Qantas Carbon Offset - Where does the money really go?

[Mattg]

Does anyone know where the money actually goes when you opt to "fly carbon neutral"? I do occasionally pay the few dollars extra to offset my flights, but I have no idea what, specifically, the money is actually used for.

Does the money go towards planting trees? Is it invested in the research of more efficient technology?

I'm not suggesting it's not being used properly, just curious.

 

[ajd]

Carbon Offsetting | Qantas and Carbon Offset Projects | Qantas provide some examples of the kinds of project they fund. I believe most carbon offsetting programs tend to focus on the "planting trees" and equivalent rather than R&D.

 

[tyrolean]

Some percentage goes to the administration. So the greenies can fly to the next climate summit.

Just a few bucks to give you a good feeling, but it reminds very strongly at the catholic sale of indulgance.

For me: I just do what i can do. I did put a solar heating on my house, have a very good insulation and a heating that can burn wood as a booster.

 

[RooFlyer]

Carbon Offsetting | Qantas and Carbon Offset Projects | Qantas provide some examples of the kinds of project they fund. I believe most carbon offsetting programs tend to focus on the "planting trees" and equivalent rather than R&D.

All the ones referenced there are more along the lines of 'empowering communities' and 'stopping trees being chopped down' rather than planting new forests. In Laos, providing more efficient stoves. I can't actually see any projects where they plant trees (not having a go - just looking at the web site, which I'm grateful to be referenced).

In Tasmania, its a great lurk. Farmer Brown says I have x,000 ha of private forest on my land. Who wants to harvest it? Oh! Is that the Tasmanian Land Conservancy with Qantas dollars over there? Do come in. (I know about 5 Farmer Browns on the East Coast of Tassie - laughing all the way to the bank)

Some percentage goes to the administration. So the greenies can fly to the next climate summit.

Just a few bucks to give you a good feeling, but it reminds very strongly at the catholic sale of indulgence.

<snip>.

Quite so.

 

[Red Roo]

This is an important topic for us as a business, and I wanted to clarify some points.

Firstly, Qantas doesn’t profit from the Fly Carbon Neutral Program, and uses all customer contributions to purchase offsets. We also offset all our employee corporate travel.

All the ones referenced there are more along the lines of 'empowering communities' and 'stopping trees being chopped down' rather than planting new forests. In Laos, providing more efficient stoves. I can't actually see any projects where they plant trees (not having a go - just looking at the web site, which I'm grateful to be referenced).

RooFlyer is correct in suggesting that the selected carbon offset projects are community focused, accredited initiatives that are genuine and have lasting environmental and social benefits.

Carbon Offsetting | Qantas and Carbon Offset Projects | Qantas provide some examples of the kinds of project they fund.

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

 

[Isochronous]

Greenhouse gases are good for the planet and will lead to higher crop yields. Climate change is just the latest extreme left wing scam being used to advance the socialist agenda.

 

[get me outta here]

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

Greenhouse gases are good for the planet and will lead to higher crop yields. Climate change is just the latest extreme left wing scam being used to advance the socialist agenda.

 

[Revolio]

Greenhouse gases are good for the planet and will lead to higher crop yields. Climate change is just the latest extreme left wing scam being used to advance the socialist agenda.

....you forgot 'and TA will still be PM in 2020'

 

[SeatBackForward]

Why doesn't QF just take the difference between the fuel surcharge that we have to pay, and the reduction in fuel prices since the surcharges have increased?

 

[opusman]

Firstly, Qantas doesn’t profit from the Fly Carbon Neutral Program, and uses all customer contributions to purchase offsets. We also offset all our employee corporate travel.

Have you thought about showing some stats on the website about total offsets purchased / tons of CO2 reduction etc? Might encourage more people to tick the box?

 

[Limewood]

I was wondering how many trees it would take to clear the air in China, India etc, my guess is a few trillion.

 

[RooFlyer]

So as I understand it, if you pay the 'carbon neutral' money to Qantas, you aren't actually flying 'carbon neutral' in the literal sense? I thought the 'theory' of flying 'carbon neutral' is that you pay money to have some vegetation planted which in time will grow, absorb your share of the CO2 created in the flying, therefore balance it out to 'neutral'? I get the methods of improving combustion products to lessen CO2 emissions from stoves, too.

As noted by Qantas:

This carbon offset project protects over 7000 hectares of native Tasmanian forest which would, if not for the project, continue to undergo selective logging or be cleared and converted to pasture.

Greenhouse gas emissions are avoided by preventing the release of the carbon stored in the trees that, in the absence of the project, would occur through logging, processing and use of the timber.

I know that the Qantas schemes are very worthy (especially the Cambodian one - love it), and are no doubt accredited according to the Australian Carbon Offset Standard, but paying someone not to chop down a tree (or buying the property) I don't think is the same thing as planting a new tree. An existing tree in danger of being cut down is likely mature, with little growth and therefore net CO2 absorption. In time it will die, decay and a whole bunch of CO2 and the dreaded methane will be emitted as a by product of the decay. Planting a new tree would absorb max CO2 in the growth phase, although it will be emitted again when the tree dies.

