The TerraPass Farce
When I initially heard about TerraPass, I was excited.
Your car puts several tons of CO2 in the air every year.
With TerraPass, you can take it back out.
Now, I’m not terribly concerned about CO2 emissions. Heck, considering that the earth is exiting an ice age, “global thawing” might be a better term than “global warming.” But that doesn’t mean that I’m opposed to emissions reduction. Who knows… maybe the crazy global warming theorists will turn out to be right. At any rate, it seemed like TerraPass was offering to neutralize your car’s CO2 emissions, which would make every car a “green” car. Pretty cool, right?
I immediately started wondering how they did it. If you release CO2 gas deep in the ocean, it will dissolve. Were there other ways of taking CO2 out of the atmosphere?
Well, get ready for a letdown. TerraPass doesn’t actually take CO2 out of the atmosphere. They fund alternative energy research, so that other people don’t put more CO2 into the atmosphere. That’s all fine and dandy, but it doesn’t mean that your emissions have been negated. Let me make an analogy that Al Gore would love: it’s like killing a person, and then convincing a murderer to kill one less person. You didn’t negate your murder. You still killed the person. Convincing someone else to reduce their emissions doesn’t make up for your emissions.
You know what TerraPass is? It’s a way for liberals to feel good about driving around in their SUVs. For a small yearly fee, they get to ignore the fact that as much as they claim to care about the environment, they still drive a vehicle that gets under 30 miles per gallon.
I have a better idea. Buy a car that produces less CO2. Better yet… ride a bicycle. But don’t you dare think that by sporting a sticker on your SUV you are suddenly less of a hypocrite. No, you’re just advertising your hypocrisy.
TerraPass is actually a pretty cool idea: the company buys technology to reduce greenhouse gas pollution equal to the amount of greenhouse gas your car makes. (For example, they’ll pay for a methane scrubber on a factory.) Does it work? Well, it hasdetractors, but it still seems like a good first step. Tags: earth day, environment, terrapass, geocaching, cache in trash out, voltaic
Unfortunately, we’ve had non-polluting or extremely-low-emissions automotive technology around since the 1970s, but the economic forces, ie the vested interests of Detroit automakers and the oil industry, has prevented the technology from becoming widely implemented. The same technology I am talking about would have resulted in vehicles that achieved 35-45 MPG for a standard full-size sedan, and a bit less for larger vehicles.
Hey and thanks for the review. You are correct, TerraPass doesn’t actually sequester carbon — instead we promote clean development projects, so that the economy is better positioned to reduce emissions over the long term.
Your death analogy is slighly flawed — The better analogy is a bucket of water being quickly filled. What we do is reduce the flow of the water and ecourage new, clean energy projects with efficient subsidies. Our customers like that, and list a clean energy future as a major reason for supporting TerraPass.
A modern version of the “teach a man to fish” parable is to teach a farmer to make power from cow manure. Thats what we’re up to.
-Tom
Those are good goals, Tom… goals I support. But this statement, on the front page, is still untrue:
More accurate would be this:
I think we’re quite arrogant in our views on C02, global warming, environment and/climate change.
Sure, it can’t be conclusively be proven that humans are contributing to warming – and if it could be proven without a shred of doubt, then it most means its already too late to do anything about it.
Yeah we might be on a planet that is warming up naturally anyway, but would you put a big ass woolen sweater on your running horse and expect him to keep carrying you as normal?
Bottom line is we don’t know what we’re messing with.
In a land of concrete, high-rises, malls and Mcnuggets, it’s often all to easy to forget that we OWE our existence to a robust and insanely complex interconnected and fragile biosphere.
We’re pissing all over and/or playing Russian roulette with the natural systems that give us life. Systems we’re only beginning to understand with any degree of depth.
In light of conclusive proof either way, it’s nothing short of insanity to be gambling with these kinds of issues. Maybe when NYC and California sink into the ocean we’ll wake up.
What ever may come, we deserve everything we get in my opinion. Sometimes I think a planetary reboot would be a good thing. Humanity is acting nothing short of viral on this planet. Screw growth, my hat goes off to forward thinkers and scientists who’s mantra moving into this new century is “sustainability”.
