In its October "green" issue, SURFING Magazine announced a plan to purchase carbon offsets to minimize the impact of their business. A good move, but nothing out of the ordinary these days.

What is entirely out of the ordinary is the response from one of the all-time great surfers, Kelly Slater. Kelly recently announced that he would commit to the same program — retroactively for his entire career!

As the SURFING press release stated:

Considering his career spans all the way back to 1991, we’re talking a hell of a lot of newly planted trees.

Here's what Kelly had to say for himself in the same release:

I've thought about it for years, but wasn't actually sure how to do it. It's definitely something you wonder about after all that traveling, the effect all that fuel consumption has on the planet. The guys at Carbonfund made it really easy to do. I made a brief calculation of my travel over the years. I spend about two weeks a year actually in the sky flying and quite a few driving miles which both add up a little differently. I’ve done around 4 million miles total, which I thought would break the bank when the end result came. But it adds up to around five acres of replanting that costs around $5500.

Michael Stewart, Partnerships Director at CarbonFund, added:

Like his eight world titles, it’s clearly another great first for Kelly, and an open invite for all surfers to look at the long trail of CO2 left behind by modern surf travel. Think of it this way: would you start a tire fire on the beach at Pipe? Well, if you don’t compensate for the CO2 from plane ride over there through reforestation or green power projects, you basically just did.

FYI:

The primary option for Carbonfund’s newly formed CarbonFree Surfing Program is reforestation. SURFING Magazine committed to mangroves in India; Slater is putting his efforts toward the San Juan Del Sur area in Nicaragua. Kelly will have 25 different indigenous species planted on a private reserve bordering the Escamequita River, which protects the watershed leading right to the beach. This is not only important turtle nesting habitat, but it also protects water quality for all the surf breaks south of SJDS, including the threatened wave at Playa Yankee.

Kudos all around: to Kelly Slater, SURFING and Carbonfund. And, here's hoping that the surfing community fully embraces the idea of CarbonFree Surfing!

Carbon Neutral Journal's kudos are brought to you by Grand Targhee Resort.

Popularity: 5%

To begin: this is a rave, not a rant.

I've got to believe, however, that the ranting I did last winter (Turn off your $#@! vehicle! Please. and there ought to be a law against idling vehicles) had something to do with the bowl of "idle free" cards I noticed as I left Pearl Street Bagels this morning.

Indeed, Les and Maggie Gibson have made it easy for their patrons to "tag" idling vehicles on Pearl Street. And they've done it more tactfully and informatively than I ever would. Their two-sided business card features a simple idle free message and logo on the front, with the following on the reverse side:

Fact:

Idling for over 10 seconds uses more fuel than restarting your engine.

Idling reduces engine life (by up to 20%).

With today's engines the best way to warm it up is to drive it.

Communities around the world are adopting Idle Free By Laws.

Idling is harmless?

Think again

Given the fact that my very unscientific survey last winter outed Pearl Street as the most likely place to find an idling vehicle in Jackson, it's good to know that at least one local business has joined my crusade to shut the idlers down.

Carbon Neutral Journal's frequent rants and occasional raves are brought to you by Vertical Media.

Popularity: 9%

New Scientist doesn't offer free online access to its articles, but their trial subscription rate of $4.95 for four issues is more than reasonable–even if you only read the article titled Look, no carbon footprint!

Over the course of 2500+ words, author Fred Pearce thoroughly explores the world of carbon offsets–top to bottom–from offset schemes officially sanctioned under the Kyoto Protocol, to the 30 or so nonprofit and for profit vendors currently selling voluntary offsets on the open market. The bulk of Pearce's story examines the burgeoning commercial marketplace–one that has grown from offsetting 3 million tons of CO2 in 2004 to as many as 50 million tons of CO2 in 2006.

Pearce delves into the hard questions. His conclusion: Buyer Beware.

