According to the San Francisco Chronicle, the SFO airport has now installed carbon offset purchase kiosks so that you can remove the guilt from your flight. Only one problem. The carbon offsets sold by kiosk sell at a rate that is about 60 times what carbon credits are actually selling for on the market now. There’s no frequent flyer polluter discount either.
Here’s what the kiosk start screen looks like according to the company website:
You can run the kiosk interactively yourself here. Let’s say you chose the “Use Typical Flight Distances” option. This is the screen you’d get:
If I chose the medium range flight at 2000 miles, the cost would be 11.44 for 1869 pounds of CO2 that is estimated to be emitted on my behalf. That works out to about $12.24 per ton of CO2.
Here’s the rub, you can buy a ton of carbon offset on the Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX) for 20 cents. That’s about 60 times less than what you would pay at the SFO kiosk!
Here’s the closing numbers from CCX yesterday:
From CCX: Price and volume reported in metric tons CO2. Change based on previous day’s closing price.
P.T. Barnum would be proud.
UPDATE: Maybe they set the price last year during early planning when carbon was at $7 per ton?
It appears there was a big selloff last Friday, when investors got wind of a major suspension by the UN before it hit the press. On Sept 11th, there were 292,500 transactions (largest in over a month) and the price fell from the previous day closing price of 25 cents:
The Sunday Times has the story:
The legitimacy of the $100 billion (£60 billion) carbon-trading market has been called into question after the world’s largest auditor of clean-energy projects was suspended by United Nations inspectors.
No wonder carbon offsets are falling to 20 cents a ton. Coal is still much more valuable at 40-50 dollars a ton.
Wearing a cilicium would be cheeper.
A sucker born every minute……………………..
I want in on this scam.
I would make sure that I said that all materials in the kiosk were made out of recycled seaweed. I would also indicate that the power used was generated for 100% renewable sources.
Then I would charge 100X.
Ah, guilt. What a wonderful thing!
Actually, I’m considering something similar. Except it’s designed for those who enjoy hunting. I have a number of acres on which prowl a variety of wild trees. I plan to offer one-on-one hunting expeditions to bag a trophy tree for those who would enjoy having one in their den or trophy room. Fee’s are scaled according to the size, rarity, and difficulty of tracking the beast with a minimum of $5k non-refundable deposit. Hunters must provide their own edged weapon and related equipment and suitable clothing. No powered weapons are allowed in order to make it a fair fight, and the hunter is responsible for packing out the trophy, etc. Hunters will be required to sign a release as I cannot be responsible for death or injury. Children and wives are welcome and suitably challenging game is available for them also.
As a suggested title – -The inflated price of guilt.
I thought religion had that market tied up.
paulakw (11:04:44) :
A sucker born every minute……………………..
These suckers aren’t born, they’re hatched.
CodeTech (10:29:02) : “…Personally, I find it repugnant, disgusting, foul manipulation (fleecing) of the ignorant.”
There’s no business like schmoe business.
Meanwhile, in just a couple of days, the 2009 line for Arctic Sea Ice Extent will cross above the 2005 line. The Great Global Warming Swindle goes on with the blessing of politicians and the mainstream media.
Everything costs more at the airport. Besides, you also get the convenience of the kiosk.
It is a 6,000% Markup:
a car costs a car dealer $20,000–… a 6,000% markup would be retail price $1,220,000–
Sounds like a deal to me! LOL
Right on Anthony,
Free markets are the heart and soul of capitalism. Brian Johnson uk may not understand that concept. You offer a product that satisfies a consumer’s need. Ideally, the receipts, minus operating expenses, are a positive number (Profit). This particular operation, admittedly inefficient, buys $0.20/1 ton credits, honoring the consumer’s expectations, and pays another $0.04 for operating expenses, resulting in a $12.00 profit.
The key to capitalism is competition. I am nearly certain I can offer this valuable and incredibly ethical service for half the price and still make a meager profit of only $6.00/1 ton credit while brining the cost down so that it will no longer be just for the wealthy and privileged.
Pardon me if I get choked up a little here. <;-(
Another secret of lowering costs is volume marketing. My discount (only $6.24/1 ton) credits will see demand virtually explode ( a carbon free explosion) resulting in a commanding lead in market share. If there are any honest members of Congress left, my lobbyists will be able to appeal to their better nature to make this enterprise tax exempt (it's nearly religious in nature) and my customers will be able to claim the $0.20 as a tax exemption.
Can government subsidies be far behind. This is a "Green $$$ Jobs" opportunity if I ever saw one.
Robert M. Marshall
P.S. I would'nt think of abusing their credit card info, I want repeat customers.
For fun I made a calculation Sweden – Thailand a month ago: 17,376 km (10,797 miles) 3.8 tonnes CO2 offset price EUR 46.68 = USD 68.71. Takes 80 years with tree planting, but can be done in three years with blue-mussel cultivation. 72 tonnes of mussels yield ten weight percent shells fixing 3.2 tonnes CO2. Gives a bonus of 64 tonnes mussel meat with market price USD 52,532. With oysters the shell yield is doubled.
And the shells last forever dumped in the sea.
Well Anthony, this thread seems to be this week’s comdey central; so it seems like a good place to mention another touch of insanity I just came across; courtesy of the staff at Scientific American Magazine.
