Commission Impossible

The vast majority of the carbon-neutral gig is a giant scam. Imagine the possibilities of the whole "credit offset" scheme applied to other politically hot-topics:

- I'm not going to have an abortion, but am willing to sell my abortion-credit to someone that wants one, that way they can have an abortion, buy the credit from me, and still say with a straight face, "I'm abortion-neutral". End result, an abortion still happened, regardless of the wording.

- I'm not at war, nor are the vast majority of Chico residents. We could sign onto a Chico Mayor's Resolution to reduce killing. We will reduce are killings to pre-2001 levels. Any left-over killings we can then sell to the Pentagon to offset the casualties being incurred during the Iraqi and Afghanistan war. If enough cities do it the US can declare on the international stage that they are fighting a "casualty-neutral" war. Nice.

- I could pool together a whole bunch of in-shape, and/or underweight people and sell "dieting-credits". That way if someone blows their diet for the day they can buy some offsetting "negative calories" from me still say they are on their diet and losing weight. Not really, they still gained weight that day.

- I don't do drugs; however, there are some folks that do. I could sell my excess drug taking capacity on the open market to Keith Richards. He then could tell people that he is living a "drug neutral" life and feels real good about it, while he passes out in a puddle of his own sick.

- At the end of people's life they could look back and decide they did not lead a "godly" existence. They could then decide to clean up their act and do something about it so they can get into heaven. So instead of good works, actually believing in God, or the like they just donate a bunch of land and money to the church. The pope then signs off on it and indulges them and their quest to get into heaven. Oh wait, that already happened, people saw through the scam, got pissed, and spontaneously created Martin Luther.

I don't mean to denigrate actual reductions and better uses of resources that are gentler on the environment. These can be genuinely good things; however, the sleight of hand that is being perpetrated with people talking about being carbon-neutral because they buy credits is mind-boggling and I can't believe the credulous public buys into it. In real terms, AT THE END OF THE DAY IF SOMEONE PRODUCES EMISSIONS, POLUTION, ETC. YOU CAN'T "BUY" THAT FACT AWAY. THE POLUTION EXISTS. I have no idea of how to combat the mass ignorance on this topic except by outright mocking of the ridiculous house of cards the entire scheme is based upon and of the people that endorse it.

Dave,

You'll start to see a lot of whimsical economies begin to develop around environmental issues. There is a wholesale effort to create a moral economy that shadows and interacts with real supply and demand.

Some of the basis for this is the concept of the triple bottom line (people, planet, profit).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triple_bottom_line

The California Environmental Quality Act and EIR process incorporate some of these philosophies (although the triple bottom line, as a concept, came later). For example, a project with little environmental impact is less expensive because of reduced mitigation costs. Another example is the intrinsic value of "green" products or services that many large corporations are now offering (and advertising).

I agree that in many cases these economies are false, not governed by tangible things like supply and demand, have offsetting effects that are not verifiable, and are more likely to be fraudulently applied. Carbon footprint reduction schemes are exactly as you described them.

In relation to the University's efforts I see a separate issue that reduces credibility in the area of reducing emissions.

CSU Chico may one day claim to be carbon neutral in their operations. However, they can't claim that all of their customers are carbon neutral. They are a unique business in that their customers come to their location en masse. A byproduct of their business operations is community growth, and I suspect they'll ignore that particular component of being "climate neutral".

But maybe I'm wrong.

Lon

Dave,

- I don't do drugs; however, there are some folks that do. I could sell my excess drug taking capacity on the open market to Keith Richards. He then could tell people that he is living a "drug neutral" life and feels real good about it, while he passes out in a puddle of his own sick.

Richards' daily struggle is actually much, much worse. More often than not he faces the nightmare of passing out in a heap of barely-clothed supermodels.

Brian

"...ignoring the environmental impacts of its growth off-campus."

Fear not... they probably have that covered by the purchase of carbon, garbage, noise, traffic and parking mitigation credits from Al Gore's company.

Ahhh, using our tax dollars.

"...For example, a project with little environmental impact is less expensive because of reduced mitigation costs...."

Precisely. However, in the case of housing, the entire scheme is aimed at curbing housing growth. To do it, they tack on massive delays and costs to “the process”. The goal is to restrain the supply of new housing. And then with great hypocrisy, the same proponents talk the most about ‘affordable housing’.

I’ve read various estimates of the economic damage (costs)… many people believe that our local and state polices add $150,000-$250,000 to the price of an average home.

Interesting articles:
http://www.norcalbiz.net/10_24_06/groth.html
http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=4522
http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=4775

And a really good one from a Blog in Yolo County
http://jibtrim.blogspot.com/2005/07/kelo-before-kelo-was-kelo.html

Yes, we need to manage and control development, but let’s at least be honest about the real costs and consequences….

Similarly, the “sustainability” cause contains some shreds of truth, though so far, it is terribly diluted by hype, half-truths and deceptions.

Mark,

Your reference to tax dollars is a point that should be repeated. It seems like a lot of people and organizations are getting credit for being green by spending our greenbacks.

We're all aware of very specific and very general attempts at obstruction by local environmental leaders. Local planners have been told that environmental leaders will accept no new land opened for housing development in Chico. So far they seem to have the political clout to make that happen. I think that's shortsighted.

That being said, I'm not sure there's enough land around Chico to make new homes affordable. Much like Davis, I suspect we'll see dramatic growth of outlying communities, and that seems to be happening.

Lon