What do you get the globally conscious grad who has everything?
If you're looking for something unique, you're probably stalling out somewhere between the hemp sandals and the solar-powered backpacks. We have the answer.
These kind of gifts offer dubious ecological benefits and a fleeting trendiness. That solar backpack, for instance, used only occasionally, might need to be worn for decades simply to balance out the energy and materials used to make it -- and do you really think solar backpacks will be cool next year, much less next decade?
And most green gifts are pretty meaningless, because little steps alone don't lead to sustainability. This is especially true for the lifestyle choices young people can make themselves. We often tell kids to start by screwing in a compact fluorescent light bulb (CFL), since they are dramatically more efficient than regular bulbs. But our lives are so ecologically damaging that Tom Arnold at TerraPass has figured out that to balance out the climate emissions from just one average American kid's Little League season, that kid would have to swap out ten bulbs. That doesn't even begin to count the food that kid eats, the house he or she sleeps in, the school he or she attends, the toys and clothes he or she buys... it's pretty obvious that most kids are going to run out of light bulbs to replace long before they reach sustainability.
The real answers to our problems, as we've said before, all lie in changing the underlying systems in our economy. Until political change is sold at the checkout counter, though, the best socially conscious gifts you can give are the ones that actually change the world directly in meaningful amounts.
That's why this graduation season, Worldchanging is proud to offer its major donors appreciation gifts that really make a difference: our Carbon Clean Slate certificates.
Growing up, few kids have the power to transform their surroundings into a bright green life. That power generally only comes as one grows older. That doesn't mean that kids don't recognize (and feel guilty about) the ways in which their lives have helped make climate change and other planetary problems worse.
Our Carbon Clean Slate gifts lift that guilt by offsetting their childhoods. They can go forward in life knowing that their emissions have been balanced by your gift, and they are free to make their own way in the world, unhampered by the past.
How it works: for every major donation above certain levels, Worldchanging will buy a major carbon offset in the name of your favorite graduate.
For $6,000, we'll offset all the climate emissions that grad racked up until he or she graduated from high school;
For $7,500, we'll offset their childhoods and their university years;
For $25,000, we'll offset their youth, college and working careers.
The offsets themselves will come from TerraPass, the gold standard company in carbon offsets. TerraPass uses independent verification (including a complete voluntary independent audit), direct sourcing of their offsets (so they know they're for real) and immediate investment (to create offsets now not later)... as well as offering full transparency about their projects. You can't find a better offsetting program than theirs.
Your grad will get a handsome certificate announcing that their slate's been wiped clean, climate-wise, along with a personalized note and a copy of the Worldchanging book. You get the satisfaction of knowing that you've made a real, demonstrable difference and honored the graduate's commitment to changing the world.
Everyone wins: Your grad gets to head out into the world with the moral weight of their personal choices lifted from their shoulders, you get to show your love and respect, the climate gets a bit of a break and Worldchanging gets the funds we need to continue our prize-winning work exploring the solutions that will create real, lasting change. Half your gift is even tax-deductible!
To buy, or to simply make a donation to support our work, please click here.
Worldchanging's Carbon Clean Slate: Because there's no better present than a better future.
$6,000 is a bit over my budget! But I'll send 100 just because ideas like WorldChanging's always show me the world in a new way. I'll never think "graduation gift" again without thinking of this.
Posted by: Jen on May 8, 2008 2:56 PM
Our sincere thanks, Jen. We truly appreciate -- and certainly put to use -- all contributions. To all of our readers: If you enjoy our work and find it useful, please consider donating an amount that you feel is appropriate!
We're proud to support this innovative idea -- thanks for the kind words about our programs.
Whether you are buying a ton for a plane flight to graduation, or considering a big gift to support WorldChanging, you may want some more information about where these reductions take place. Just slide on over to TerraPass and click our project feedback pages for our latest projects.
As an example, I just returned from the Michigan Dairies, and they projects are progressing nicely, generators are already humming at two of them, delivering energy from something that for a long time we've just considered waste.
