on the way home this evening, i was reading an “article” (and i use that term loosely as was in one of those free giveaway rags from the tube station) on ethical christmas ideas (an idea which they clearly *stole* from me, since I wrote about that the other day for shortcut even though it hasn’t been posted yet) and one of the things they suggest is buying carbon exchanges in order to neutralise the carbon footprint christmas day leaves behind – the equivalent of 100kg.

I think my problem with the whole “carbon neutral” concept is that it feels like just a way to assuage the guilt of people who can (and should) live cleaner, but happen to have the resources to buy their way out of the doghouse. particularly where this is really only an option for people of some means – i mean, it’s all well and good to be able to do if you can afford it, but where does that leave people who’re already struggling? they’re the ones with the real dilemma, because they can’t afford the pricier “eco-friendly” products, they’re the least educated on the problem, and they’re the most affected by things like urban pollution and skyrocketing fuel/heating prices. To people who are privileged enough to be able to make this choice, I say either make the effort to consume/pollute less because you think it’s worth doing for its own merit, or don’t bother. it’s detracting public awareness from demanding more available solutions that can be taken up by everyone.

My other difficulty is that this kind of programme, whether for individuals or corporations, sends the wrong message to people in less developed countries about the imperative need to reduce fossil fuel usage and pollution. that somehow creating garbage/using resources doesn’t matter as long as you can plant enough trees or invest in other energy sources to “offset” the damage done. the problem with that, is *nothing* can undo the damage being done – trees can’t be planted fast enough to replenish coal/oil/gas. using solar energy does not pull emissions out of the air, or rubbish out of landfills. you can’t scar the earth doing one thing, then try to apply a bandaid by doing something completely different.

it’s a feel-good quick fix for people and companies who don’t want the inconvenience of doing something *real*, like changing one’s long-term habits – a much more uncomfortable prospect, but one with a much bigger impact. the carbon neutral lifestyle isn’t something you can just buy off a website.

and i can’t help but idly wonder how many “carbon exchanges” the disposable of the millions of all these free tube papers would require, or how much landfill space they take up. me: i’m recycling mine.

Like this post

Unlike

environmentalism, footprint, emissions, carbon neutral