For those of you looking for the Cliff Notes, Pearce offers six key questions every careful shopper should ask before buying carbon offsets:

1. Do your offsets result from specific projects, and what are they?
2. How long will it take for the project to offset my emissions
3. Can I follow the progress of the offsets I invest in and read reports of independent verifiers?
4. Do your projects meet the gold standard?
5. Can you prove that the projects in your portfolio would not have happened without you?
6. Can you show you are not selling offsets more than once, or that I am not subsidizing others to meet logal obligations?

For those of you looking to save $4.95, the New Scientist article links to Clean Air-Cool Planet and its consumer's guide to retail carbon offset providers (a free and very useful downloadable PDF).

Carbon Neutral Journal's thoughts are brought to you by Hawtin Jorgensen Architects.

Popularity: 19%

This post, the last in my year-in-review series, takes a look back at some of the choices I considered in 2007. Of course, we're all aware of the one really big choice looming on the horizon — the presidential election next November — and all the opportunities between now and then for American voters to express their freedom of choice.

Before we turn the calendar page, here's one last look back at the choicest Carbon Neutral Journal posts of 2007:

sugar or the stick?

As we were driving through Idaho Falls today, topping off the gas tank one more time on our 1737 mile road trip, I could hardly get to the gas pump for all the cases of bottled water stacked around it on sale. Now, I'm used to how the super markets use end-of-aisle gimmicks to get you to buy impulse items, but this is the first time I've noticed America's favorite extravagance being so blatantly displayed.

Upon my return home, I took a quick glance at last Wednesday's Jackson Hole News & Guide and noticed the following headline: Plastic bags, bottles safe from campaign. The subhed: Education, not legislation, key to Jackson's green efforts, officials say.

So, locals and visitors alike don't have to worry about any San Francisco-like bans on plastic bags or plastic water bottles. Instead, as our Mayor says:

The council believes we should continue along the lines of cultural change. When you bring people in emotionally, they are in, versus demanding compliance with rules and regulations.

Having seen the stacked-up cases of bottled water in Idaho Falls, I remain unconvinced that, when left to their own devices, most Americans will make anything but the most convenient and expedient choices. I do believe, however, that our Town Council will make more progress using sugar than the stick.

2. is it time to buy a hybrid?

3. green please

4. what would you do?

5. political choices

Carbon Neutral Journal's choices are brought to you by Jorgensen Associates.

Popularity: 17%

The Alpinist Film Festival is a mid-winter highlight here in Jackson Hole. With film showings over three nights, January 17-19 at Teton Village's Walk Festival Hall, followed by the People's Choice screening on January 20th at Jackson's Center For The Arts, this year's festival promises to be better than ever.

The point of this post, however, isn't to plug the Alpinist Film Festival, which always sells out, as much as it is to recognize their efforts to stage a carbon neutral event. In fact, according to the press release, the Alpinist and sponsor Patagonia are going to do more than just become carbon neutral:

All energy consumed by the 2008 Festival–from the travel of the speakers and the audiences to snow removal, the delivery of films and the ink consumption for posters and banners–is accounted for in the estimated carbon footprint. In order to eliminate unaccounted carbon, the AFF purchased an additional six tons of offsets, twenty-five percent more than its estimated footprint.

Here's a little more detail about the offsetting scheme:

An analysis of The Alpinist Film Festival's proposed carbon footprint was provided by Jackson, Wyoming's, Teton Power. This carbon-footprint audit led to the selection of the Charlotte, Vermont company NativeEnergy as the provider of carbon offsets for the event. With funding from Patagonia, the AFF purchased thirty tons of carbon credits from NativeEnergy, which will apply them toward reducing the installation and sales costs of a wind-turbine project in the Midwest…

NativeEnergy provides offsets from small- and utility-scale wind projects as well as farm-methane-capture projects. They also help to design projects that create sustainable economic benefits for Native Americans, Alaska Native Villages and other local communities, and that help family farmers compete with large agribusiness interests. The AFF's purchase of thirty tons of carbon credits from NativeEnergy will help support the sales and installations of German-designed wind turbines remanufactured and customized for Midwest conditions.

