Word of the Year: Carbon Neutral
by Collin Dunn, Corvallis, OR, USA on 11.15.06
If TreeHugger knows one thing, it's that "going carbon neutral" is just about the biggest thing since sliced bread; everything (and we mean everything) is being neutralized these days, from movie productions to restaurants to sporting events (like the World Cup and Olympic Games) to music tours to colleges to tea (whew!). The concept and words have made a big enough splash that "carbon neutral" has been named The New Oxford American Dictionary’s Word of the Year for 2006. Following in the footsteps of "podcast" (last year's WOTY), "carbon neutral" beat out "CSA" (community supported agriculture), "DRM" (digital rights management) and "dwarf planet" for the honor of a permanent spot in our cultural lexicon. Said Erin McKean, editor in chief of the New Oxford American Dictionary 2e, “The increasing use of the word carbon neutral reflects not just the greening of our culture, but the greening of our language. When you see first graders trying to make their classrooms carbon neutral, you know the word has become mainstream. All the Oxford lexicographers look forward to choosing the Word of the Year. We know that people love fun, flashy words like truthiness or the latest Bushism, but we are always looking for a word that is both reflective of the events and concerns of the past year and also forward-looking: a word that we think will only become more used and more useful as time goes on.” We couldn't agree more. ::Oxford University Press via ::Gristmill
If TreeHugger knows one thing, it's that "going carbon neutral" is just about the biggest thing since sliced bread
Basic question: Is Treehugger carbon-neutral?
--
editor note: We worked with Pair to make TreeHugger carbon-neutral, yes.
Nah, who gives a flying duck's arse about "Carbon Neutral" are we talking about plonkers here who plant a tree to compensate the ever fart they produce?
Carbon Point trading to buy pollution away and thus makes it alright to make a mess of the planet because someone else is planting some more trees (Which invariably die because of the fact that tree planting in this manner is now a commercial activity to collect carbon points and thus is done cheaply with most trees being dead in a year or two)
Besides, Carbon points are a great way to scam your way through pollution and make the matter of responsibility even muddier.
If enterprise A pollutes like hell and buys carbon points. Who guarantees that these points are actually valid points. If they are not then who bears the consequences?
"Carbon Neutral"
Is not a word but a concept. And a pretty sad one at that. Is is sad that this scam made it into the dictionary.
Nah, who gives a flying duck's arse about "Carbon Neutral" are we talking about plonkers here who plant a tree to compensate the ever fart they produce?
Carbon Point trading to buy pollution away and thus makes it alright to make a mess of the planet because someone else is planting some more trees (Which invariably die because of the fact that tree planting in this manner is now a commercial activity to collect carbon points and thus is done cheaply with most trees being dead in a year or two)
Besides, Carbon points are a great way to scam your way through pollution and make the matter of responsibility even muddier.
If enterprise A pollutes like hell and buys carbon points. Who guarantees that these points are actually valid points. If they are not then who bears the consequences?
"Carbon Neutral"
Is not a word but a concept. And a pretty sad one at that. Is is sad that this scam made it into the dictionary.
Nah, who gives a flying duck's arse about "Carbon Neutral"
People who care about global warming.
What do you do to reduce your carbon footprint?
Nah, who gives a flying duck's arse about "Carbon Neutral" are we talking about plonkers here who plant a tree to compensate the ever fart they produce?
Carbon Point trading to buy pollution away and thus makes it alright to make a mess of the planet because someone else is planting some more trees (Which invariably die because of the fact that tree planting in this manner is now a commercial activity to collect carbon points and thus is done cheaply with most trees being dead in a year or two)
Besides, Carbon points are a great way to scam your way through pollution and make the matter of responsibility even muddier.
If enterprise A pollutes like hell and buys carbon points. Who guarantees that these points are actually valid points. If they are not then who bears the consequences?
"Carbon Neutral"
Is not a word but a concept. And a pretty sad one at that. Is is sad that this scam made it into the dictionary.
"Carbon Neutral" Is not a word but a concept
Pretty much every word is a concept. "Truth", "liberty", "honesty" -- all concepts.
most trees being dead in a year or two
Reference?
It's not just about paying off your pollution. Carbon neutral starts by minimizing your carbon footprint through action -- driving less, turning down the thermostat, eating local, etc. Then you can offset what's left over through tree-planting, renewable energy credits, etc.
Those offsets cost money. When big companies/organizations commit to being carbon neutral, they'll be looking for ways to minimize their footprint rather than keep paying.
And as for trees "being dead in a year or two," those plantations meet standards and quantify their results. IF all the trees are dying, they're not going to be in business for very long.
Never knew that the phrase "carbon netural" was considered a word. Looks like two words to me.
Looks like two words to me
Ahhh... semantics.
This is something I'm wondering a lot about lately.
Is it actually possible to carbon balance by planting trees? Sure, when the tree grows it will be absorbing carbon. But when it dies it will give out most of that back into the air.
So if you consider the complete life cycle of a tree, it has a near neutral carbon footprint. Ie. It puts out what it received.
Some of the carbon released when the dead tree decays would probably go into the ground. But how much of it?
The following link doesn't seem to show any carbon going into the ground from decaying trees:
http://www.safeclimate.net/business/images/understanding_carboncycle.jpg
So can planting trees really help offset carbon emissions?
To anonymous (above):
no.
Planting trees cannot in any way offset fossil fuel carbon, unless you cut the trees down when they are fully grown, and bury them (geosequestrate the carbon, as it were). Since that's not going to happen, the net benefit is zilch.
basically, it works like this: it's the carbon in the atmosphere that adds the greenhouse effect. This carbon is cycled through the biosphere (atmosphere + soils + aquasphere), and basically stays there, unless is somehow gets sequestrated into the lithosphere, where it can't make it back into the atmosphere.
This Sequestration takes a long time, and burning fossil fuels doesn't. I think I read somewhere that it takes about 400 years to sequester the carbon we currently use in one year.
check out http://wiki.envirowiki.info/index.php/Carbon_offsets for more info
To anonymous (above):
no.
Planting trees cannot in any way offset fossil fuel carbon, unless you cut the trees down when they are fully grown, and bury them (geosequestrate the carbon, as it were). Since that's not going to happen, the net benefit is zilch.
basically, it works like this: it's the carbon in the atmosphere that adds the greenhouse effect. This carbon is cycled through the biosphere (atmosphere + soils + aquasphere), and basically stays there, unless is somehow gets sequestrated into the lithosphere, where it can't make it back into the atmosphere.
This Sequestration takes a long time, and burning fossil fuels doesn't. I think I read somewhere that it takes about 400 years to sequester the carbon we currently use in one year.
check out http://wiki.envirowiki.info/index.php/Carbon_offsets for more info