Counteracting the Carbon

DEAR STUDENT DIRECT,

Alex Creen-Griffiths “Carbon Offsetting” article is full of errors concerning the carbon industry.

Griffins’ reference to individuals buying carbon credits is completely incorrect. It is impossible and illegal for an individual to gain access to the EUA Emissions market. The claim that oil majors have made profits is also ambiguous. While it is true that the oil majors did receive free credits it seems highly unlikely that they made large profits on them as for the last twelve months due to over supply carbon credits are currently trading at zero.

Furthermore, Griffith's claim that NHS trusts are buying credits sold by oil companies is impossible. Health care is not an industry currently covered under the Kyoto Protocol and it is therefore impossible for interaction between these two industries.

While Griffith is correct that some 'carbon sharks' are ripping off individuals through private offset this is completely unconnected with the official and recognized market and clarity is required. I would ask Alex to research his articles before penning complete crap as he does a disservice to the only mechanism that is effectively reducing carbon emissions. Through the emissions markets Britain has already reduced emissions to the Kyoto twenty percent level and now aims at ten percent.

Regards,

Stuart Lyons

DEAR STUDENT DIRECT,

I WOULD like to applaud Alex Craven-Griffiths for his comment piece on the consumer farce that is carbon offsetting.  I raised the same arguments Alex made to the Chief Executive of one of the UK's largest carbon offset firms 'Climate Care', when we peacefully occupied their offices during the Climate Camp 2007.

Climate Care were shocked that they had been targeted that day.  We civilly debated with them (over tea and biscuits in the board room) that they were using dodgy science to cash in on the growing environmental conscience amongst the public.  They argued that carbon offsetting was moving away from tree planting (due to its notorious inaccuracy as a carbon offset measure) and instead were funding low carbon technologies in the developing world.

Whilst we should definitely be providing such technologies, this should not replace making significant cuts across the board in the UK. Furthermore, the idea of paying people in distance countries to make emissions reductions on our behalf smacks of neo-colonialism.  Alex is right; carbon offsetting is a dangerous red herring.

Robbie Gillett
UMSU Communications Officer Elect