These projects aren't viable without the carbon revenues, so we appreciate everyone's support in helping them get there.
Thanks for the good words, Jen! And just to reiterate what Julia says so well above, we will definitely accept donations small that $6,000.00! $25,000.00 or $25.00, it all helps us keep doing this work.
Oops, Tom snuck in before me, but the point he makes is right on as well: these are real, tangible projects helping to reduce emissions that would otherwise be melting ice caps and bumming out polar bears.
I TOTALLY love you guys, and wholeheartedly support donations to worldchanging, but somehow this post is lacking in your usual grounded perspective.
I'm concerned for worldchanging that a post like this will be posted elsewhere. Was it written tongue in cheek?
The catholic church once collected hefty donations from wealthy patrons, claiming that Christ had granted them the ability to grant 'indulgences'... under whose authority are you advertizing to 'wipe the moral slate clean'?
I think it was even from a worldchanging post that I learned that CO2 has a residence time of 300 years, plus a quarter of it that persists forever... and that the momentum in the ocean acidification system is not reversible in our lifetime... I question the usefulness of advertising that perpetuates the myth that if we have enough money we can pretend we didn't contribute to that. (And thus if we get rich enough in the future, we can erase the impacts of our present and future choices too.)
Its the associated claims (1- there's a moral highground to be had, 2- we can turn back the clock, 3- that incentivizing renewable energy investments is the same as actually not emitting) that I'm protesting to here in this post, not the donation itself.
Actually, I think the readers of this post should be donating to worldchanging because it provides the place where we can have discussion of this sort... That's the tangible work which might be worth several thousand dollars, in my opinion.
Bottom line: Worldchanging has never 'sold' any marketable or exclusive real-estate on the moral high ground, and it just doesn't strike me as useful to start now.
Posted by: donnacqua on May 8, 2008 5:03 PM
This is such an important cause, but I do worry about the notion of the offspring of the wealthy heading "out into the world with the moral weight of their personal choices lifted from their shoulders." Buying the offsets is great, but it should not clear the way for us to buy our grad that Hummer she may have been dreaming about!
Posted by: John on May 8, 2008 5:25 PM
I would say that it offsets their carbon footprint from the first 18+ years of their life but iI wouldn't say it offsets their childhood.
The toxins and plastics and what-nots aren't offset, are they? Water wasted?
Are all the people who work for TerraPass driving zero emissions vehicles to go to the job site (something they wouldn't have done if you hadn't paid for it).
The logic of that last bit might not be fair. You could call it their footprint instead of yours. Likewise, I don't think it would be quite fair to say that since the money they receive from you for working may be used on paying for something with an ecological footprint it is also your footprint.
Posted by: Brennon on May 8, 2008 5:27 PM
Donnacqua, can I chime in here, as you raise a really good point that I am pleased is being discussed. The tension between moral grandstanding and the reality of our emissions footprints is one defining characteristic of the climate crisis, at least as it relates to consumers and green marketing.
First, the easy stuff. Offsets aren't indulgences and our survey data shows people who voluntarily spend money to fund greenhouse gas reductions are quite motivated to reduce their impact in other ways as well. If anything we're preaching to the choir...
Your second points are really thought provoking, and that's what I thinks really interesting about Alex's idea. I hope it will move the discussion forward in the WorldChanging community.
The "morality" of climate change, if you put it that way, can be thought of in another way as the emotion that you the consumer feels in "going green". Maybe you're reducing your flying, going veg, or reading the WorldChanging book dreaming of your next work project. Or maybe you have a green job and you feel great going to work every day (I know I do!).
The reality is that a whole raft of green marketing initiatives are hitting consumers and maybe its time for some perspective about the scope of the problem and some calculations on how these small steps relate to each other and to our carbon footprints.
As just one example, our focus groups consistently show consumers are woefully under-prepared for the carbon calculus that is required. Composting is great, but it doesn't as was suggested by someone is a recent group, compensate for 15,000 miles of driving a year.
