Carbon+Credit+CK

Chris Knortz 11/15/2011

Title: Dispatches, The Great Green Smokescreen

Director: Mike Radford

2. What is the central argument or narrative of the film? In recent years the popularity of the sale of carbon offset credits has grown with the increasing public concern for global warming. These credits may not be the free ticket to a clean carbon slate that they are marketed as. The complexity of a product’s carbon output has become more apparent. Many of the companies and organizations that deal with carbon offsets are still uncertain of the exact science of offsetting carbon output.

3. How is the argument or narrative made and sustained? The film first takes a look at a pig farm in Mexico. British Airways is using this farm as a source of carbon offsets it sells to its costumers alongside its regular flights. The farmer is paid for the rights to the greenhouse gasses that are not released into the atmosphere because of new practices. In this case the methane form the pig’s feces is collected and burned off reducing the climate change effects of the pigs. Companies use this and other such schemes to market themselves as climate conscience or carbon neutral when they have made no significant changes to their business. In many of these programs, people end up paying for the rights to a beneficial action that was already taking place. With the pig farm, the framer would still collect the methane weather he was being paid by British airways or not. He stands to gain by collecting it and using it to generate electricity for his farm. 4. What sustainability problems does the film draw out? The science behind carbon credits, even actual carbon production from industrial actions, is a very uncertain process. This leaves a room for interpretation by the companies that are looking profit from the sale of credit. Different interpretations can lead consumers to down the wrong path to reducing their carbon output. In many cases these credits are selling carbon that would have already been absorbed. People are allowed to believe that they are making a proactive effort when they are really buying into something that already benefits the environment. Companies are reluctant to expose the true facts of their carbon credits in an effort to keep sales up. The public is allowed to live in ignorance. These programs encourage people to live with a clean conscience about the damaging environmental effects of their lives, allowing them to deny and avoid the hard changed involved in an environmentally friendly lifestyle.

5. What parts of the film did you find most persuasive and compelling?

Even though carbon credits are not the magical cure to global warming they are billed as by many they still make strides in the right direction, reducing the global production of greenhouse gasses. One the people interview was Mike Mason, founder of Climate Care. He made the point that carbon credits are something that can be done immediately and still has a positive impact on the environment, “we have to find the very cheapest thing and fastest thing and do that first”. Even if people only provide a small amount of funding to environmental projects, such as protecting forests and fund green energy research, there is still a great deal of benefit gained. Toward the end of the film the policies behind energy tariffs were discussed. This is the support of renewal energy sources when purchasing electricity. In England, where the film was based, the government mandates that each electricity provider supplements it electricity with a certain percentage of renewable energy. The tariffs allow consumers to purchase a percentage of their energy from these sources. Companies would be forced to invest in further renewable projects if the public support for such projects demanded more renewable energy that was currently produced by the energy company. This style of policy gives the public a direct link to the decision being made about energy production, putting the responsibility and power back in individual’s hands. Individuals in the future are going to be the ones who change the current carbon trends by demanding better policies and products, companies will only provide what makes them the most profit. One of the arguments made during the film to counter the accusation that carbon credits are not as beneficial to the environment as hoped is the fact that such marketing brings the issue into public conversation. The section of the film that featured the carbon neutral night club made this point clearly. This club had done very little different in the actual operation of the club, their biggest change was to purchase credits and make an effort to save energy during operation. The owner argued that the benefit was in making the issue aware to the public so they would be able to make similar changes to their lifestyle.

6. What parts of the film were you not compelled or convinced by? One popular source for carbon credits is from forest management companies. Ru Hartwell, the owner of a tree farm in England that sells carbon credits, was asked about the potential problems with trying to guarantee a tree’s existence in a long term manner to ensure the sequestration of carbon. His response was, “I can’t stand here and actually promise that these trees will be here in 80 years, but what I can say is that i have complete confidence that they will be here”. His response contradicts itself, leading one to think his company is only looking to make a profit with minimal concern for carbon capture. This problem is true with many of the carbon credit companies, they work to capture the carbon in some biological system that has a finite life, only delaying the release of that carbon. All the carbon credit companies worked to sell the responsibility of reducing carbon production or the sequestration of carbon in some natural system. Storing carbon in forests has potential to store some volume of carbon, however, the true complexity of the carbon cycle in the environment is not fully understood. These companies did not address the fact that forests can only capture a limited amount before they reach a mature state and begin releasing as much as they absorb. This is the natural order of living processes. True carbon sequestration would involve placing the carbon in a place that would be inaccessible in the long term, longer than the lifespan of a tree. 7. What audiences does the film best address?

The film is a look at the economics and politics behind carbon credits and the misleading practices associated with them. The film works to show that carbon credits are not as beneficial as those selling them would wish the public to believe, however they are effort in the correct direction toward carbon reducing. This is shown to be a complicated and intricate problem that needs further investigation by anyone considering purchasing carbon credits.

8. What could have been added to this film to enhance its environmental educational value?

The economics involved in the sale of carbon credits are looked at extensively. There is also potential for economic benefits in reducing carbon through small changes in company’s practices and individual’s lifestyles. The importance of weather carbon credits are honestly presented appear small in comparison to the true problem of carbon reduction. Placing more emphasis on actual reduction in the film rather that transfer of responsibility would improve the validity of the environmental message behind the film.

9. What kinds of action and points of intervention are suggested by the film?

Much of the film was spent discussing the different problems associated with the marketing and sale of carbon credits. This brings to light the ambiguity associated with the developing industry. People who understand this situation and know not to trust carbon credit claims of faces value will know to investigate further before making a commitment. One point made by one of the interviewed scientists was for individuals to take personal responsibility for the problem and change their own lives. Carbon credits work to transfer the responsibility away from the offenders to those willing to make a change, often people more desperate form the income. Dr. Kevin Anderson, a member of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change stated, “If you are going to go on a diet, you can’t ask someone else to reduce their calorie intake for you”. People need to work to make their own carbon reductions.

10. What additional information has this film compelled you to seek out? My first area of interest was to look at the energy production of New York State. I found a sight that was promoting consumers to purchase a percentage of their electricity from renewable providers. The sight claimed that for only a few extra cents per day, a consumer could purchase their electricity from one of these sources. The page describes the different makeup of the NY electricity providers, one point that stood out was the large percentage of that total that was hydroelectric. This is a source that already exists, the dams are in place and there is very little room for future development. The electricity company is selling this green energy, when they are just guaranteeing that a consumer’s percentage of electricity comes from a green source. In this case, the company is able to provide that green electricity with little to no new green power production or investment. The next topic I looked into was the carbon output form food production. Most of the carbon produced by food is a result of the long distances much of the world’s food is transported be for being consumed. Another large part is the energy that goes into the processing and refrigeration of that food. When food is grown locally, much of these costs are eliminated, making local food the logical choice for the carbon conscience consumer. also there are many other health and community benefits to local food.

AskPCS.com, “NY’s Green Power Program” [|http://www.askpsc.com/askpsc/page/?PageAction=renderPageById&PageId=a8022193f892947a1d26b67506005183#difference] Shah, Jigar. “Can the local Food Movement Scale Up?” News.carbonwarroom.com. 2011 []