Assume for a moment that one of the world's leading oil companies was identified to be using child laborers in various countries in order to cut payroll costs. Do you think that would be front page, headline news in the States?
Well, it appears that the carbon offset scam, devised largely to assuage the environmental guilt of wealthy people, is resulting in the exploitation of children in India. Yet, it seems a metaphysical certitude that global warming obsessed media won't bat an eye.
Why might that be?
As reported in Britain's Sunday Times (emphasis added, h/t Marc Morano):
The Prince of Wales turned to Climate Care after his environmental adviser, Jonathon Porritt, worked out the prince's carbon footprint.
Customers of British Airways are among those who have been encouraged to log on to Climate Care's website and calculate how many tonnes of greenhouse gases their flights will generate, and how much it will cost to neutralise the impact on the atmosphere. A flight to Barbados for a family of four, for example, generates 7.55 tonnes of carbon dioxide, which will cost them £56.64 to offset.
Climate Care uses the money to help persuade families such as Sarju's to give up labour-saving diesel pumps and buy human-powered treadles instead. It claims that by using the treadle, a family will save money on diesel and hire charges, earn more from increased crops and cut the carbon emissions that would have been produced by the pump.
Last week Indian experts criticised the scheme, saying it was promoting child labour and forcing poor farmers to work harder so that wealthy air travellers could enjoy exotic holidays without worrying about the environment.
"The problem is the number of times child labour is involved," claimed Ashutosh Pandey of Emergent Ventures India, which advises companies on clean technology.
A quick glance at Climate Care's website identified a neat little calculator where folks can identify how much CO2 they'd emit on a flight from X to Y so that they could purchase the correct amount of offsets to make their travel "carbon neutral."
I wonder if their customers know that while they're flying "environmentally guilt free," some kid in India is walking on a treadle pump for their clear conscience.
Sounds like the perfect "60 Minutes" or "20/20" exposé, or something Katie Couric, Meredith Vieira, or Diane Sawyer could really sink their teeth into while their eyes tear up for that well-timed close-up, wouldn't you agree?
Of course, that will only happen if this exploitation can somehow be pinned on a Republican or an industry they don't like.
How disgraceful.
—Noel Sheppard is the Associate Editor of NewsBusters.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Child Labor, Carbon Credits and My Solution
September 26, 2007 - 10:42 ET by Dr_LibertySeems like India has beaten me to the punch on the solution to the global warming crowd. I've made a pledge to cut down one tree for every carbon credit Al Gore buys, and I have lots of them to cut. Sounds like it would be a better idea if I gave my 6 year old the chainsaw and had him have a go at it.
P.S. BTW, great picture of the kid with his tongue out. Where did that come from?
P.S.S. Nevermind, I found it. A great site.
<insert witty signature here>
Cutting Trees
September 26, 2007 - 11:42 ET by Mike From CanmoreDr. L.
I'm not too sure you have to cut any trees down. I don't believe Al's buying carbon credits from his own company really counts as buying carbon credits. However, if you really feel the need to follow through, make sure you use a honkin' big gas fired chain saw, just for the fun of it.
Cheers
*Argue for your limitations and sure enough you will achieve them.
}}---> That's a sin Mike
September 26, 2007 - 11:50 ET by Cool ArrowSeems the Pope is planting a forest to offset his carbon footprint.
~LYDSEXICS UNTIE!~
Banking My Tree Credits
September 26, 2007 - 23:59 ET by Dr_LibertyWell, let me just say that I got my Stihl 280 Bad Boy ready to bank me some tree credits for Leo DiCraprio or whoever.
ruuurrbzzzzzzzzzzzz
<insert witty signature here>
The Lunatic Left.
September 26, 2007 - 10:56 ET by Dave RThe transparent hypocrisy of the lunatic left never ceases to amaze me.
We just saw these "tireless advocates for human rights" give Akhmed-in-a-dinner-jacket a complete pass on his treatment of women and homosexuals in Iran (which brings into serious question the voracity of these so-called advocates in their beliefs).
Now it appears they are willing to excuse the forced-labor of children in order to assuage the environmental guilt of jet-setting Britons.
I remember when child-labor accusations were leveled at Wal-Mart a few years ago. The liberal MSM pounced all over it.
Where are they now?