For a start they are demanding that I renew my SA subscription this week although my last issue does not arrive till January 2010. After somewhere between 35 and 40 years of continuous subscription, plus a gift subscription to a friend of a mere 30 years, I am seriously considering dropping SA (at least for me) since it has become far to political, and not too scientific any more.
So the piece de resistance comes from this month’s (Oct) issue, in the energy and environment section; an article called “The Way the Wind Blows” by somebody named Michael Moyer (no affiliation given)
In this article about wind turbines, we learn some completely new Physics.
According to Mr (Dr?) Moyer, the power output from wind turbines is an EXPONENTIAL function of the wind speed. Not just once does he say that; but twice. Well I see that the origin of this silliness is actually a Team led by a Sara Pryor; Professor, and Chair, of the Atmospheric Sciences Program, at Indiana University.
So gone is the old regime when wind power depended on the cube of the wind speed; to be replaced by an even faster change with wind speed of exponential growth.
The world gets sillier and sillier.
Prior and her team also claim that because of global warming, wind speeds are declining; which of course is why they do more damage these days; but it is going to mean in the future less wind power available.
So there you have it folks; all around will become still as well as ice free, and there will be no future for wind power.
George
For guilt free flying and driving I get my carbon offsets, millions at a time, from http://www.freecarbonoffsets.com
“John Luft (09:52:37) :
Hey! This isn’t being run by ACORN, is it?”
George Soros owns American Progress which owns Climate Progress. (Joe Romm)
Joe Romm reports to John Podesta who was Clintons chief of staff.
Podesta is on ACORN’s board.
You were making a funny and didn’t know that Climate progress and ACORN have connections. Soros is big in novel trading instruments. I can name 4 other close connections between ACORN carbon trading and the Green groups we hear nothing about.
Podesta, Clinton, Hansen and Enron were strapped together in the earliest carbon trading game. Enron was also into trading SO2 and NO and other pollution indulgences.
Just a thought but doesn’t this meet all of the requirements for a ‘stupid tax’.
D. Matteson (09:47:46) :
I have 2,800 pounds of anthracite coal in my cellar that I use to heat my home for one year.
Now if the carbon offset people will buy it from me at about 60 cents a pound that will stop me from burning the coal and I can use the money to buy enough propane to heat my home for 3 years.
You mean Cash for Clinkers?
I find the link to the CCX especially interesting. If you look at the chart, volume died in June of this year as the price slumped to an all-time low. Even though global temperatures have run near 20-year highs since then, apparently the market no longer believes that carbon has any value in the story.
Airports have water fountains. with markup you can buy bottled water for a few dollars a bottle. It would cost a lot of front money to purchase an airport concession space.
Back to the main topic. Enron began the carbon indulgence trading scheme by lobbying the Clintons. Enron also went on an acquisition tear buying foreign water utilities. Enron liked water because it provided for monopolies. This Carbon credit machine is also an example of a monopoly. If you are checked in for a flight, you can’t trip elsewhere and buy these indulgences closer to wholesale price.
It is also airports that are candidates for a Pay Toilets. People will pay for convenience. ( I thought Johnny Cash was a pay toilet It is music?)
For some reason this reminded me of the old saying:
“The state lottery is a tax on the statistically challenged”.
Climate Passport is a program of the City of San Francisco.
“The San Francisco Airport is an important partner of the San Francisco Carbon Fund. SFO’s new carbon kiosks allow individuals to calculate the carbon footprint of any given flight, and purchase offsets that support local carbon projects.
“The San Francisco Carbon Fund is an innovative carbon reduction program that invests monies from activities that produce climate damaging greenhouse gas pollution (such as air travel) into local projects that reduce greenhouse gas pollution and support local economic development. All of the projects in the Fund take place within San Francisco’s boundaries and thus contribute directly to the sustainability of our shared future. The SFCarbon Fund is completely transparent, accountable, and creates real benefits for San Francisco’s citizenry and environment …
Link to Climate Passport
http://www.sfenvironment.org/our_programs/topics.html?ssi=6&ti=85
I’m reminded of Starbucks and the Ethos water scheme. Ethos water was formed as a “non-profit” with the goal of hydrating the 3rd world. Starbucks offered to donate $.05/bottle of their sale to ethos. Then guess what…
Nary a ripple in the news pond when Starbucks bought Ethos, hiked the price/bottle $.15, and gloated about how they were saving the planet.
I noticed upon some digging that TCF and NCIF have roots tricky to uncover. What’s interesting to note is that the Garcia River Forest does do logging…but at a “reduced” scale…I guess you gotta have some place to plant the new trees.
Some of the rest of your carbon donation goes to $250,000 clumps of small business loans. Hmmmmmm…….
Mark my words, this will end up becoming another ponsai-ish scheme like Amway or ACN Energy here in California a few years ago. I can just see it now. The add in the local Penny Pincher:
Last year I bought 200 lbs of coal at $8.00.
200 lbs of coal will heat my entire house 8 hours an evening ( I only burn coal at night as to not bother my neighbors) for 6 months. I also only burn coal when the outside temp is below 30 degrees. This saves me $50.00 a month in natural gas in the winter.
Checked my Aeroplan (Air Canada connected) airmiles website for comparison.
For 15000 airmiles, we can purchase a short haul return ticket; or 6.4 tonne of carbon offsets. Most people say that an airmile reward program has a value of one cent a mile. The nominal value of 15,000 then is $150.
My math gives $23.44 per tonne. Looks like we can do it better.