See...being green makes them smile too. Compare to almost any other band of young guys being pushed by the big music companies.

Joni Mitchell originally wrote Woodstock. Crosby, Stills & Nash are just covering it.

http://www.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&sql=10:dz63tr49kl1x

I am very proud that Crosby, Stills, Nash, and Young decided to offset the CO2 emissions of their 2006 summer tour. Their leadership is exemplary.

I also want to clarify that they were the first band to sign up for the Roadshow Services/DriveNeutral partnership called TourNeutral. That said, they are not the first band to work with DriveNeutral to offset their greenhouse gas emissions.

Jacob Fred Jazz Odyssey started working directly with DriveNeutral back in August of this year. They are now offsetting the CO2 emissions of their nearly never-ending tour. Here's to hoping even more bands sign on as we continue moving forward!

Pearl Jam has been doing the very same thing with their tour. Neil and Eddie Vedder are of the same mindset.

Just FYI - "TourNeutral, in association with DriveNeutral is" NOT "the only legally binding way for touring acts to offset their emissions." In the US, where DriveNeutral and the Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX) hail from, there is no legally binding way for anyone to offset their emissions. If a touring act joined the CCX, they would be bound by a legally enforceable contract (not by any specific law) to REDUCE their emissions, which they could accomplish buy reducing their emissions or buying offsets from the exchange. Crosby Stills Nash & Young is not listed as a member of the CCX. We're DriveNeutral to make that "only legally binding way" claim directly, it would be in violation of consumer protection laws, which apparently they know, because they do not (on their web site anyway). There are lots of companies that offer a variety of creative and compelling ways to offset CO2 emissions, but for now, none of them is legally binding.

What Bonnie Alter, the author of this post, should have written, and DriveNeutral is happy to claim, is that the Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX), where DriveNeutral currently sources all of its offset credits, holds all credit providers legally accountable for providing what they claim they provide. This legal enforcement separates CCX credits from all other offsets currently being sold to consumers in the US. This is probably one reason most offset companies source a large percentage of their credits through the CCX. While we can't be responsible for what this author wrote, we are certainly responsible for making sure that there is legal accountability behind what we offer our members. Offsetting is an act of goodwill but the goodwill can only go as far as the guarantee of authenticity. That said, I think Native Energy's model is admirable because it intends to benefit the environment and builds economic infrastructure in areas of the country that most need it. For the sake however of consumers, it would be of tremendous value for Native Energy to agree to 3rd party verification of a legally enforceable variety. Even Green-e, despite all it has accomplished and plans to accomplish, has not moved in this direction. So for now, absolute legal certainty only comes through the CCX.

Hi Jason - The CCX is a private company. The CCX holds offset providers legally accountable by suing them for breach of contract and precluding those who breach their obligations from selling offsets on the exchange. NativeEnergy is a private company. NativeEnergy holds all its projects legally accountable by the same mechanism - contract law, the lawsuit, and not doing further business with them if they fail to provide what they claim to provide. In other words, this legal enforcement doesn't separate the CCX from all other offsets. It is instead something that all offsets have in common.

Further, and quite contrary to your claim, every offset marketer in the country is subject to a legally enforceable obligation to provide what they claim to provide - and not just by contract. The sources of that obligation are the federal and state consumer protection laws and other laws that can land you in jail for failing to provide what you claim to provide. As the consumer protection laws are interpreted in the National Association of Attorneys General Guidelines for Marketing Green Electricity (the closest guidance for marketing offsets, most of which are renewable energy credit based), marketers must have "reasonable substantiation" for each and every claim they make. You do not have reasonable substantiation for your claim that absolute legal certainty only comes through the CCX, or even that the CCX provides such certainty itself.

Finally, to your point about third party verification, in the past we had relied on our certification by the independent third party certifying organization the Climate Neutral Network (then the only independent certifier of offsets, as opposed to RECs). As our projects have expanded and the cost of CNN certification of each of them became prohibitive, we have changed our procedures. Following the end of this fiscal year, we will instead have our purchase and sales records undergo the very same review by an independent certified public accountant as is required for the Green-e certified RECs we sell, and will publish the CPA's report on our web site.

Tom

Date: Oct 27, 2006 9:10 AM
Subject: Re: CCX legally binding. Others?

Tom

I would suggest that you are right. Jason did not go far enough in his earlier assertion. I would also suggest that many things that are governed by "contract law" and are "legally enforceable" but, in the scheme of things, the penalty is so minor or undefined that there is no incentive for compliance.

The truth of the matter in the world of "contract law" is that contracts are "interpreted" . In an emerging industry like ours, with a lack of precedence, there is more room for interpretation than there would likely be in an older more established setting. There are oodles of contract lawyers that help some enforce contracts while an equal number of attorneys aid others in skirting "contract law". In an age of scandals and corporate irresponsibility, enforceability of contracts is all that matters.

I am not suggesting that entities in this industry are intentionally not complying, only that enforceability, outside of the CCX, is severely lacking. Thus, the term "binding".

CCX, by the nature of its governing laws, has set up a structure that is legally binding and strictly enforceable for its members. It is similar to the NYSE or NASDAQ in that sense. The penalties for acting outside of its legally binding tenets are enforceable and the penalties are defined in both dollar terms and corrective action. Additionally, the CCX and its auditor NASD have the financial and legal resources to enforce the laws that govern the exchange. Although I like Green-e as a company, they are not the NASD.

Contract law is enforceable to the degree that one has the resources to pursue enforcement. I very much appreciate what Native Energy does, but I would much rather face a lawsuit from Native Energy or Green-e for breech of contract than from the Chicago Climate Exchange and/or the NASD. That is the difference, plain and simple.

At present, the CCX is currently the most transparent, legally binding AND legally enforceable framework available.

If you or any one else is interested, please refer to the NASD home page: http://www.nasd.com/index.htm.

I need to reiterate that I appreciate Native Energy, its business model and the strides you have made. I also want to point out the reasons why we have chosen the business model we have.

I also appreciate the spirited discussion as I think it helps to move the industry forward.