Anyway, good on Qantas for raising money to support some worthy offshore projects, although I remain sceptical of their impact on the atmosphere.

 

[Limewood]

I'm very sceptical that it will not make one iota of difference, its just PR.

 

[medhead]

Greenhouse gases are good for the planet and will lead to higher crop yields. Climate change is just the latest extreme left wing scam being used to advance the socialist agenda.

PMSL

A greenhouse gas (sometimes abbreviated GHG) is a gas in an atmosphere that absorbsand emits radiation within the thermal infrared range.

In order, the most abundant greenhouse gases in Earth's atmosphere are:

• Water vapor (H
  2O)
• Carbon dioxide (CO[SUB]2[/SUB])
• Methane (CH4)
• Nitrous oxide (N2O)
• Ozone (O3)
• Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs)

What are the biological processes by which Methane, NOX, Ozone and CFCs increase crop yields?

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

 

[Dr Ralph]

A better question is why would anyone actually pay this?

 

[Chicken]

A better question is why would anyone actually pay this?

As an insurance premium, to reduce the chance of extreme climate conditions. More extreme weather will cause more delays to Qantas planes. Simple really.

 

[RooFlyer]

As an insurance premium, to reduce the chance of extreme climate conditions. More extreme weather will cause more delays to Qantas planes. Simple really.

If its so simple, what's the evidence of increasing extreme climate conditions, and over what time frame is being considered? I think the only comprehensive study is of the frequency and intensity of Atlantic hurricanes - and they are neither increasing in frequency nor increasing in intensity over the study period.

Nearly every study said to demonstrate global warming (or, now that we know that isn't occurring, 'Climate Change') is done over such a short time frame, its scientifically meaningless.

100 years? 200 years? 500 years? Just fractions in time where weather and natural phenomenon can vary. I've asked the question elsewhere: what caused the onset (cooling) and then the end (warming) of the last global ice age? It wasn't anthropogenic. Geologists look at climate variations in the sedimentary record, down to the year scale where they can. The actuality and rate of change of the present climate is nothing new.

By all means pay for Qantas 'carbon offsets' - Qantas does some good with the cash. But please don't fool yourself that it will ever do anything to influence the climate or 'extreme weather'.

Where do I go to pay my 'volcanic ash offset'? That would be useful and has much more demonstrated influence on delays in aviation.

 

[Chicken]

If its so simple, what's the evidence of increasing extreme climate conditions, and over what time frame is being considered?

What most scientists picking on each other, then eventually arrived at a figure which they could not longer pick on.

I think the only comprehensive study is of the frequency and intensity of Atlantic hurricanes - and they are neither increasing in frequency nor increasing in intensity over the study period.

You think? So you are not a scientist. OK...

I am not a scientist, but I know if scientists peer review each other, pick on each other, until they can no longer pick on each other because there is nothing else which can be picked on, that is how scientists come to conclusions (and people who do medical research). And anyone who does not agree with this process is like a doctor telling them their leg is broken because the X-RAY is 95% clear but they argue that there is a dot on the X-ray which is not clear hence their leg is not broken.

 

[RooFlyer]

<snip>
You think? So you are not a scientist. OK...

I am not a scientist, but I know if scientists peer review each other, pick on each other, until they can no longer pick on each other because there is nothing else which can be picked on, that is how scientists come to conclusions (and people who do medical research). And anyone who does not agree with this process is like a doctor telling them their leg is broken because the X-RAY is 95% clear but they argue that there is a dot on the X-ray which is not clear hence their leg is not broken.

Actually, I am a scientist, and have the magical 'peer reviewed papers' and everything . But lest that fact impresses anyone at all, a word about these 'peer reviewed papers' you hear so much about these days. The trick you see, is to send it to the journal with the 'right' editor - that is, one who agrees with your line of thinking. He sends the paper out to the mates for review and they agree with it because I've cited them a lot in the study. Then when one of the mates sends one of their papers in, I'll probably be on the review panel, 'cause I'm a peer, and well, look at that, they've cited me all over the place. Must be right. And so on. Round and round we go and all our SCI indexes go off the scale.

I can sort of agree with your analogy of 95% vs 5% and the weight you might put on the '5%' type of evidence.

Most 'climate change' studies have used data using no longer time span than 300 years. Some have used evidence over the last 500 years. Some longer. So, 500 years is 0.00005% of 1 billion years, which is about when we got an atmosphere about the same as now and 1/3 of the time where the planet has had a plate tectonic environment. Most studies purporting to find anthropomorphic climate change are sort of like observing traffic on a highway for 10 seconds in a day and concluding that there is or isn't a traffic problem, depending on the particular 10 seconds chosen.

That doesn't bother me that much - there is a lot of cough science done, and published, believe me - as long as I'm not forced to pay for the conclusions. Qantas doesn't force me to pay for 'carbon offsets' so I'm perfectly content with that situation.

 

[opusman]

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.