November 18, 2009
Yeah, I, like most on the conservative side of the political map, figured the stupid fucking carbon offsets program was a scam on par with the "Win A Date With Rosetta" giveaway on a truck stop bathroom's wall. But this story proves how fucking awesomely prescient most of us on the right were.
In theory, the purchase of carbon offsets is supposed to cancel out the emissions generated by activities like flying or heating office buildings by directing money to programs that reduce emissions elsewhere, like tree-planting in Africa or a hydropower project in Brazil. An airline passenger might volunteer to pay $5 to $40 to offset his flight, with the price linked to distance.
Offsets have played a growing role in the greening of travel because carbon dioxide emissions from airplanes are growing so quickly and there is currently no technological fix that would drastically lower them.
In the United States, dozens of hotels and airlines have embraced such programs in the last year or two. United Airlines became the latest American airline to offer one this summer. Globally, offset programs have grown into a multimillion-dollar industry.
But it has proved difficult to monitor or quantify the emissions-reducing potential of the thousands of green projects financed by customers' payments, and there are no industrywide standards.
Responsible Travel is not the only organization that has changed its mind about the usefulness of offsets: Yahoo and the U.S. House of Representatives both ended trial offset-purchase programs this year, concluding that the money was better spent on improving their buildings' energy efficiency.
Some of the world's leading experts on the emissions issue have reviewed and rejected purchasing offsets for air travel.
"We're always looking at it, but so far I've decided not to do it," said Paul Dickenson, chief executive of the Carbon Disclosure Project, a vast nonprofit consortium of companies that have pledged to report and reduce their emissions. For one thing, he said, offsetting the emissions of a flight from London to New York would probably require an extra fee of $200 to $300, far above what any airline is now charging.
And some experts say that emissions from airline travel are simply so large that it may be impossible to offset them.
"Buying offsets is a nice idea, just like giving money to a soup kitchen is a nice idea, but that doesn't end world hunger," said Anja Kollmuss, a staff scientist for the Stockholm Environment Institute who is based at a branch at Tufts University.
"Buying offsets won't solve the problem, because flying around the way we do is simply unsustainable," said Kollmuss, who has researched airline offsets.
No fucking shit, Captain Obvious! And fuck all of the Gaia Worshipping Enviroweenie Hippie Goatse Gloryholing Earfuckers up their unwashed asses with the jetblast from Algore's luxury plane for tryning to push this rubber fist of FAIL bullshit upon us. This shit was never anything more than a fucking attempt to assuage the limousine liberal guilt for being able to hop on a plane or drive a car on halfway paed roads and to enrich hucksters such as Algore and the stock brokers who sold these abominations.
And you know what, Buttboy of Birkenstock? I fucking hope you drained your bank accounts to pay for these stupid "offsets", because a fool who believes in that shit should not be allowed any more than a daily allotment of lunch money to spend. I fucking hope you realize what a sucker you were, and then I shall laugh the belliest of Errol Flynn belly laughs in your face. And then I will burn some cans of hairspray on your lawn to taunt you.
Now fuck off, Green Goofs, and leave reality to those of us who have a fucking clue.
Posted by: eddiebear at
12:56 PM
| Comments (28)
| Add Comment
Post contains 635 words, total size 4 kb.
Posted by: Alice H at November 18, 2009 01:09 PM (qJHYy)
That right there is the real kicker. Just you wait, and there'll be some international treaty that limits the number of flights us proles can take per year or the distance we can travel.
Posted by: Sean M. at November 18, 2009 03:23 PM (rLWHv)
<b>Yeah, I, like most on the conservative side of the political map, figured the stupid fucking carbon offsets program was a scam on par with the "Win A Date With Rosetta" giveaway on a truck stop bathroom's wall.</b>
Fuck you very much? That particular scam paid my way through law school and bought my first house.
Posted by: Blackiswhite, Imperial Consigliere at November 18, 2009 03:49 PM (phWYJ)
I sent the link to Stoaty's "My carbon footprint is bigger than yours" and immediately got back a emails saying stuff like, "I have 3 big blocks, a souped up boat and two souped up jet skis, you're a piker".
Heh, they're right too. My carbon footprint is just too small.
I'll have to breathe more. Hmmm, maybe some dirty phone calls with heavy breathing and stuff.
Hey alexthechick, what's your number?
