Carbon credits - I first heard about them during a CBC Radio 3 podcast interview with the lead singer of Mother Mother. Host Grant Lawrence asked her if she knew what they were (coming from the environmentalist Islands of the BC Juan de Fuca Strait, you'd think that she would have), but she didn't. I had a good guess in mind, and later in the podcast, Grant explained how they work.
Carbon credits are intangible "vouchers" that business or individuals (such as independent musicians in the case of CBC Radio 3) can buy to help off-set the "carbon footprint" that their actions leave on the environment. In other words, if a rock band is going to drive their van from Ottawa to Victoria on a cross-country tour, and feels bad about the pollution that their travel will cause on the Canadian wilderness, then the band can buy a certain number of carbon credits to help compensate for any adverse effects on the environment.
I listened to that podcast a few weeks ago and hadn't heard anything more about carbon credits until today. This afternoon I was reading news headlines on CBC.ca and I came across Anne of Green Gables Goes Green. The article explained that the producer of a new PEI production of an Anne and Gilbert musical has purchased carbon credits to offset the environmental impact of their production (gasoline travel, stage lighting, or whatever).
The article further explained that the carbon credits were purchased from a Montreal non-profit that aims to reduce greenhouse emissions. And that made me wonder. What is this non-profit? And what do they doing to reduce their carbon footprint? Who died and made them environmental king? If it was the Government of Canada, then I can see some sense of authority, but independent firms selling carbon credits seems a bit like selling real estate on the moon or vending certificates of ownership for distant stars.
And then it gets worse. The lead actress explains her two-hour car commute every day by saying that the play's contribution to the non-profit "makes [her] feel better about [her]self." Um, doesn't she mean that the play's contribution is a responsible or wise decision? Or that it will have a significant impact on reducing pollution or raising public awareness? Nope. Her primary concern appears to be that this donation will make her feel better. Cause that's what the environmentalist movement is about: making people feel warm and fussy inside (and who cares about the human health concerns or long-term climate issues).
Is this where research funding comes from? Guilt? Is that how society advances: someone (i.e., special interest groups) makes us feel bad about something we are/aren't doing; we feel guilt; they inform us (entirely coincidentally) that researchers are currently looking into ways to reverse the negative impact that we have had on the world (and that they desperately need our help cough*money*cough); so we dish out funds in order to ease our conscience while maintaining the same practices as before; and researchers may or may not do anything useful with our donations (i.e., trip to Cancun to study something or other related to tropical resorts)?
It makes me wonder where my research money comes from. Will I be conducting research with guilt funds?
Carbon credits seemed like such a great idea when I first heard about it via Grant Lawrence, but now I'm suspicious and maybe even be already jaded. I'm such a sucker for celebrities.
Tuesday, July 31, 2007
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment