Poster: A snowHead
|
I was thinking of fully offsetting are carbon emission for our snowcat skiing operation. Would you guys be more likely to go to an operation that offsets its carbon emmissions? Currently for each snowcat each day we use about 90-120 litres of diesel per day. So if you divide this amount by 12 guests we would use about 9-12 litres of deisel per person. Over a year I calculate that we create 78 tonnes of carbon (for all of our cats) - on the europen exchange this offsets for 1 tonne of carbon cost about EUR15. Therefore the total cost for a winter would be about EUR1170 I think. This means that if I charge all of our guests about EUR1 per day then this would be enough to cover the cost of putchasing the carbon offsets. It would be great to get some feedback from people who understand this better than me. Also if you were a potentail customer of a cat skiing operation - would you be prepared to pay an extra 1eur per day.
Kieren
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
Nope - mainly because Carbon offsetting is a total marketting sham....
When you burn CO2 you are releasing energy and gases that have been trapped deep inside the earth, and took millions of years to form. Carbon offsetting only offsets the damage done for the duration of the trees life (say 50 years). Additionally when a tree dies, it releases almost all of its stored carbon back into the air!
Carbon offsetting might make people feel good - but it certainly doesnt repair the damage, or make things 'neutral'.
Last edited by Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person on Mon 29-06-09 9:37; edited 2 times in total
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
Haggis_Trap wrote: |
Nope - mainly because Carbon offsetting is a total marketting sham.... |
Yep - you got it one. Totally agree.
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
kierengaul, no.
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
kierengaul, No.
Like others have mentioned I believe it is a marketing sham. With the global warming we had this year, skiing in europe was SH-one-T There must be something in this!!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
I have just watched most the film you linked to. OK, apart from the extremely irritating bed-time-story type narration it did have a “few” good points. But, the main topic of the film was ruined by the art-school level mixing and choice of (pilfered) back shots. It is so bad I had had to force myself to watch it. Whilst the mixing of a film is not normally even noticed, in this case, the director’s attempt to produce some form of art as apposed to getting over their information was so bad; the whole focus of the film was lost.
I teach (supply teach, for a few months a each year) applied physics (amongst my other jobs) and have the benefit of mixing a lot with people who are studying global warming (as a science, not as a religion) so I have lots informed views on global warming – but definitely not going to go into them here (see numerous other threads in this forum), as supporters of both sides of their argument will start spouting their “facts” to try and win points from the other side. The only thing I will say is that both sides are well funded and it is a natural outcome of funding that proponents will try to justify their income source by denigrating the opposition, and exaggerate their own view point. The main point I do notice from both sides of the argument is that you always get a more balanced, and IMO factual, view from people who have either no financial reason to support either side or are not pro or con from a philosophical stand point.
Oh yeah, the film contained so many half truths and scientifically incorrect or unproven snippets or just very simple lies, that it was, in essence, wrong. That has nothing to do with my views on global warming, but just on that daft film.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Wayne wrote: |
Haggis_Trap wrote: |
Nope - mainly because Carbon offsetting is a total marketting sham.... |
Yep - you got it one. Totally agree. |
+1
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
Wayne, opinions...look it up in the dictionary, you obviously have a strong one about the film....i watched it as i was bored one day...i posted the link here for no other reason than i couldn't be bothered to just copy what soemone else said
for what it is worth i don't agree with much that is in it either...but please don't give me the lecture
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
I agree that the whole offset thing is a marketing sham but if you're in the business of marketing why not jump on the bandwagon?
I definitely fall into the "no" to offset surcharge category but I bet there's a fair few punters out there who would happily fork out for it. Someone's keeping the offset companies in business after all.
This surcharge will appeal to the same people that buy "local" produce from their supermarket for more money than "standard" thinking they're solving the world's problems in the process. Life's complicated and sticking your head in the sand isn't the right answer but then neither is paying someone with a commercial interest to solve the issue without researching it properly.
The beauty of it from kierengaul's point of view is that plenty will...
|
|
|
|
|
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
|
Carbon offset is only a tiny part of the issue, but certainly the most exploitable for marketing and political reasons. How about a genuine fuel offset... ie something that replenishes the finite fuel reserves by more than the amount consumed?
The other daft one is the feelgood factor surcharge to have "green" electricity supplied from renewable sources. If you pay £££ extra to your supplier to be able to say "my electicity comes from renewable sources" then it just means that somebody elses leccy is allocated as generated from coal or oil. Unless you pay your bill to an exclusively "green" supplier to the grid (are there any?).
|
|
|
|
|
|
CEM wrote: |
Wayneplease don't give me the lecture |
sorry.
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
It wouldn't make a blind bit of difference to me. I would judge on value for money alone.
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
Wayne, no problem
|
|
|
|
|
|