BETT 2011: Panasonic launches ‘Offset for Life Scheme’
Clive Couldwell, January 13, 2011
Schools, colleges and universities are now able to offset carbon produced by operating professional projectors, so aiding greenhouse gas emission reduction projects in Turkey, China and Ghana.
Through taking responsibility for and offsetting emissions produced during the operation of their projectors, customers will be contributing to sustainable development in the local communities in which the projects occur as well as reducing the rate of climate change.
To offset emissions accurately, Panasonic has created a carbon emissions calculator into which customers input product usage and running hours per year. It then takes into account the power consumption during various operation modes, as well as the estimated lifetime based on the typical replacement cycle for professional av equipment.
Customers can choose to offset for the typical replacement cycle (3 years) or go above and beyond this by offsetting the carbon emitted for a projector running for 5 years.
Panasonic is working in partnership with carbon offset company ClimateCare to support three of its Gold Standard green house gas emission reduction projects:
Wind farms in Turkey & Ningxia Yinyi, northern China
54 wind turbines provide a total installed capacity of 135MW on Gokcedag mountain between Bahçe and Hasanbeyli in the Osmaniye Province, Turkey. As well as the energy benefits, the project also employs local people, sources local materials and components and helps Turkey meet its growing energy demands.
China’s wind farm is expected to generate approximately 105 GWh of clean renewable electricity each year in a country where 80% of electricity comes from coal power, as well as stimulating local employment.
Providing efficient cook stoves in Ghana
Most families in Ghana cook with inefficient charcoal ‘coal-pots’. The project replaces these coal pots with an efficient stove, known as the Gyapa, which reduces charcoal consumption by 25%. The stoves also reduce indoor smoke levels which can cause debilitating illnesses.
Loading ...
Carbon offsetting has been largely discredited. The worst of it is that it allows us to believe that we can carry on regardless.
I am surprised at and disappointed by Panasonic as it’s not an exact science. The impact of GHG at different altitudes varies and no model yet has proven comprehensive.
Evidence suggests offsetting programmes actually increase rather than decrease overall emissions. It’s a cynical tool. Clearly there can be no such thing as carbon neutrality until we learn to live within the carbon cycle’s ability to clean up our mess.
Simon,
Unfortunately your comments are incorrect….although there are people who still believe the views you express…in reality carbon offsetting has not been “discredited”. Conversely large NGO’s such as the WWF support offsetting and many large businesses such as HSBC, Barclays, Co-op Bank, Ben & Jerry’s, Timberland to name a few are offsetting.. because it’s the right thing to do whilst they also address their carbon emissions directly.
Have a look at this recent publication from Forum for the Future for a view from Jonathon Porritt and various businesses that are offsetting. It directly addresses each of the points you raise.
http://www.forumforthefuture.org/greenfutures/offsetpositive
Read academic publications and you will find that concerns remain about the same things that have always been a problem; standards, calculations and additionality (a horrid word but vital concept).
There are no global or accreditation standards to apply to schemes. There is no agreed calculator as the science of the carbon cycle is far from simple and not completely understood. Additionality is the integrity test and proving that a scheme would not have happened in any case is fraught with difficulty.
So I concur with the Guardian: “Offsets are an imaginary commodity created by deducting what you hope happens from what you guess would have happened.”
http://www.cheatneutral.com/
At best carbon offsetting is a zero sum game and at worst corrupt – even large verifiers have been suspended by the UN.
Carbon neutrality is a myth and offsetting just a nonsense devised by the financial community whose integrity is deeply in question for other reasons right now.
My own limited competence in this area is training and qualifying as Lead Auditor for environmental management systems to the International ISO 14001:2004 standard.
Simon,
Again you are incorrect. There are many robust and well respected standards for voluntary market carbon credits the most well known being:
Gold Standard: http://www.cdmgoldstandard.org/
Voluntary Carbon Standard (VCS): http://www.v-c-s.org/
The British Standard Institution has a programme called PAS 2060 which explains how a company can achieve carbon neutrality. The British Governments DEFRA department also has a programme that can be followed, as does the Australian Government (NCOS). So there are standards that can be applied to schemes.
Additionality is key – but is central to the standards in the market.
The Guardian publish many articles – some also support offsets – http://www.guardian.co.uk/sustainable-business/offsetting-carbon-management-strategy-business
Carbon offsetting was actually created by the development community and formalised by the United Nations within the Kyoto Protocol in 1997.
Hope this helps clarify the points you make.
Sorry Matt, but I am dismally unimpressed.
You have to ask who respects these many standards – my guess is the financial community and some government (start with the ones that didn’t ratify Kyoto). But not atmospheric scientists who measure value in more degrees than just money.
The scientists are so clear on the incomplete nature of our knowledge of atmospheric physics in general, the carbon cycle in particular and specifically our ability to accurately measure emissions. This alone discredits the concept of carbon neutrality.
The whole thing about lifecycle inventories is that they are of necessity truncated – otherwise they would be unmeasurable. There are emissions outside the ring fence of convenience that count. For example, the mining and refining of the ore to make the tools for the mining and refining of the ores to make the tractor and plough that participated in the production of food for the workers who extracted the clay to make the mug for the tea that I am drinking. And so on.
That lot never gets into the accounting. So your standards just refer top the tip of the iceberg – the low hanging fruit.
Publically Available Specifications have no International standing whatever. They lack the rigour applied in the ISO development process requiring less consensus. They are discussion documents and, for the reasons stated above, I am extremely suspicious of at least sections 5 and 6 of PAS 2060. These cannot be validated according to the best scientific opinion.
Additionality has been the frequent bugbear for many offsetting schemes. Need I say more?
This argument begins to look like the one between creationists and evolutionists. Look at the science not the politics.
Simon, I guess you’re a climate change denier…so be it…
However, what’s hard to understand when reading your negative comments on this topic is why you object so strongly to people trying to improve things?
The solutions for climate change being developed by many small and large organizations around the globe will create a pretty nice world to live in…..a sustainable energy mix, leading to a secure supply of power, so we won’t need to buy energy from other countries. This in turn will reduce the need for rich nations to be in Iraq, Afghanistan, etc. We won’t need to drill 5 miles down for oil, in the arctic or exploit tar sands… so we’ll avoid massive pollution incidents. The products we buy will be much more efficient, so we’ll do more with less resources. The waste from our existing power systems will be eliminated, so we’ll have cleaner air, less contaminated land and oceans. Improving energy use in our homes will save us money and local or domestic clean energy production will decrease our dependence on the state…the list is extensive….
…so even if the many thousands of scientists that contributed to the IPCC’s 4th assessment report are wrong….who cares if we end up making a better world for nothing?
If they are right we’ll all be glad we took action when we could…
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/contents.html
Well I replied but it’s not been published. Guess we’re hosed hey. The planet might ultimately be better off if we do offset – it’ll ensure our end…
I give up. My last was not published and the captchas don’t work very often.
not sure what happened to your posts Simon. I make sure i only delete the ones promising cheap vigara/fake rolexs/russian wives etc etc.
We are very keen to host any debates related to our industry, so i hope it hasn’t put you off.