Friday, 20 November 2009 19:08 Written by Greg Taylor
For the first time, the Professional Convention Management Association’s Annual Meeting set a goal to be CarbonFree®. Through a sponsorship with Fairmont Hotel & Resorts, PCMA is leading the industry by offsetting the direct emissions of their convention in Dallas, Texas. They have made it easy for their attendees to offset their individual carbon footprints on a Carbonfund.org affiliate page. In addition to offsetting the event, PCMA is working hard on a slew of environmental initiatives in Dallas. They chose the Dallas Convention Center, which is completely powered by wind and seeking LEED certification. They are also encouraging recycling, energy conservation, waste reduction, water savings. PCMA 2010 is seeking to become a model for green conventions with their Green Meetings Community space at the convention. PCMA is supporting Carbonfund.org’s Truck Stop Electrification project located throughout the state of Texas. By keeping trucks from idling all night long, this project prevents carbon emissions from heating the globe. If you’re going to a convention or holding one, let us know, and we can help you reduce and offset your event's carbon footprint.
Friday, 20 November 2009 17:44 Written by Paul Burman
Recently, the travel agency Responsible Travel stopped providing their customers with the opportunity to offset their travel and apparently hasn't replaced their offering with anything to help individuals reduce their travel footprint. Responsible Travel had offered their customers the opportunity to offset their carbon emissions since 2002. The general argument for the company so far has been that the offsets the company provided did little to change customer behavior and limit travel. But what are customers taking away from Responsible Travel? What about individuals who have to travel for their livelihoods or work in travel and the like; will they realistically travel less? While it is a fact that flying to where we need to go is carbon intensive, many flights are not impulse buys. In order to travel plans need to be made: where will I stay? Who is going to take care of my pets? How will this trip fit into my budget? In short, most people aren't jetting around the world for no reason - they alter their lives (and submit themselves to airport security or weather delays) out of necessity for business, family and much needed vacations. So why not give people the opportunity to take responsibility for their carbon emissions? Responsible Travel's position on offsets is misguided because 1) they over-estimate people's ability to modify their travel arrangements and 2) appear to take the position that it's better not to do anything than to do something. The fact is that carbon offset projects can be validated to do what they're supposed to, which is reduce carbon emissions and therefore serve as an offset to one's own emissions. By supporting real, high quality certified and verified carbon offset projects we can take responsibility for our carbon footprint, which is real and needs to be addressed if we are to solve global warming.
Friday, 20 November 2009 14:41 Written by Emily Pugliese
Friday, 20 November 2009 12:16 Written by Paul Burman
The United Nation's State of the World Population 2009 has revealed that women have, on average, a smaller carbon footprint than men. The smaller carbon footprint of women is due to a variety of reasons. For example, it seems women are more likely than men to take proactive steps to reduce their carbon footprint such as by recycling and purchasing eco-friendly goods. All this adds up to a smaller carbon footprint because women are taking personal action to mitigate the harm that they do to the environment. So why do women have a smaller footprint? Do women travel less because they want to reduce their carbon footprint, or are there just fewer opportunities for females to travel? Are women more likely to purchase organic foods and goods because they are less carbon intensive, or because they are more brand sensitive? I don't think that I have any good insights on this subject. Do you? Men, want to shirk your footprint a little more? Click here for ideas on how to reduce your carbon footprint. Also consider purchasing carbon offsets for your travel.
Thursday, 19 November 2009 17:59 Written by Jason Fitzgerald
The US auto market should have two electric cars to choose from in the near future - the Nissan Leaf and the Chevrolet Volt. These vehicles could start the revolution towards zero direct emission cars that are more efficient and less harmful to the environment. But questions are starting to mount over how far these cars can really take you. According to an article in the Washington Post, the Leaf has an all-electric engine that can take you 100 miles on one charge, and the Volt has a gas-electric engine that will take you 40 miles on a charge and then run off its gas engine. Even though many people drive significantly less than 100 miles per day (particularly in urban settings), the fear of having an empty battery with no where close to charge it can strike concern for some. To preemptively combat this fear, a coalition of forces is calling on the government to spend billions of dollars to help build the infrastructure to give drivers the ability to fuel their batteries on-the-go. Though most people will be able to get all the charge they need at home when the car is parked, an on-the-go infrastructure would certainly help. What do you think? Would you buy an electric vehicle even without a vast fueling station infrastructure? Image of the Nissan Leaf; also read this blog posting about the Volt when it was announced.
Wednesday, 18 November 2009 17:31 Written by Greg Taylor
Carbonfund.org congratulates our partner Nika as the first business to win San Diego’s “Most Significant Impact by a Business” Stay Classy award presented in part by NBC Sandiego.com. Nika has taken bottled water and turned it into a social, environmental, and economic mission; they invest 100% of their profits into clean water projects in Latin America, Africa, and India. They report that over 20% of the world’s population does not have clean water available. On top of that, Nika is CarbonFree® Certified. They have undergone a strict life-cycle assessment of the carbon footprint of their product, from making the plastic bottles, to shipping the water, to recycling or disposal of the water bottles. They invest in reforestation to remove that amount of carbon emissions from the atmosphere. So again, congrats Nika! It couldn’t have happened to a classier company.
A new study published in the journal Nature Geoscience states that global CO2 emissions have risen 29% since 2000 and 41% since 1990. Moreover, in spite of the global economic downturn, emissions still rose 2% globally in 2008, the most recent year of record. The increase in emissions is attributable to many factors, but most notably the increased emissions of developing nations. The graph indicates that whereas developed nations emissions have basically plateaued over the last 19 years, developing nations emissions have risen dramatically. Emissions from countries like China and India have more than doubled since 1990. To contextualize some of the growth of developing nations emissions, a quarter of developing nations emissions can be attributed to increased international trade. Whereas most of this new study reinforces suspicions that we all already had (namely, we haven't done a darn thing to reduce emissions, so naturally they would rise), it also sheds light on a newly observed trend of the global carbon cycle. Terrestrial and oceanic carbon sinks are disappearing. 45 percent of the global carbon stocks are currently in our atmosphere - up from about 40 percent 50 years ago. This is probably the result of two factors:
- We are emitting more carbon, outpacing the land and ocean's natural ability to absorb CO2
- We are destroying natural carbon sinks like trees, meaning that there are fewer places for atmospheric CO2 to go