Climate The Onion on “Carbon Footprint Reduction Services” aka rip-offsets by Joe Romm Apr 18, 2009 7:04am CREDIT: Share 0 Tweet 0 Comment “There are numerous services that allow you to pay into a fund offset your carbon footprint. But how does it actually work?” [Click to enlarge.] Related Posts: You can call a rip-offset a CDM project, but it’s still a rip-offset Q: What is the difference between carbon offsets and mortgage-backed securites? Share 0 Tweet 0 Comment 11 Responses to The Onion on “Carbon Footprint Reduction Services” aka rip-offsets ecostew says: April 18, 2009 at 9:14 am Bush’s NEPA assessment found inadequate. http://www.climateark.org/shared/reader/welcome.aspx?linkid=124851 ecostew says: April 18, 2009 at 9:16 am More on the oceans: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/04/090417161506.htm Richard Pauli says: April 18, 2009 at 11:10 am The Onion has consistently great insights: Climatologists Secure Funding To Breed Glaciers In Captivity http://www.theonion.com/content/news_briefs/climatologists_secure Also predicts massive hurriphoonado weather event: http://www.theonion.com/content/news/hurriphoonado_cuts_swath_of Greg N says: April 18, 2009 at 12:00 pm More on the forests: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8004517.stm paulm says: April 18, 2009 at 2:53 pm Solar power dosn’t have to be sustainable! Desert clash in West over solar potential, water http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jLf41MBVk2OF5Ji6zRM1J3iLzX5AD97L0EJG0 [JR: I already replied to someone who posted this. In the (very near) future, everything will use air cooling — and not just for solar but for nukes and coal. Everybody is going to have to take the efficiency hit because of climate change and growing fresh water scarcity.] Sasparilla says: April 18, 2009 at 3:02 pm Absolutely classic graphic…I love that part where they determine the right tree to absorb your emissions…and the drinking straw factory. Nice chuckle, thanks for posting it. Going to save it. ecostew says: April 18, 2009 at 7:22 pm Joe, air cooling should be pursued when possible, but it doesn’t provide the efficiency needed in some cases. [JR: It is inevitable for all major power plants that need cooling.] ecostew says: April 18, 2009 at 9:26 pm For power plants at a higher elevation, etc.? ecostew says: April 19, 2009 at 8:14 am My understanding is that at higher elevations and air temperatures air cooling causes the power plant of operate less efficiently and increases the plant’s carbon footprint. [JR: Air cooling is inherently less efficient. But especially in the sunny, arid regions where CSP operates best, we simply lack the water today and even more so in the future to justify anything else. Reality is what it is.] ecostew says: April 19, 2009 at 9:24 am If you look at LCA (including carbon footprints). you come out ahead taking a small fraction of water out of irrigated ag, which is 70% plus in terms of water consumption in states like NM and AZ, where you have higher elevations and temperatures and make power generation more efficient. jennifer berman says: April 19, 2009 at 3:17 pm Why aren’t you talking about the 100% Cap and Dividend Act of 2009, Van Hollen’s bill coming out of the Ways and Means Committee? It has a 100% auction to first sellers of fossil fuels, no offsets, and 100% dividend to all Americans with a social security number. While the 100% dividend to all Americans is pretty extreme, not skewing to the low and middle income or leaving any revenues to r&d etc., it certainly is an answer to the Republican “Energy Tax” talking point.