“it’s often all to easy to forget that we OWE our existence to a robust and insanely complex interconnected and fragile biosphere.” – Chillpill
I’m curious as to how something can be both robust and fragile at the same time…
I can see how that is confusing.
I was thinking along the lines of the same way a child can have a powerful immune system to ward off illness – but an adult could kick a child and do a lot of damage to it.
Thus the child could be described as being robust and fragile – simultaneously.
And would describe the life support systems on our planet the same way.
Chillpill says, Screw growth, my hat goes off to forward thinkers and scientists who’s mantra moving into this new century is “sustainability”.
“Sustainability” is usually code word for top down management of economic and land resources (basically Marxism). Is that what you mean?
No.
Actually, that’s not what I mean at all.
At it’s simplest, sustainability means finding ways of existing (of living on this planet) without destroying (or having minimal impact on) the systems that give us life.
i agree with tom and chillpill.
In my way of life, it’s best to do SOMETHING rather than doing nothing. Terrapass and other offsetting groups (carbon fund, drive neutral, cleanairpass.com) all encourage people to think about their driving habits and to take some responsibility for it, not to mention help fund much needed clean energy projects.
Mark, I actually agree with you that the statement on our Web site that “you can take [your CO2 emissions] back out” is potentially problematic. The challenge we face is communicating a very complex topic (carbon offsets) in a few words. Our hope is that in the context of the site, which provides deep details about what how TerraPass works, the simplification is an acceptable one.
And the statement is more accurate than you suggest. Carbon offsets represent real reductions in CO2 emissions. We aren’t just “helping to convince people not to do the same.” For example, when we buy a Renewable Energy Certificate, we are actually displacing electricity created from coal or oil from the grid, and replacing it electricity from renewable sources. The mechanisms to measure the reductions in emissions are stringent and complex, so we feel confident that we are able to do what we promise. Otherwise we wouldn’t be in this business.
Finally, to your point that TerraPass is for guilty SUV drivers — our customers disproportionately drive Hybrids. But I agree, it would be great to see more people on bicycles!
Your “killing a person” analogy is ridiculous. Why? Because people are not interchangeable, and carbon emissions are. Every serious plan for carbon reduction counts all offsets in the same big bucket: if you reduce a ton of carbon by sequestering it at a coal-burning plant, generating more power with a nuclear plant, or replacing an SUV with an electric car … it’s still a ton of carbon. Scientific American had a good issue on this a few months ago. Recommended if you’re into this whole “reality-based” thing.
Agreed that this may function for consumers as a guilt mitigator. But however hypocritical the motivation, it is economically sound: sans Kyoto, carbon emissions are currently an externality, in the sense that they have a cost (i.e. environmental impact) which is decoupled from the decision that incurs the cost (i.e. driving a car). Terrapass is essentially asking people to economically “re-internalize” that cost voluntarily.
So yes, guilt write-off, arguably hypocritical, but economically sound.
[...] tracedef previously said: oh no. No x 2. [...]
[...] hey Mike, I too think it’s a scam. This guy agrees: http://txfx.net/2006/01/16/the-terrapass-farce/ To make a real difference, ride your bike and buy potatoes from San Luis valley instead of mangoes from Chile tom. [...]
[...] Mike, I too think it’s a scam. This guy agrees: http://txfx.net/2006/01/16/the-terrapass-farce/ To make a real difference, ride your bike and buy potatoes from San Luis valley instead of [...]
Also, it would seem there would only be a finite number of passes they could sell every year. And by the way, Terrapass is a for profit company, not a nonprofit. So its seems I’m not the only skeptic, tempus fugit has this post on the subject. In addition, Andrew Bolt from the Sydney Herald Sun has this nice column on the subject. Turns out Al Gore buys his offsets from Generation Investment Management, who’s Chairmen is …. Al Gore. He buys the carbon offsets from himself.
[...] http://txfx.net/2006/01/16/the-terrapass-farce/ Have you ever wondered why liberals are such convoluted bastards? Harry Truman_________________Man is an ape who is easily confused. God is an infinitely variable Constant. Man marks his ground with ideologies. Life is a beautifully balanced system. War is a punishment for implacability. Peace flows from forgiveness of sins. [...]
