Qantas Carbon Offset - Where does the money really go?

[juddles]

I will limit my postings in this inevitable escalation of debate to just one comment: at every single stage in scientific history, there was a majority consensus that they were right. They rarely were.

 

[Chicken]

I also don't want to escalate this to a global climate change debate, but I do wonder if it's better to use a more established scheme like Greenfleet? I don't know.

 

[RooFlyer]

It's a pointless, circular argument to have to be honest. People who have decided they don't believe in it are not going to be persuaded otherwise no matter what the evidence. Same for anti-vax nuts and other fringe psuedo-/anti-science groups.

Most people (including "scientists" who aren't actually climate scientists) don't have the knowledge to evaluate the evidence either way. It's called the Dunning-Krueger effect.

Arguments from Global Warming Skeptics and what the science really says addresses all of the so called arguments I have seen here, and many more besides. I post the link but don't expect anyone to actually read it since, of course, you already know you're right.

When I participate in debates such as this, I don't feel the need to denigrate or belittle those with a contrary view. I'd recommend the practice.

I hear the 'You aren't a Climate Scientist' argument often (except when we hear from the likes of Al Gore or Tim Flannery ) and I call it the "shut up" effect. As in 'you aren't a climate scientist, so you don't have the knowledge to put a point of view, so just shut up'. If that line of reasoning was valid, then we couldn't have a debate about Australia becoming a republic (except for those who are constitutional lawyers). You couldn't complain about the effects of that toxic sludge from the chemical plant entering the environment, because you aren't a qualified biologist. As it happens, I have studied the earth's climate for over 30 years, as it is presented in the sedimentary rock record. It allows me to evaluate the current arguments about anthropomorphic climate change from a perspective of personal experience.

Science doesn't 'say' anything as such. Scientific method is a tool to study and explain natural phenomena. You study a phenomena, or postulate on something, citing the evidence you have found, presenting the data and saying why the particular conclusion has been made. Its open to anyone else to challenge the conclusion and/or come up with a different one. There is usually a popular consensus at any one time, but its just that, a consensus, not "this is the final, proven, absolute fact and we can all go and lie on a beach now". Its continues as the consensus until the next best thing comes along and attracts a new consensus.

As I mentioned above, I don't mind the various theories about anthropomorphic climate change, but don't ask me to pay up because of those theories or beliefs. Those that want to are perfectly welcome to pay, as per the scheme exhibited by Qantas.

 

[esseeeayeenn]

When the discussion focuses on global warming alone there might, arguably, be some room for debate. If one is generous.
However if you consider ocean acidification as well, any such room disappears, as there is simply no alternative explanation for that.
(Let alone for the concurrent phenomena of ocean acidification and global warming.)
Action on carbon emissions is essential to the survival of the marine environment and hence the whole biosphere, even if we ignore the possibility of global warming.
Generally I regard carbon offsets with extreme suspicion, as the real answer is to drastically reduce emissions, not continue emitting and plant a few trees.
Use of fossil fuel should be phased out as quickly as possible whereever alternatives exist.
This includes electricity generation and private transport (cars).
It also includes encouraging high-speed electric rail as an alternative to short-haul air travel over land.
However there isn't a practical alternative to medium and long haul air travel. Nor is there a viable alternative fuel for jet aircraft.
Although biofuels could eventually have close to zero net carbon impact as each generation will absorb the previous generation of emissions.
So I do think there is a role for carbon offsets for air travel as a compliment to genuine emission reductions.
Similarly there is a role for carbon offsets for the use of coal in smelting metals, for which there is no carbon-free alternative.
However I agree that there is a huge difference between paying to plant new trees and paying to stop a tree being felled.
There seems to be a rush by some vested interests to profit from these schemes, with dubious benefits.

 

[RooFlyer]

Throughout scientific endeavour, a number of workers in the on the unfashionable side of the fence have had trouble getting 'some room for debate'. One guy came up with a nice one-liner when almost the entire consensus was against him.

Eppur si muove

Maybe we [anthropomorphic climate change] sceptics should adopt that as our slogan when we are told "The Science is settled" or that there's no alternative explanation

And with that, I'll retire, lest I try the mods patience about being on topic.

 

[maroonone]

Back towards the topic. IIRC when the famous carbon tax was in place there was also the QF carbon offset option. Did this mean we actually paid twice for the carbon?

 

[Chicken]

IIRC when the famous carbon tax was in place there was also the QF carbon offset option. Did this mean we actually paid twice for the carbon?

No, because you are paying for extra off set.

Same with electricity. When you got a bill, the electricity generator was forced to pay carbon tax, and this may or may not have been passed on to you (as electricity tariff is regulated in most states). However, if you paid for accredited GreenPower, then the premium you paid is extra that the electricity retailer needed to buy from new renewable generators, meaning the retailer is buying extra renewable energy on top of the renewable energy they were effectively forced to buy.

 

[samh004]

Further to the link highlighted by ajd, soon we’ll be supporting one of the featured projects in a unique way…watch this space.

I presume this was what I was watching for?

 

[Red Roo]

I presume this was what I was watching for?

Great spotting!

 

[samh004]

Great spotting!

They were really good, hope I get them on more flights as I only had one pack and I'm hungry now!

 

[JohnK]

I was looking for an incredulous face, but can't find one so this will have to do. :shock:

For someone like me this is important. I see political parties involved (some with extreme views) and I lose all interest in the carbon offset debate.

 

[burrco]

I noticed this question was also asked (and answered) in the latest Qantas onboard magazine.