<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/strict.dtd"> <html> <head> <META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1"> <meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 10 (filtered)"> <style>  </style> </head>  <body lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=blue> <div class=Section1> Anzir Boodoo   On 29 Aug 2006, at 07:02, Jo�o Lacerda wrote: > I am very curious to know some thoughts of our British friends > concerning this issue. (see article below)   Jo�o,   So, it's OK to use your car as much as you want, because it's now carbon neutral. So there is no environmental reason to stop using your car...   Problems:   1. Carbon emission offsets are no longer considered environmentally equivalent to burning less fuel in the first place   2. An average aggregate of CO2 emitted takes no account of whether the car burning the fuel is a Prius or a Hummer   3. Likewise, emissions in urban areas with heavy traffic probably have much higher direct impacts than in open rural areas where they can dissipate quickly. Of course, this is also ignoring the interaction between emissions and atmospheric conditions... the impact of a unit of CO2 emission can vary depending on where it is emitted.   4. This also ignores CO, NOx and SOx. So even if you are carbon neutral, CO is not friendly, and NOx and SOx are still not neutral.   5. If a significant number of people signed up to this, would there be enough space to plant the trees? GBP 20 a year seems far too low to me... I assume saplings (small trees) do not soak up huge amounts of CO2, so it will take many years for the full effect of the "carbon sink" to work... in this period of years, what happens to the CO2 that is in the atmosphere, and is it recoverable by the trees in 10-20 years from now?   6. How does this work in terms of Kyoto? Or is everyone quietly forgetting that now (forgive me for being rude and actually being bothered about the whole thing...)   7. If everybody is happy to drive their cars when and where they want (since it's now "carbon neutral"), will people ignore the effects of traffic (not just pollution, but stress and wasted time)?   I think it's an interesting start, but is it starting us in the right direction? After all, I assume BP only has a certain amount of fuel, which is going to run out soon...     BP Launches Carbon Neutral Scheme for Drivers > http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm?newsid=37818   UK: August 24, 2006     LONDON - British motorists will be able to neutralise their CO2 emissions by paying an average 20 pounds a year towards offsetting their pollution after oil company BP launched a new Internet scheme on Wednesday.     Drivers will be able to calculate their annual CO2 emissions using the www.targetneutral.com Web site and help fund environmental projects like wind farms.   An average car, driven 10,000 miles a year, will generate about four tonnes of CO2, about enough to fill a medium-sized hot air balloon. To neutralise this amount of carbon emissions would cost about 20 pounds.   "Targetneutral is a practical and straightforward step that BP is taking to enable drivers to help the environment," said BP's UK Director Peter Mather.   "BP is taking the lead because our extensive research shows that there is a huge consumer demand for such a scheme, but a general feeling from customers that they 'don't know where to start,'" he added in a statement.   Motorists' money from the targetneutral scheme, excluding VAT and payment transaction costs, will be used to buy CO2 emission reductions via the purchase of carbon credits. BP, which has provided the start-up funding and will pay for running costs, will not receive any money.   The company will also make a direct contribution to targetneutral when motorists using the scheme buy BP petrol using a Nectar loyalty card.   The money generated from targetneutral will be used for a range of environmental projects including alternative and renewable energy -- such as biomass, wind farms and methane capture schemes.   Offsetting schemes have become increasingly popular in recent years, but some environmentalists are critical of them, saying reducing emissions should be the top priority.   </div> </body>  </html>