So what better place to get to the meat of this than point out the enormity of a students historical footprint, and encourage a donation that is verified to match the scope of the footprint.
WorldChanging is about bold scale-appropriate changes that get us closer to where we need to be. One of the changes has to be in the dairy industry. Sure, we can drink less milk, skip the brie, etc, or we can use a pretty simple WWII era technology to capture the emissions and generate energy on dairy farms. The calculus will shock you -- changing manure management processes on 4-6 cows reduces emissions by the US per capita 22 tons. 6-8 cows generate enough energy for an average US household. Yes, its a short term fix. A transitional tool. But if we really are going to implement the changes required to solve the crisis, we've got to be honest about what is required and we've got to get started now.
Brennon: you're totally right, this only addresses carbon. Alex can we make that a little clearer?
The problem with trying to green the world: No matter how much you try, you're fighting against a runaway train with massive momentum and entrenched influence....that even when "slowing down" is still going to mutiply exponentially given population growth, etc.
The problem with human beings: People critisize "greening" with this seemingly impossible task in mind.....and therefore prefer to revert to the mindset of sheep, falling back into their previous ways, or into a mindset that gets picky about how and why you may be "greening"
What to do: Well....you aren't going to convince millions of people to change in one year, one decade or even a few generations....but set up the means by which to plant the seeds of a mindset that way down the line may be very noticeable, and thats worth donation. Jeez...if its starts with rich kids giving fat cheques or with me collecting my poo for later use, its still all good !
The underlying goals and intentions here are good - however our political (lack of) leadership and their corporate buddies are to blame for the current situation we are in. Somehow making an 18 year old "pay off" the issues the world before them has created seems rediculous. The companies making all of the money by destroying the world, the air etc. should take their big bonuses/profit to pay for it themselves. Educating someone to live better and more enviromentally friendly would have a greater long term impact than a sum of money IMHO.
Posted by: John on May 9, 2008 5:38 AM
More evidence that the climate change/ecological movement is becoming a religion... it is now selling Indulgences to the rich just like the medieval Roman Catholic Church. Be afraid non-believers.
Posted by: Maldo on May 9, 2008 7:57 AM
Ha! INDULGENCES! That's clever! No one had ever made that comparison before. You're a genius, coming up with such a telling comparison, because you're right, wantin to make up for damage I'm doing and helping farmers build waste-fired generators they can't afford themselves (so they make more money and keep a lot of greenhouse gas out of the atmosphere) is EXACTLY like corrupt old men from the middle ages using their religious authority to force gullible peasants into giving money so a made-up old man in the sky will forgive them for their ethical lapses. NO DIFFERENCE AT ALL.
Thank you for your daring willingness to unveil this hoax.
Now please get to work telling us why evolution is a fraud as well.
Posted by: Robert Hansson on May 9, 2008 8:41 AM
Slow down. One of the easiest ways to "offset" is to get developing nations to plant eucalyptus groves. Toss the indigenous people off the land, plow under the farmland, and plant groves to make American yuppies feel good about themselves. Do a google on +"carbon offset" +eucalyptus and educate yourselves.
Food wars are coming because of "green" ideas such as biofuel, carbon offsets, and preventing native farmers from using pesticides and gas-powered tractors to create enough food to eat. Green is another name for imperialism.
Sending a message that we pay to "offset" our carbon emissions is not much, if at all, different than claiming we can spend our way to sustainability, even with strategic consumption.
Not consuming is better than strategically consuming, just as saving (not using) energy is cheaper than buying it, as Amory Lovins says...
Can't the offset advocates at least see the paradox of paying to cover emissions with the radical reconfigurations necessary to hit Hansen's targets?
In a limited world of space for a message, offsetting isn't it. Consider this...where in Nature does one other species than ours use a strategy such as offsetting? Show me that, and I might believe.
Posted by: Josh on May 9, 2008 9:38 AM
Thanks for the thoughtful comments (and the less thoughtful ones as well).
We'd hope that some interesting questions are raised here, like: If personal sustainability is essentially impossible through behavioral change for middle class people, what is it that people should be doing if they want to live without destroying the planet?
