PrintEmail
Comment
Is There Such a Thing as Guilt-Free Driving?
Posted by Hillary Rosner on April 25, 2006 - 2:21pm.
files/images/prod/1355/whatyougetSmall2.jpg

There are lots of ways to reduce your carbon footprint, or the amount of greenhouse gas emissions you generate as a result of your daily life. Trade in your car for one with better gas mileage, for example. And walk, bike, or take public transportation whenever possible. But chances are you must drive sometimes - so one way to counterbalance the carbon emissions from burning gasoline is to help build renewable energy sources like wind farms.

With CoolDriver, you can do just that. For $6 a month, CoolDriver lets you offset the average car's annual emissions, which amounts to six tons of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. An initiative of Native Energy, which invests in renewable energy technologies including wind, solar, and dairy-farm methane, and the organization Clean Air Cool Planet, a nonprofit that helps implement climate change solutions, CoolDriver lets you ease your conscience about driving, by helping reduce the use of fossil fuels elsewhere.

Native Energy offers a travel calculator that lets you see the impact of your travel (for trips by car, bus, train, plane, and even for hotel stays).

But as the web site sort of hints ("Step 1" is to drive less and drive an energy-efficient vehicle), you can't just sit back and rest on the promise of that $6 monthly contribution. CoolDriver is a form of carbon offset program, a nifty way to minimize the planetary harm your lifesyle causes. Other forms of carbon offsets are planting trees and sequestering carbon (such as underground or in the soil). But if everyone continues to live as they are (driving a car that get 10 miles per gallon when it's just as easy to walk, say) but buys carbon offsets to ease their guilt, then we won't really be much better off. It's a bit like bumper-sticker activism.

Still, carbon offsets are an important part of a balanced climate-change-solutions diet, when combined with other methods of reducing your carbon footprint.