You don’t have to eliminate all activities that generate CO2. It makes sense to optimize in the areas that yield the greatest CO2 reduction per dollar invested. If you only have X dollars to spend, it’s best to spend that money in the way that will provide the greatest benefit. Riding a bike is a great idea, but it doesn’t mean that these other ways of reducing CO2 output are invalid. The distinctions you make sound pretty irrelevant to me.
Perhaps it would clear the whole thing up if they were just called “alternative energy supports” and weren’t linked at all with people’s existing energy consumption habits. Then the confusion over whether or not buying support for alternative energy (or carbon based energy forms like garbage dump methane gas) actually had anything at all to do with individual choices to use carbon producing energy. In other words, financially supporting clean energy has nothing to do with your own choice not to cut back on your own dirty energy usage. They are two totally seperate issues. The irony comes in when you try to excuse one with the other. Then you just look foolish.
I have to say I found this post overly aggressive in the standard “rudeness garners attention” rules of the blogosphere.
You’re not quite sure if you’re mad at Terrapass because of their ad slogan (which read pedantically would imply that they only fund carbon sequestering and not emissions reduction), because you think that instead of funding Terrapass projects people should junk their car and purchase a new one with slightly better mileage (rather problematic for many reasons), or because you have some strange personal animus against the customers you imagine Terrapass to serve.
As a datapoint, I’m a new Terrapass customer brought here by googling the company to see if they’re for real. As should be trivially obvious (but useful to ignore in a rant) Terrapass is not the be-all-end-all of environmental action. But as a cyclist who doesn’t own a car but who has to fly upwards of ten domestic roundtrips a year, I’ve found it a nice way to contribute to solutions, and as a gift, a nice way to contribute to consciousness raising at the same time.
Ah, after one month, a response, how nice. I’m sorry you felt my post was rude. It certainly wasn;t meant that way. I was simply juxtaposing our use of energy with our paurchase of stickers that say we promote energy use reduction or our use of “dirty” energy” with our purchase of stickers that promote the use of “clean energy” To me it is an interesting phenomenon. Sort of like a from of sticker herapy for energy addicts. If I asked you whether you use a drier or a clothesline, open-windows or air-conditioning, push mower or gas powered mower, what would you answer? All these energy alternatives are certainly affordable, they are also personal choices. i am not stating that you should or should make either of them, just that the choice is in your power to make. Al Gore would certainly approve of the lower energy consumptoi choice, although he himself will choose the stickers. All judgement aside, it is an interesting phenomenon.
Sorry, should have done a spell check on that last post. Let me resend it:
Ah, after one month, a response, how nice. I’m sorry you felt my post was rude. It certainly wasn’t meant that way. I was simply juxtaposing our use of energy with our paurchase of stickers that say we promote energy use reduction or our use of “dirty” energy” with our purchase of stickers that promote the use of “clean energy” To me it is an interesting phenomenon. Sort of like a form of sticker herapy for energy addicts. If I asked you whether you use a drier or a clothesline, open-windows or air-conditioning, push mower or gas powered mower, what would you answer? All these energy alternatives are certainly affordable, they are also personal choices. i am not stating that you should or shouldn’t make either of them, just that the choice is in your power to make. Al Gore would certainly approve of the lower energy consumption choice, although he himself will choose the stickers. All judgement aside, it is an interesting phenomenon
I agree that the whole slam on TerraPass seems a bit overdone, Mark. You have to believe that anyone who would throw money at a company like this would probably already be doing other things as well.
“Neutralizing” your carbon is probably a goal few of us could achieve without reverting to a cave, a diet of water and rocks, and going naked while we walk everywhere.
But the end shouldn’t be what we analyze. It’s the means.
And this, perhaps among many things (you list some), seems to be “something” to do. The whole term “offset” seems to suggest anyone who does this is doing it only to make themselves feel better about their burping CO2 out their tailpipes. But I think the truth is that many of us see this as yet another thing to add to our TTD lists. CF bulbs. Bikes. LEVs. Reducing waste. etc. etc. etc.
Heck, if our governments are slow to begin financing this kind of research then I applaud ANYONE driving around with one of these stickers on their ride. At least they’ve committed some bucks toward addressing it.
It’s your blog. It’s your opinion. You’re the kingpin here. But I’d ratchet back the vitriol a bit and aim your firepower at more deserving targets, eh?
