A budding ndustry sells 'offsets' of carbon emissions, investing in environmental projects. But there are doubts about whether it works.
By Alan Zarembo, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
September 2, 2007
The Oscar-winning film "An Inconvenient Truth" touted itself as the world's first carbon-neutral documentary.
The producers said that every ounce of carbon emitted during production -- from jet travel, electricity for filming and gasoline for cars and trucks -- was counterbalanced by reducing emissions somewhere else in the world. It only made sense that a film about the perils of global warming wouldn't contribute to the problem.
producer Lesley Chilcott used an online calculator to estimate that shooting the film used 41.4 tons of carbon dioxide and paid a middleman, a company called Native Energy, $12 a ton, or $496.80, to broker a deal to cut greenhouse gases elsewhere. The film's distributors later made a similar payment to neutralize carbon dioxide from the marketing of the movie.
It was a ridiculously good deal with one problem: So far, it has not led to any additional emissions reductions.
Beneath the feel-good simplicity of buying your way to carbon neutrality is a growing concern that the idea is more hype than solution.
<snip>
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-sci-offsets2sep02,0,3441587.story?coll=la-home-centerThe short answer is no.