YES

I have read the article by George Monbiot that you refer to and see no obvious connection between the abuses of the carbon credits system taking place under the Kyoto Mechanism, which he describes, and the carbon offsets offered by Climate Care, which are not part of the Kyoto mechanism and are entirely voluntary and additional.

Climate Care offers some carbon offsets relating to forestry. These are projects in national parks in Uganda to restore forest destroyed during war years. They include a good margin of error to overcome all conceivable uncertainties that may attach. Furthermore, the projects would be a good thing even if there were no carbon benefit, as they restore habitat for endangered species such as chimpanzees. They also employ local people in an area of considerable poverty and underemployment.

Climate Care also generates an increasing proportion of its offsets from non-forestry sources. These include the provision of energy efficient light bulbs to poor households in South African townships; and improved cooking stoves in India, which burn less wood and produce less smoke than those they replace. It is hard to see any reasonable objection to projects such as these.

If you are really so much opposed to offsets from forestry sources, I think a more constructive approach would be a motion to the Phone Coop that it should ask Climate Care to provide its offsets entirely from non-forestry sources. This might even be acceptable to the Board. Too bad for the chimpanzees, I guess, but at least there would be a benefit to the Indian farmers and South African township dwellers who would get more clean stoves and efficient light bulbs.

However as your motion stands I would oppose it, and advise everyone else to do the same.

Oliver Tickell

NO

Firstly, Monbiot's article and much other writing about carbon offsets certainly argues that carbon stored in trees cannot be equated with fossil carbon. Larry Lohman's work at the Cornerhouse, which Monbiot references, strongly makes the point that fossil carbon must stay in the ground. Moving it around the dump space in the biosphere is not equivalent. You suggest that Climate Care's projects in Uganda would be a good thing even without the 'carbon benefit'. Why not then put money into that, instead of administering a system of carbon credits, which is of dubious value for anything but corporate PR and salving the consciences of those that choose to fly despite knowing the disastrous consequences for the climate?

The question is, why does the Phone Co-op feel it necessary to give money to offset carbon emissions? Because the phrase 'carbon neutral' has become a selling point. An ethically minded company such as the Phone Co-op should be above such manipulative PR games. Climate Care is promoted by airline BA, who encourage passengers to offset the emissions of their trip. Their involvement is purely designed to encourage those that are concerned about the environment to keep flying, and to improve its corporate image.

Claire Fauset