Kudos to the Alpinist and Patagonia for making a statement to Jackson Hole about the importance of making an effort to reduce one's carbon footprint.

Carbon Neutral Journal's kudos are brought to you by Grand Targhee Resort.

Popularity: 14%

Nope, that's not my goal for 2008. Fact is, I'm not sure what my goal for this blog will become for next year, but that's a topic for a future post.

The concept of "double carbon neutral" was raised recently by David Douglas, vice president for eco-responsibility at Sun Microsystems. In his blog, he asked:

If it is good to offset your emissions, is it even better to offset your emissions twice?

To give Douglas' question some context, Sun's carbon strategy is to reduce its carbon footprint as much as possible — that is to say Sun places a priority on conservation rather than investing in offsets. Douglas acknowledges that strategy keeps Sun from claiming to be carbon neutral. He also acknowledges there will be a point where Sun's investment in carbon reduction will return less on investment than it does today. That's when, he says, they'll likely consider carbon offsets.

Clearly Douglas raises the question about doubling offsets to beg one question: what's the relative PR value of conservation vs. being able to claim carbon neutrality (or double carbon neutrality)? In other words:

Should a double carbon neutral company be considered better than a company like Sun that is actually reducing their carbon footprint?

I'd say: of course not. But I won't be at all surprised to see the concept of double carbon neutrality become a broader topic of conversation.

What do you think?

Carbon Neutral Journal's thoughts are brought to you by Hawtin Jorgensen Architects.

Popularity: 3%

Amidst all the financial news of the past week–most of it bad–comes this report from ClimateBiz.com about Morgan Stanley teaming up with Det Norske Veritas (DNV) to help clients become carbon neutral.

The Morgan Stanley Carbon Bank will offer integrated carbon verification and offsetting services, helping clients take an emissions inventory and determine their carbon footprint using the Greenhouse Gas Protocol Initiative.

According to Simon Greenshields, managing director and global head of power, power fuels and carbon trading at Morgan Stanley:

Many companies have begun seeking ways to reduce their direct greenhouse gas emissions. Our new service will help them more easily and reliably take the next step to achieve a zero carbon footprint. This is the first service we have seen giving clients a single source for everything from certifying emissions to buying and canceling carbon credits, all in accordance with the highest international standards.

David Yarnold, Environmental Defense's executive vice president, offered his perspective on the need to use market-based solutions to battle climate change:

Although the regulated carbon market is based on environmentally effective and standardized procedures, it has been difficult for companies to find a high-quality, standards-based service to offset their emissions in the voluntary market. By offering this new service to companies in the voluntary carbon market, Morgan Stanley is not only helping to meet a growing need for many companies, it also is supporting a significant, credible and responsible expansion of the carbon market itself.

In his blog, Two Steps Forward, Joel Makower offers a lengthy post about The Corporate Climate Juggernaut, which seems poised to take advantage of the new carbon banking services offered by Morgan Stanley.

This week brings a new "global framework" from the Global Roundtable on Climate Change, signed by a host of big companies, calling on governments to set scientifically informed targets for greenhouse gases and carbon dioxide emissions and "to place a price on carbon emissions and to set forth policies aimed at addressing energy efficiency and de-carbonization in all sectors."

According to the statement — endorsed by Allianz, Bayer, Citigroup, DuPont, General Electric, Volvo, and a range of others — "Failing to act now would lead to far higher economic and environmental costs and greater risk of irreversible impacts."

Is there anybody outside the Bush Administration — and maybe Exxon — who doesn't understand that climate change represents one of the biggest risks ever to face the private sector? And that there are great financial benefits to reap from addressing it head-on with new, clean technologies?

Carbon Neutral Journal's news is brought to you by High Country Linen Service.

Popularity: 14%