Hello Gazetteers!
This week let’s talk about a few buzzwords, the rain in NYC, and some startup news.
Words Matter
but for some reason this week’s words wouldn’t come to me until now so this is a special Saturday Morning edition of the GWG.
Now let’s take a look at a few of those climate buzzwords.
Carbon Offset. With summer travel back on the menu, there has been increased interest in offsetting the environmental impact of travel. I’ve recently been asked my opinion on two companies offering this service The Good Traveler (credit: Dad, the first GWG reader) and Cool Effect (credit: Paul Lightfoot, author of the wonderful Negative Foods Newsletter).
The idea of these companies is you tell them how far you flew and they offer the ability to make a donation to ‘offset’ the environmental impact of that flight.
Let’s assume a cross-country flight from LA to NYC. Good Traveler tells me my emissions from that flight are about 2.5 tons (per passenger) and I can offset that for $24. Cool Effect tells me 1.9 tons and an offset would cost $19. Huzzah! I can afford that and have peace of mind. Alas, it is not that simple.
The ‘offsets’ that these companies and their increasing number of competitors offer are generally things like: planting trees, funding local communities to protect against deforestation, and funding farmers who use best environmental practices. None of this is bad. In fact, it is all amazing work!! But we need to call it what it is - Environmental Charity. These are not emission offsets.
That does not mean that these are not worthy causes that people should be sending money towards. Back in GWG Vol. 7 we talked about how part of the rainforest in Belize was saved via carbon credits and that story still brings a smile to my face. But I need to say - in my opinion, these causes do not balance out emissions and should not be called offsets.
For comparisons sake, there is an exciting company, Climeworks, in the carbon capture space. They are the only company with a working, commercial scale direct-air-capture device. In other words - they are the only company that can sell the ability to remove carbon dioxide from the air and store it underground in perpetuity.
Now that sounds like an offset to me! The challenge (and hard truth) is the cost of capturing CO2 cannot compete with Environmental Charity. Funding 1 ton of carbon capture through Climework’s subscription service would cost ~$1,000. It seems like that includes some organizational costs as articles I found pointed to closer to $500-$700 per ton of CO2 captured. That means compared to $24 on Good Traveler and $19 on Cool Effect, legitimately offsetting the ~2 tons from that cross-country flight would cost somewhere around $1-$2k.
Ultimately, while the 1 or 2 tons of emissions from a flight is material, it’s not really moving the needle. Even if you are a high-level individual emitter with 20 tons per year, that is only .00000003% of global emissions. Which brings us to our next buzzword…
Carbon Footprint. We’ve all heard this one before! Just like our waistlines, most of us are trying to minimize our carbon footprints these days - to varying degrees of success.
Instead of selling you the latest magic weight loss pill, I hope I can free you from stress about the size of your footprint another way and let you in on a little secret. On an individual basis - carbon footprint is total BS!!
Carbon Footprint is a super catchy term for a reason. It successfully distills a bunch of complex factors into one number, and has permeated the media establishment and come to define how we talk and think about climate change.
That may actually be great when applied to nations and corporations. However, carbon footprint discussions focus mainly on individuals, and the whole idea of an individual carbon footprint is nothing more than an advertising campaign from B.P.
In the early 2000’s B.P. hired an advertising agency, Ogilvy & Mather, to promote the view that climate change is not caused by oil giants, but by individuals. They rolled out a carbon footprint calculator in 2004 to allow people to assess how daily life - going to work, buying food, and traveling - is largely responsible for global warming. Notably, the calculator does not have a feature to calculate the carbon footprint of spilling 210 million gallons of oil into the Gulf of Mexico.
Maybe because I am also swept up in it, Summer 2021 feels like an awakening moment for many who care about the planet. There have been a handful of opinion pieces on Carbon Footprints, including from both the NYT and the Guardian that basically say the same thing, and I will repeat it here again as it is more or less the core tenant of the GWG. Individual action will not save us. Yes there are things that individuals can do that will make a difference, but as long as fossil fuels are still being extracted from the ground and burned at scale, we have absolutely no hope to stop the climate crisis. Which is a crisis that is no longer looming in the distance. As this summer made clear - it has arrived.
While we are on the topic, another important one is Carbon-Neutral. Recently, energy companies have been selling carbon-neutral natural gas. Both TotalEnergy and Shell have done it and in TotalEnergy’s case, they sold $17 million worth of natural gas as ‘carbon-neutral’ because they sent $600k to a group of Zimbabwean farmers to protect a forest from wildfire. That is definitely not an equal offset.
Maybe there is a solution in here though. Consumers can be encouraged to continue giving to environmental causes in conjunction with flying while oil & gas companies can be required to capture an equivalent amount of carbon as they emit. That should work nicely.
This week’s issue is a good reminder for me that climate change is big problem and effective ways to distill information into a digestible form are crucial. Which is why buzzwords are so important! That also means it is essential we understand and agree on what these buzzwords really mean because mutual understanding is key to creating actionable plans with accountability.
Please share with your network if you enjoyed!
New York, New York
Back in GWG Vol. 15 I wrote:
Imagine being trapped on the 6 train as water slowly fills the car and subway rats (strong swimmers) chew at your legs.
That was not meant to be a prediction!
The images coming out of NYC are not good. Over 45 people died across the Northeast. The media has covered these floods at length, and I think for good reason. Not to offend our global readership but New York City it THE CITY. There are other great cities out there (Sydney, for example) but there’s a reason why they are talking about NYC when they say, if you can make it here, you can make it anywhere.
So I see this as a challenge to New York. Storms are going to continue coming. We have the chance to set an example of how cities can respond to climate change. I have no doubt that with all the resources - both monetary and technical - New York can figure out how to climate-proof itself. There are many who argue Cities are Our Best Hope for Surviving Climate Change and I think I agree. So let’s get to it New York - time to show the world what we can do!!
Something Pretty To Look At
Potpourri
OK, Boomer! At least in the U.K., over-50s want climate crisis addressed even if it leads to high prices.
A new energy storage company just raised $100 million. Instead of batteries, they store energy by lifting super heavy blocks. Sometimes simple ideas are best.
On Repeat, has developed "easy and cost-effective" refill packs that can be used for a range of different liquids, powders and balms. I’d use these.
That’s All Folks!
Wishing you a relaxing long weekend. Please don’t hesitate to reach out with any comments or questions and please continue to share the GWG!