I’ll second Chris: the vitriol is not welcome.
You will have to excuse my ignorance as i am new to the world of blogging and am not really sure exactly what I wrote that was considered vitriol. Actually, when i read the posts by Mark I cannot seem to identify vitriol either, just someone’s honest opinion on an interesting topic. To me Mark’s opinion seemed supported by some well thougth out arguement thereby saving it from the tag of “vitriol” which is simply unsupported ad hominum ranting.I think that the subjects of global warming and terra passes are fascinating views into human behavior and love to discuss them but certainly do not want to be offensive. Therefore, if you could clear up this small matter of identifying “vitriol” i could better know how to behave within the group.
Here is an article that those of us considering the benefits of carbon free credits might find useful: (adavance apologies inserted here for any unintended vitriol)
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/48e334ce-f355-11db-9845-000b5df10621.html
I am a terrapass subscriber (renewed once so far) and recently added carbon offsets for my family’s recent plane flights and our annual home energy use. Also I bike or bus to work 95 percent of the time, drive a hybrid car as my primary vehicle (averaging 60 mpg, btw), air dry our clean clothes naturally outdoors, use a manual push mower, open my windows to avoid AC use, use water saving and energy saving washer and refrigerator, recycle, upgraded home windows to low-e Energy Star certified type, etc etc. I tell you it is a process of waste reduction that we continue to move forward on over time.
Anyway, I researched Terrapass carefully and think they offer a valuable way to offset what I can’t –yet– reduce of my carbon footprint — which the calculators I have consulted online indicate to me my Carbon Footprint is already much lower than average. I would venture to say that the average Terrapass subscriber is most likely _not_ the stereotyped energy hog at all.
Subscribers to Terrapass benefit from an e-newsletter that provides energy saving information we can use in our own life choices to help reduce our carbon footprints.
I do agree with the original post which asserted that what I’m actually doing is how folks should approach this matter. We live by example, however we act in this regard. No, I’m not perfect and don’t claim to be. I’m continuing to seek other opportunities to save energy and to someday hopefully to create some local, distributed (terrorist-resistant), renewable, sustainable energy such as wind and solar on my urban home property.
I do think the claim of vitriol asserted above may have had some truth in it, because who doesn’t love a controversy! However the evidence of human-induced global warming continues to be overwhelming. And the research on carbon offsets and Terrapass, which I have done, showed me that Terrapass seems to be doing a good job. They invest in tangible green energy projects, as well as some carbon credits which are retired; they scrupulously avoid any double counting that could result as a side-effect of their investments. The Green-E certified aspect of it also gives me extra confidence that a third party audit approach is validating whati is obviously still an innovation in the US market.
My complaint about the current system is the status quo dependence on unsustainable fossil fuels remains highly subsidized by our government at all levels, making most folks miss the true higher cost of this behavior both now and in the future. The piper’s coming, and the time to reduce carbon emissions is now.
There’s a similar organisation where you can pay a price to offset the ecological effects of airline travel. Sure, the money gets put to good use in helping to develop and promote “green” projects, but the main problem is not negated by doing that. I wonder what we will do once all the kerosene has been used up?
Personally, I believe we should be more aware of things each of us can do to help reduce our influence on the world such as An easy way to reduce your personal CO2 footprint. We should all look at what we do in our daily lives. There is room for improvement in almost everything we do.
Michael: If one of these efforts actually lead to the elimination of all kerosene use, that would be a hell of an accomplishment. Nothing wrong with that.
Agreed that we should personally work to reduce our usage, but reducing and offsetting are not mutually exclusive.
What of the claims that Terrapass et. al. claim 100% of the energy offsets from projects wherein they have provided less than 100% of the funding? I read it about 5 months ago; I’ll provide a link when I find it again.
I love the idea of buying carbon credits and this site is a good one. I recently purchased a small personal solar system so that I can be slightly less reliant on the grid and it cost me about 550 bucks to get a reliable setup going. I cannot afford to purchase a new car and terrapass gives me a great and cheap way to atleast help me to reduce my carbon emmissions.
I think I first came across your blog via a link on Twitter.. I totally loved your blog posts and want to read more! Are you on Twitter? We should connect.