The usual mantra is something like change what you can, offset the rest. We're trying to show just how much we'll all need to offset if that's our approach.
That doesn't mean that these offsets aren't real. they are. You can go check them out for yourself. This is no abstraction. Give one of these gifts, and you're creating clean energy and reducing CO2 emissions in the real world.
But I think Tom and the rest of the crew at TerraPass would agree with me when I say that the ultimate goal here is not to build a gigantic planetary system of offsets, but to redesign and rebuild the physical systems we depend on that are now destroying the planet. I hope that this point is made abundantly clear on Worldchanging and in this post.
Finally, we're definitely not deaf to the issues of generational equity around here
We're not looking for the 18 y.o. to buy this. We're looking for the 50 y.o. to buy this for her: it's the 50 y.o. whose money was made putting all that CO2 up there in the first place; it's older people who made the decisions that tied the 18 y.o. to a climate- destructive life... and if those older people can afford to make that right by paying for something good to happen that otherwise would not (a farmer turning manure into clean energy), that seems to me to not be an indictment of the 18 y.o., but an opportunity for some bit of redemptive behavior on the part of the 50 y.o.
In short: We need to change. A lot. While we pursue big changes, we're still causing damage. Offsets are one way to cause less aggregate damage. We're a nonprofit and need to raise money in order to have conversations like this. Give money and we'll offset some harm.
WWE- no eucalyptus here, no food wars, no whatever, just offsets from American farmers, fully accounted for. Go read the info if you want to know more.
Josh- where do we say or imply that people shouldn't save energy rather than waste it, etc? We say that all the time. But in this case, as an average American with currently used systems and currently available technologies, you simply cannot save enough energy by yourself to have no carbon impact. Even if you underwent radical lifestyle reductions (reductions that almost no one is willing to undergo), your share of the public impact (roads, bridges, airports, military, NASA, the health department, the Postal Service, etc.) is larger than a one-planet carbon footprint. That impact is made in your name, with your tax dollars, for your benefit, but you can't change it with what you buy or what you forego. You can, however, offset it and work to change it.
That is not the same thing as trying to shop your way to sustainbility.
Thank you WorldChanging for putting the 'fun' in fundraiser, and pushing us to think about ourselves as carrying a carbon burden. This is a good way to raise money and change consciousness.
I am sincerely curious why TerraPass went with the Chicago Climate Exchange rather than another certification standard.
Good question. We actually use the Voluntary Carbon Standard for offset certification. When we started in 2004, we used the CCX. Since then the carbon standards have evolved quite a bit (a process that we've pushed for and participated in), and we jumped on VCS as soon as it was ready.
There are other standards that we like and support as well. This is an area of active development.
Everybody wants to go to heaven but nobody wants to die.
Posted by: Maldo on May 9, 2008 12:12 PM
Alex- This is a great discussion! THANKYOU for providing the forum and your other insightful comments which I wholeheartedly appreciate (I am a worldchanging book owner and hereby pledge to become a member.)
Josh- cheatneutral.com made me laugh out loud! Thanks for making me realize that I'm clearly getting too grumpy and burnt out in my work (doing footprint estimates and land management calculations which sometimes other folks use for offset purposes) for my own good.
David- your point about the value of offsets as 'seeding' (and also the point about picky infighting) was well put, and made me rethink, thanks.
Tom- I also liked your point about how focus groups consistently show consumers are woefully under-prepared for the carbon calculus that is required.
All- here is the basis of all my comments: I cannot accept Alex's premise that "personal sustainability is essentially impossible through behavioral change for middle class people" or I will say "game over" and will walk off my job. (Also, Alex, I know you can't really believe this in the grand scheme of things- you must just be taking a pragmatic position there.)
I believe that behavioral change is possible, but because we're fearful of the generations this will take to accomplish we conceptually/intellectually/practially don't allow ourselves to go there. To me, this is the great sustainability frontier, and this discussion makes me realize that as I dismiss offsets as rearranging deckchairs, I also lose the value (re: David's point) on 'seed value' over the long term. Will buying offsets and marketing offsets change mindsets of middle america so that behavioral change becomes a greater possibility? Perhaps, and I certainly hope so.
