I like the idea of offsetting a lot, and not just for emissions reduction. If I can spend $100 on offsets and have the impact I'd otherwise have to spend $1,000 on in lifestyle changes and purchases (not to mention the time impact), why wouldn't I? That's always been my logic, but it seems like the "why wouldn't I" is "there's generally weak evidence to support their effectiveness". Is that right? And are there any that offsets that you'd actually recommend?
Thank you, Michael. The demise of the Climate Active program is indeed something to celebrate. The problems with offsets are more fundamental than the quality of the offsets themselves, and I explore those problems in a video at https://youtu.be/SaFa778OsRI called “The Net Emissions Fallacy”.
Just for clarity the government's program actually started in 2007 under the Howard government know as Greenhouse Friendly. Rudd Gillard renamed it NCOS in 2010.
EnergyAustralia wasn't double the next participant. Telstra was also around 1,500,000 pa
I like the idea of offsetting a lot, and not just for emissions reduction. If I can spend $100 on offsets and have the impact I'd otherwise have to spend $1,000 on in lifestyle changes and purchases (not to mention the time impact), why wouldn't I? That's always been my logic, but it seems like the "why wouldn't I" is "there's generally weak evidence to support their effectiveness". Is that right? And are there any that offsets that you'd actually recommend?
Thank you, Michael. The demise of the Climate Active program is indeed something to celebrate. The problems with offsets are more fundamental than the quality of the offsets themselves, and I explore those problems in a video at https://youtu.be/SaFa778OsRI called “The Net Emissions Fallacy”.
Just for clarity the government's program actually started in 2007 under the Howard government know as Greenhouse Friendly. Rudd Gillard renamed it NCOS in 2010.
EnergyAustralia wasn't double the next participant. Telstra was also around 1,500,000 pa