Posted by: Veeshir at November 18, 2009 04:10 PM (XBUTN)
Posted by: eddiebear at November 18, 2009 04:33 PM (wnU1W)
Posted by: College Student at November 18, 2009 05:39 PM (E7l1o)
Posted by: Veeshir at November 18, 2009 05:45 PM (XBUTN)
Posted by: eddiebear at November 18, 2009 05:50 PM (wnU1W)
Posted by: College Student at November 18, 2009 05:58 PM (E7l1o)
Correction. You're not a spambot, you are a spamer. Repeatedly posting unrelated-to-the-topic comments on various posts regarding the same get-a-prize-if-you-go-to-our-website-bullshit? Totally still spam. Apparently, Smith College does not teach semantics?
Posted by: Ember at November 18, 2009 07:00 PM (LdRAG)
Assume that I think that all journalists are some combination of lazy, stupid, ignorant and biased and you'll pretty much get my score. If there's any conflict, assume that I think they're all of the above.
That goes for all news agencies, even faux news agencies like MSNBC or the NY Times and all journalists not named 'Brit Hume'. And he's not a journalist anymore, he does opinion, so that means there are no honest, intelligent, knowledgeable and hard-working journalists out there (Hi Shep!).
I will tell you why I won't be clicking, because I find it hard to believe that you will pay all potential responders $50/survey.
For any reasonable size group, that's a lot of thousands, depending on what you're trying to prove, it could be tens of thousands of dollars for something you could do for free.
When something looks too good to be true, it usually is.
I'll give you a clue.
Find a bigger blogger you or someone in your group know personally, get him to push this. If someone with credibility pushes this you're much more likely to get someone to respond.
Posting repeated, off topic comments on a moron blog known for face-cocking pics (just ask a certain b00t company) and the word "fuck" (Hi eddiebear!) doesn't really scream "Credibility".
Posted by: Veeshir at November 18, 2009 08:17 PM (Zdd8x)
The only one I find named that (in my short search, this isn't worth much of my time) is in Maryland.
Wikipedia has a nasty article on IRBs.
In the tool bar above the comment box is the "infinity" symbol.
Type in "IRB" in the comment box, highlight it with your mouse, click on the infinity symbol, paste the link in the resulting box, hit "insert" then "apply" then "ok" and then post the comment.
I probably won't hit the link, but maybe someone else needs $50 more than I do.
Posted by: Veeshir at November 18, 2009 08:25 PM (Zdd8x)
Posted by: eddiebear at November 18, 2009 10:53 PM (3j4Nz)
Don't think I meant to disparage face-cocking or the word "Fuck", both have brought so much joy to my life, I'm just amused that someone doing a research project thought this was the venue for them.
Fucking fucked up, huh?
Posted by: Veeshir at November 18, 2009 11:10 PM (BeokV)
Posted by: eddiebear at November 18, 2009 11:21 PM (3j4Nz)
Posted by: College Student at November 18, 2009 11:31 PM (Bx/5Y)
Posted by: eddiebear at November 18, 2009 11:36 PM (3j4Nz)
Posted by: Alice H at November 18, 2009 11:46 PM (qJHYy)
Posted by: eddiebear at November 19, 2009 12:06 AM (3j4Nz)
Posted by: College Student at November 19, 2009 12:23 AM (Bx/5Y)
I picked this blog as one of many conservative and liberal blogs and facebook groups to post on because we are looking for people who are active in politics and watch, read, listen, ect to a lot of political sources.
Lesson 1 when dealing with conservatives: we don't like solicitations, and we don't like surveys. That's why we're often underrepresented in "random" polls.
Many people feel that the media can lead people in different ideological directions.
My dad took a course at Dartmouth back in the 50's that looked at how and why different news outlets spun the news. Bias and ideological manipulation of readers/viewers are certainly not new issues in the media. One wonders why Smith College is this late to the game.
Posted by: geoff at November 19, 2009 12:24 AM (T8tKn)
That's "liberal arts schools," to be precise.
Posted by: geoff at November 19, 2009 12:26 AM (T8tKn)
Posted by: eddiebear at November 19, 2009 12:37 AM (3j4Nz)
Posted by: eddiebear at November 19, 2009 12:42 AM (3j4Nz)
Okay, that's funny.
We've traumatized the poor girl. After all, she was just using DPUD's bandwidth to promote some survey without asking permission.
Smith College teaches some interesting things, obviously not critical thinking, reading comprehension or basic manners, but I bet they have a killer "Wymyn's Studies" program.
Nowhere did anybody say you couldn't comment here, just don't make with the off topic spam.
Posted by: Veeshir at November 19, 2009 10:07 AM (ThMnZ)
Posted by: Carson Dacey at November 09, 2010 11:25 AM (CSfl2)
Posted by: fuirt at March 08, 2011 08:55 AM (CoKj6)
Posted by: xx at May 04, 2011 10:45 PM (4Vkpb)
Powered by Minx 1.1.4-pink.








