What is OmniNerd?

Welcome! OmniNerd's content is generated by you, the reader. Through voting and moderation we strive to highlight the nerdiest of what's around and provide content that's a little more thought provoking than other sites.

Submit New Content

Voting Booth

Given only these non-healthy options, which single serving drink is healthiest?

View Results, All Polls
16 votes, 5 comments
0
Nerd-Its
+ -

RE: Apples and oranges

Comment comment by LordDilly on 27 April 2007

Any thoughts on this? What, if anything, do you think this means in terms of Gore's message and the future of carbon credits? Or do you think the article might be misleading or wrong?

You are a viewing a subset of a larger discussion.
View Full Discussion
Star This to Save in Your Profile Favorite
Thread parent sort order:
Highest Voted : Lowest Voted : Oldest : Newest
Thread verbosity:
Expand All : Minimize Replies to Comments
0 Nerd-Its - +
RE: Apples and oranges by scottb :: NR7

In general, I think the article is misleading.

The article talks about existing carbon offset systems, which aren't backed by anything with any teeth. As a result, it's entirely predictable that you'll find a fair number of them that have entirely been set up to take advantage of the tree huggers.

A serious carbon offset market has to be a whole market. If the only motivation to purchase offsets is personal conscience, it's not going to work - businesses (the primary polluters) have no conscience. There has to be a legal obligation to get to a neutral carbon position.

It's certainly not fair to compare a wholly discretionary system with the one I've outlined in earlier posts. Virtually none of the mechanisms that are intended to make it work are actually present in the discretionary systems.

Posted 09 May 2007, Hide, Parent, Reply