Image credit: CoolDriver



Related Shop Items


<em>Anonymous</em>'s picture
Carbon offsets are bull...
by Anonymous on April 25, 2006 - 10:38pm
Give me a break! "carbon offsets are an IMPORTANT part of a balanced climate-change-solutions diet," This is ture in la la land, not the reality based universe. This is feel good crap that deflects from the true problems of anthropogenic emissions. As an environmental engineer, I find this type of trite statement very disturbing. Carbon offsets are only practical on a large scale such as reforestation ie Kyoto etc. The fundamental problem still remaining is the global large-scale anthropogenic burning of fossil fuels and carbon offsets are NOT an important part of anyting an individual can do except if they want to make themselves "feel good" without doing anything real.
<em>phiggs</em>'s picture
selective reading
by phiggs on April 26, 2006 - 10:27am
Maybe you should have read the rest of the post, specifically: "But if everyone continues to live as they are (driving a car that get 10 miles per gallon when it's just as easy to walk, say) but buys carbon offsets to ease their guilt, then we won't really be much better off. It's a bit like bumper-sticker activism." Or perhaps you feel individuals have no role in climate change...
<em>Anonymous</em>'s picture
The Vanishing Glaciers
by Anonymous on April 26, 2006 - 3:18pm
To the point on 'individuals making a difference' who could deny it. Of course we need individuals, we need them thinking and acting in a collective. I give a lecture on 'Vanishing Glaciers' in the Alps of Switzerland and Austria in conjuction with readings from my book. At the end I always tell people, you cannot put a check in an envelope, and I will not sell you a T-shirt or a bumper sticker. The melting Glaciers need more than that. Today the Alps, tomorrow the Rockies, the Sierras, etc. Go to the ballot box and vote with a serieous agenda in mind... saving the planet. Find out WHAT local and state, and regional, politicians stand for environmentally, not their stands on creationism, or family values, or Red State-Blue State bullshit. We've been taken off-focus by Washington, by neo-cons, as if Climate Change is just some back-burner issue. We need friggin' action NOW, as in LAWS, protocols, limitations. The Alpine nations recognized the problem together in 1992. By 1995, they had protocols enacted. We, Americans are the culture that invented the speed bump, and needs it. We need to bite the bullet and we will not do that voluntarily. Dream on.
<em>hrosner</em>'s picture
A Useful Debate to Have
by hrosner on April 26, 2006 - 10:37am
This is exactly the kind of dialogue it's useful to have. People hear about carbon offsets and think, "Oh, great, I can keep my life exactly as it is and if I just shell out a few pennies to plant some trees, everything will be perfect." When, of course, as I took pains to point out in my post, carbon offsets are only worthwhile when _combined_ with other things like conservation. Otherwise they're useless, and wose, as you point out, they deflect from the real problems. But climate change is an incredibly complex problem that likewise requires complex solutions--there isn't just one answer. So if carbon offsets 1) help fund solutions like sequestration and renewable energy, and 2) help raise people's awareness of the type of everyday activities that are releasing carbon dioxide and how to cut down on those emissions, then offsets are a useful tool, though just one small one among many others.
<em>Anonymous</em>'s picture
Re "No"
by Anonymous on April 26, 2006 - 11:53am
I think the point "No" was making is that carbon offsets by individuals are nearly useless and are not all that important. The reality is that individuals will make very little difference except perhaps at the voting booth. This kind of carbon offset is like eating candy, tastes good but that's about it.
<em>phiggs</em>'s picture
individuals matter
by phiggs on April 26, 2006 - 12:08pm
Except that with this particular program, individuals do matter -- each "offset" in this case is really a small donation toward getting wind farms online. And these individual micro-donations do work -- ever heard of MoveOn? At any rate, which is preferable: a hundred thousand individual offsets, or none at all?
<em>Anonymous</em>'s picture
Bad idea
by Anonymous on April 26, 2006 - 12:37pm
This concept of “green tags,” offering individuals and organizations a means to compensate for their global warming pollution is dangerous. It is based on the same concept of trading pollution credits that the Bush administration has been pushing for industry. People should not be given the impression that they can buy their way out of this mess. It's a bad idea because it's a lie. MoveOn is not based on a lie.
<em>phiggs</em>'s picture
a lie?
by phiggs on April 26, 2006 - 4:49pm
What, exactly, is the lie?
<em>Anonymous</em>'s picture
The Lie
by Anonymous on May 1, 2006 - 6:25pm
The "Lie" of course is the Superior Being idea, just like our current conservative superior nations theory, or the creationist lie of 'don't worry, God will take care of man.'(especially us Americans) So just back-off and pray. Stick your head in a hole and ride-it-out. The great lie is also that science, with all their computer models, data, projections, core samples, etc. knows what Nature will do. We can only guess at what the end of the First Ice Age looked like, what true global warming and melting did to the earth's land masses and to the living things. Man has no idea what Nature is truly capable of. Conversely, Nature has no idea what man is capable of.
Guily-free driving is outdated...Mass Transit is the next big th
by sustainable_sos on May 14, 2006 - 5:19pm
We've seen the future and it works... The Greater Toronto Area is growing, with the City projecting a population of around 7.5 million by 2031. Designing around the automobile—that is, even more roads for even more cars—is simply not possible. We have designed our cities around the car but it is no longer working. Having embraced car culture and its promise of fast personal mobility, we now find ourselves stuck in traffic. The good news is that solutions are all around us. when envisioning the ideal scenario for toronto's mass-transit system, I remembered the sage advice of architect Jaime Lerner, the former three-time mayor of Curitiba, Brazil. Famous for putting his South American city on the global map for its innovative mobility system, he knows a thing or two about moving people and traffic. Rather than be paralyzed by what he calls the far-off “future future,” he suggests abandoning all Flash Gordon fantasy-scapes and working with the “close future.” To view full article, please visit: http://community.livejournal.com/sustainable_sos/ http://www.greenlivingmagazine.ca/environment.html#transit
Guilty-free driving is outdated...Mass Transit is the next big t
by sustainable_sos on May 14, 2006 - 5:21pm
We've seen the future and it works... The Greater Toronto Area is growing, with the City projecting a population of around 7.5 million by 2031. Designing around the automobile—that is, even more roads for even more cars—is simply not possible. We have designed our cities around the car but it is no longer working. Having embraced car culture and its promise of fast personal mobility, we now find ourselves stuck in traffic. The good news is that solutions are all around us. when envisioning the ideal scenario for toronto's mass-transit system, I remembered the sage advice of architect Jaime Lerner, the former three-time mayor of Curitiba, Brazil. Famous for putting his South American city on the global map for its innovative mobility system, he knows a thing or two about moving people and traffic. Rather than be paralyzed by what he calls the far-off “future future,” he suggests abandoning all Flash Gordon fantasy-scapes and working with the “close future.” To view full article, please visit: http://community.livejournal.com/sustainable_sos/ http://www.greenlivingmagazine.ca/environment.html#transit
<em>phiggs</em>'s picture
Re" No"
by phiggs on June 6, 2006 - 10:20am
The more I think about it, the more I realize how asinine the statement by "Lonely Planet" is: "carbon offsets by individuals are nearly useless and are not all that important. The reality is that individuals will make very little difference except perhaps at the voting booth." So, individuals -- even hundreds of thousands of them -- buying carbon offsets is useless, but individuals casting individual votes -- hundreds of thousands of them -- can make a difference? Hmm. Dude, if a hundred thousand people do something, it makes a difference, no matter what it is.

User login


Join Lime Now, it's free