When I'm president, privatization is off the table because it's not the answer to anything.-Hillary Rodham, September 3, 2007 AARP Legislative Conference.
Where are the advocacy groups?
September 26, 2007 - 11:05 ET by Cool ArrowGlenn Beck last night asked where N.O.W. and GLAAD and ADL were while AhmaDemonJack was belittling their respective causes.
~LYDSEXICS UNTIE!~
Cool,
September 26, 2007 - 11:41 ET by Dave RApparently their "advocacy" does not extend to those who live under the thumbs of America-hating dictators.
It's simply matter of priorities, ya know.
When I'm president, privatization is off the table because it's not the answer to anything.-Hillary Rodham, September 3, 2007 AARP Legislative Conference.
}}---> Advocacy
September 26, 2007 - 11:45 ET by Cool ArrowThey simply believe "The enemy of my president is my friend"
Kevin Spacey, Sean Penn, Danny Glover, GLAAD, NOW.
~LYDSEXICS UNTIE!~
hmmm
September 26, 2007 - 12:19 ET by well99You mean see no evil,hear no evil,speak no evil?Must have been their day off.
So thats how India keeps
September 26, 2007 - 10:59 ET by bassndudeSo thats how India keeps the child gangs down. Keep the little ones busy down on the treadles. I hear its good for restless leg syndrome to.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
I can't stop
September 26, 2007 - 11:33 ET by kdoliverI can't stop laughing!!!!
http://thelazytriathlete.blogspot.com/
I see a connection
September 26, 2007 - 11:37 ET by sweetangel273Doesn't this connect with a previous article about how we should
stop having kids to cut down on global warming? We shouldn't have
any but its ok for Indians to have as many as possible for child
labor. They can't have it both ways, can they?
At least I know they can't. Poor things, they probably do!
Megan
I might give them a pass ...
September 26, 2007 - 17:40 ET by leebert... on parents using kids for farm labor ... heck that used to be part of growing up in Maine, taking time off from school for the potato harvest until the late-1990's.
The thing I don't get is their CO2 emissions calculator ... it's telling me that an 1890 mi. flight from Atlanta to Boston will emit .35 tons of CO2 per passenger. How can that be? A gallon of jet fuel weighs 8 lbs (maybe a bit less). A ton of anything is 2000 lbs. A typical commercial, fully-booked jetliner sees passenger miles-per-gallon (pmpg) in the range of 30-50 pmpg.
Worst case, 1890 mi / 30 pmpg ='s 38 passenger gallons, which would weigh approx. 504 lbs. Divide that by 2000 lbs ='s .25 tons of fuel per passenger. Mind you, not all that fuel weight converts to CO2, plenty of its exhaust comes out as NO2, H2O, etc.
By their metric the airline would have to be flying the jet half-empty or very fast to emit .35 tons of CO2 per passenger on a 1890 mi trip, and in the continental US, neither happens - airspeeds are kept below 370 mph, and the planes are rarely ever less than half full (not even on the red-eyes).
Here's another one, Miami to San Fran, this is what their calculator reports:
The total mileage flown is 5157.8 miles
The resulting emissions are: 1.15 tonnes of CO2 (for 1 passenger)
The cost to offset this CO2 will be $ 17.93
Assuming a full plane (again, typical) @ 50 pmpg, I get .41 fuel tons/passenger ((5157/50)*8)/2000, nowhere near the 1.15 tons equivalent CO2. If I use 30 pmpg, I get .68 fuel tons/passenger, again nothing like 1.15 tons equiv. CO2. The plane would have to be half-full OR get only 15 pmpg for a passenger to be responsible for even 1.3 tons of CO2 (and not even...).
Jet A right now is priced @ $2.31/gal. How could the airlines survive at the ticket prices of today if a passenger trip of 5200 miles cost the airline (((1.15 tons fuel * 2000 lb/ton)/8 lb/gal)*$2.31) $665 in fuel alone? http://www.expedia.c...
A passenger being responsible for emitting 1.15 tons CO2 isn't even remotely possible when a tickets from Miami to San Fran are pricing @ $480.00, one way, non-stop.
Even if they're using European short-haul fuel consumption rates (including takeoff) on these calculations, I still think their CO2 flight emissions calculator is utterly daft. A plane doesn't pump out more CO2 than is burned by the engines.
