Climate Technology

That’s a Mighty Full Circular File

Faced with rampant pollution, China reports increase in citizen protests The sorry state of air and water quality in China has led to rising public protests, says a top environment […]

Putting the Source Before the Cart

Regional grocery chains seek “organic retailer” certification In some mainstream grocery stores, organic options are shunted to the side, put in a sort of “Food for Freaks” section where only […]

We Always Thought It Was Industrial Strength

McDonald’s to power U.K. delivery fleet with its own grease Proving once again that everything’s cooler in Europe, McDonald’s has announced that it will run all its U.K. delivery vehicles […]

Taking ’em to the mat

The first rule of Carbon Offsets is, you do not talk about Carbon Offsets.

Just kidding. This isn't Fight Club, but I do aim to pick a fight with those overhyping offsets.

If a smart company like Google can seriously think it can go green by burning coal and then buying offsets and if a smart company like PG&E is bragging about a new program that allows customers to offset their electricity emissions by planting trees (a dopey program I'll blog about later), then something is very wrong about the general understanding of offsets.

For those who want a basic introduction to offsets, Wikipedia has an excellent entry. I believe the more you know about and think about offsets, the less appealing they are, as these articles make clear.

No rules of the road exist for offsets. Until now. In subsequent posts, I will offer my own rules based on dozens of discussions over the past decade with environmentalists, energy experts, corporations, and would-be offsetters. I'll post the first rule tomorrow, but it can be summed up in two words: No trees!

This post was created for ClimateProgress.org, a project of the Center for American Progress Action Fund.

Turned Offset

Leading banks suggest regulation of carbon-offset market Not long ago, the phrase “carbon offset” was a kind of magic. Investing in far-off green projects, the thinking went, made up for […]

Citgo Boom

Jury finds Citgo guilty of criminal Clean Air Act charges In a legal first, oil refiner Citgo has been found guilty of criminal charges under the Clean Air Act. The […]

In an op-ed, Russ George claims his company has been unfairly maligned

A company called Planktos has taken some lumps on our site, so when their president, Russ George, sent this response along, I agreed to run it. (It ran originally in […]

Turning Lemons Into Powerade

Waste Management announces $400 million methane-to-energy plan Renewable energy got a boost this week: mega-hauler Waste Management said it will spend $400 million over five years to build 60 landfill-based […]

Can’t … look … away …

I’m told there’s a story attached to that picture at the top, but I can’t seem to get past it. My cute-o-meter is pegging.

Find a new source of power, dudes

Google got a lot of great press for its new plan to "voluntarily cut or offset all its greenhouse emissions by the end of the year." But was it all deserved?

The Boston Globe reported the story as "Google aims to go carbon-neutral by end 2007. " The World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD) reprinted the story, as did Greenwire and others. Buried in the story was this gem: