climate change. I'm suggesting that your laptop isn't carbon neutral at all. It's a matter of definition I guess, but fossil carbon was emitted in the production and transportation if it.
The only thing that matters from a mathematical perspective is the net position.
If I buy a laptop that embodies, say, 300kg of emitted carbon, and then use the money I earn from working on it to capture 300kg (e.g. by planting trees and felling the wood, or by the more advanced less proven techniques) then the overall position is neutral.
Obviously the situation would be better if the 300kg were captured without the laptop ever being produced, but that's not a realistic description of how humans operate. Even if I had infinite money anyway, I must eat, I have some basic entertainment needs, I'll get depressed and die if I just sit in my house all day and never do anything, etc.
My personal goal is to end each year with a net negative position. Have to at least beat topping yourself, right? </dark>
Sounds like repackaged charity. Giving money to good causes is fine, but that doesn't mean your emissions are not contributing to climate change.
Is it ok to expose children to cancer hazards like second hand smoking if you buy cancer offsets in the form of funding cancer research? Wouldn't it be better to not smoke around kids and still give money to charity?