Jet Fuel -> Carbon Dioxide Increases By 3
September 27, 2007 - 06:47 ET by CrossWiseRangerI’m not a chemistry major. Keeping the calculations simple and using IsoOctane:
2 (C8 H18) + 25 (O2) = 16 (C O2) + 18 (H2 O)
1 ton of Jet Fuel + 3.5 tons of Oxygen = 3 tons of Carbon Dioxide + 1.5 tons of water
So the 1 ton of jet fuel results in needing to offset 3.5 tons of Carbon Dioxide.
For the record, AGW is bogus!
re: Jet Fuel
September 27, 2007 - 09:52 ET by leebertYes, I was waking up this morning & realized was thinking in terms of pure carbon, not the actual oxidation reaction & realized the fuel:CO2 ratio might actually be 1:3. My alibi is that I hadn't worked chemistry in ages.... last time I balanced a rxn was in 1991.
As for AGW, I'm half-skeptic. I don't think CO2 is as much to blame as was once thought by the climatologists. There are 2 reasons: First is soot - it's role in NET HEATING is a minor climatology upset & Noel's picked up on it. In 2003 Hansen himself blames 25 percent of AGW on snow-darkening soot melting the Arctic & tundra. Variably, soot's playing another 40 percent role over the Pacific, another 50 percent over the Indian Ocean, South & S.E. Asia, and I'm willing to bet it's a player during slash & burn season in the tropics. Solar luminence over the past century has been higher, adding to glacial sublimation and soot heating.
The other side of soot is CO2's basic GHG input: The problem is that as MIT's Lindzen points out, is that CO2's net effect is 3/4's of the way to its effect asymptote. It's a neg. logarithmic effect cap, and w/ soot better accounted for in its net heating, I'm wondering what the climate models would predict.
The beauty of abating soot from the world's smokestacks and tail pipes is that it's relatively inexpensive to retrofit soot traps, it mitigates other coal-sourced pollutants (like mercury & arsenic) and it's a good start at cleaning up coal use worldwide.
I'm pro-coal, just anti-pollution. Coal's cheap enough to scrub clean and still come out ahead, esp. as oil prices climb. Coal's cheap enough that even the overhead of CO2 sequestration might prove feasible. High-sulfur coal, for instance, packs more energy and with more-efficient SO2 traps it actually pays to use high-sulfur coal. The more coal is used, the less oil and natural gas prices will rise, the more that the developing world can benefit from cheaper kerosene & fertilizers, the less that the tropical rainforests will suffer from slash & burn and cooking wood harvests. Wood-based cooking fires in Asia are responsible for possibly 20-30 percent of airborne soot, so encouraging cleaner fuels by keeping petrol prices low makes sense, and clean coal can play a big role in these various, sensible efforts.
Kyoto is a farce to be reckoned with. Paying China to pollute more than anyone else would to produce the same product makes a laughing stock of the U.N. (not hard to do really....).
As a climate change moderate, I want the science depoliticized. Frankly I wouldn't mind Hansen getting booted out of GISS/NASA, his political ties via his Columbia Univ. seat really bugs me, he serves too many masters & Heinz & Soros have too big a political axe to grind. Hansen may be naive, I don't know, but he certainly should have known better than to take politically tainted money.
I think we should first tackle the soot (& aerosol pollutant) problem & watch what happens to the physical environment. If easily a THIRD of actual observed AGW is due to soot, let's tackle soot first & then procede from there. If soot's as bad as it looks then we will have restored the Arctic & tundra, perhaps mitigated some climate change costs along the lines of a few droughts & heat waves, and generally demonstrated that industrialization in the developing world needn't be a threat to the global environment. If CO2's still a bad player after another decade of research then we'll have bought more time and tackling the problems in due course will have a demonstrated result (as opposed to more costly and counterproductive over reactions).
We really need to ditch Kyoto, it promotes pollution and globalization, both. That Al Gore & his band of fellow travelers are trying to make
money from Kyoto's rotten state of affairs just plain stinks. I'm glad
we have Gore's statement on the record why Clinton wouldn't submit
Kyoto for ratification & likewise Boxer & Kerry voting against
it.
http://www.scientificblogging.com/the_soot_files
http://leebert.newsvine.com