Thursday 15/2/2007 Page: 10
We should look at work and lifestyle changes to reduce our impact on the environment, writes James Norman.
AMONG the buzz words of our new carbon-conscious world,"carbon offsetting" and the notion of going "carbon neutral" are gaining prolific currency. A whole range of businesses have started in Australia, including Easy Being Green and Green Fleet. They provide frameworks for people and businesses wishing to lower or even neutralise their "carbon footprint".
If the recent United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is anything to go by, the jury is in that climate change is now indisputably the biggest and most urgent environmental problem the world is facing.
Households, industry and governments should be looking at maximising energy efficiency and using renewable energy. Carbon-neutral programs can, if well designed, promote efficiency and renewable energy by offsetting emissions that we are unable to personally reduce.
Carbon offsetting works by reducing emissions from our lifestyles or work patterns through investments in projects that save energy, such as a technology that allows industry to be more efficient, increasing the generation of renewable energy or planting trees to store carbon dioxide.
In Europe, some commentators have compared carbon offset schemes with the Catholic Church's papal indulgences of the Middle Ages - the notion that it is OK to keep sinning as long as a compensation is paid. The difference with carbon offsets is that, if they are properly administered, the impacts are more tangible in terms of carbon reductions.
But carbon offsets should not be seen as a way of outsourcing guilt - they are only useful as a supplementary measure to more fundamental work and lifestyle changes geared at lowering our overall Ecological Footprint.
Last year, the Australian Conservation Foundation led the Australian Business Roundtable on Climate Change, calling for a price on carbon to produce cost-effective emission reductions. But until we have the national leadership needed to legislate for this, we can demonstrate personal leadership by voluntarily participating in such programs.
For business and individuals, the cheapest way to reduce greenhouse contributions is to reduce energy use. It's a good deal for the planet and your wallet. On top of limiting our energy use, switching to accredited green power is the next most significant step to reduce carbon emissions. It's easy and inexpensive to switch, and such schemes promote investment in renewable energy such as wind and solar. The more people who make the switch, the cheaper green power will become and the more the technology will be produced in Australia.
ACF, with other environment organisations, has commissioned independent research into electricity products claiming to be green power. The research exposed some products as not contributing to reducing greenhouse emissions or making more clean energy.
Beyond this, carbon offsetting of office or household gas use, and car and plane travel is a positive step to take. If the offsetting schemes are properly audited for their effectiveness with verifiable data, such schemes are a good way of supplementing more fundamental lifestyle changes.
Experience has taught us that carbon-offsetting schemes should be considered individually on their merit. They should not be used to replace one problem with another. For example, buying the most carbon-polluting vehicle on the market and then justifying it through offsetting schemes is problematic, because it is in effect adding to our carbon problem despite making short-term commitments to offset that damage.
It is important to remember that even if we offset the purchase of such vehicles, there is no guarantee that its ongoing use by a different owner will be offset into the future if the vehicle is sold on the secondhand market. The better alternative is to buy vehicles that are energy efficient from the outset.
The wider economic equity issues associated with carbon offsetting are not so clear-cut. There is a natural cap on the number of people who will invest in carbon offset schemes because of their cost. Moreover, while a flat carbon tax may be economically regressive on social equity grounds, a voluntary scheme may provide a good pathway for a mandatory scheme in the future that factors in economic disparities.
The bigger point here is that governments should be helping mainstream consumers to reduce their energy consumption, and helping all socio-economic groups to move towards a carbon-constrained world.
The Australian Conservation Foundation broadly supports offsetting schemes as a positive step towards overall carbon emissions reduction - but it is important to qualify that support. ACF has always argued that in regard to carbon and pollution levels, prevention is better than cure.
James Norman is communications adviser with the Australian Conservation Foundation.
ACF will host a free public debate at the BMW Edge at Federation Square from 6-7.30pm tomorrow. Speakers include:
- Don Henry (ACT executive director),
- Alan Pears (adjunct professor, environment and planning, RMIT University),
- Petrea Bradford (manager, carbon market, Origin Energy),
- Philip Sutton (president, sustainable living foundation),
- Tosh Szatow (policy officer, Consumer Utilities Advocacy Centre),
- Tim Cadman (researcher, school of government, University of Tasmania).
0 comments:
Post a Comment