Does marketing the 'offset' idea continue amount to reinforcing a paradigm which we deeply need to change? In some ways, yes--- which begs the question- what information would help support the addressing of behavioral change? Would people buy an offset that supported next generation education... they haven't to date... but if we're talking 'calculus' where is the dollar investment over time (lifetimes) most valuable? (This last Q was inspired by Tom's good point.)
I shouldn't have such an 'either or' attitude toward mandatory versus voluntary, but thanks for allowing me to pushback a little here. I think its important to explore.
Posted by: donnacqua on May 9, 2008 12:56 PM
Even in light of Alex's recent comments about generational equity, if I were an eighteen or twenty-two year-old graduate getting a gift of a lifetime offset, I'd feel both overwhelmed and guilty. How does this gift NOT sound like: "Here's what I paid in honor of your graduation; the dollar amount is equivalent to the damage you have caused since you drew your first oxygen-rich breath"?
Upon receiving such a gift, I would not smile graciously, feeling motivated to go out and make the world a better place. In fact, I'd probably start to cry.
There's got to be a better way to motivate and inspire graduates to understand their impact on the world and their responsibility to future generations--perhaps by working on an organic farm for the summer or leading children on interpretive hikes in a state park. Let them come to the decision to do a "lifetime offset" on their own.
Let me say that I think the offset option is great. I offset my car's emissions through a program similar to TerraPass, I offset my house's emissions through my utility company (in wind credits), and I offset my air travel through STI. But that's my decision. I wouldn't dream of buying them for another person.
Posted by: Lindsay on May 9, 2008 12:58 PM
So I can buy two lifetime sets and pollute twice as much?
Posted by: Jim Strathmeyer on May 9, 2008 2:57 PM
Are you people actually serious about this folly of *greening the earth* or is this intended to expose the latest in what the snake oil sales tactics have turned to?
I hope you're not just exploiting fools who know no better.
Posted by: forest hunter on May 9, 2008 3:59 PM
Without a doubt, the best lifetime impact is a life spent working to invent and build systems which don't produce unsustainable levels of environmental harm in the first place. Aiming our careers and public lives towards a bright green future is the best thing any of us can do.
I'd say that to the best of our ability, we should also bring our private lives into alignment with those values, and there's something each of us can do on that front.
But given the near-impossibility of zeroing out all our impacts through personal choices, having offsets to fall back on helps us as individuals achieve a balance between working to make a change in society, treading lightly on the planet ourselves and having a life in a busy, complex world.
I would have been far more inclined to donate to Worldchanging if there had been a sincere call for funds to support these healthy debates. By clearly putting itself on the "offsets are OK" side of the fence, Worldchanging is now unable to be the objective arbitrator that I had valued it to be.
This move makes particular views implicit in futrue debates, namely that (in the words of Alex Steffen) "personal sustainability is essentially impossible through behavioral change for middle class people". Now I'm sorry but that is a ridiculously broad and sweeping statement for a forum that literally calls itself Worldchanging.com. Maybe we should change the name to "Worldchangingexceptformiddleclasslifestyles.com"
How many flights a year are "necessary"? 2? 20? We must look at how to use remaining fossil fuels efficiently and effectively, so that we can continue to do vital things like eat, and get medical care when we get ill. Flying for a business trip, a graduation, or even to see family once a year is not vital when you look at what is actually at stake here.
Given that we are supposedly making "all possible reductions", can I ask whether or not those people truly living sustainably are offsetting the carbon dioxide they breathe out every few seconds?
Posted by: Jamie on May 10, 2008 11:41 AM
I don't see how that statement is so controversial. He made it pretty obvious later in the post (and he is right in saying) that:
"Even if you underwent radical lifestyle reductions (reductions that almost no one is willing to undergo), your share of the public impact (roads, bridges, airports, military, NASA, the health department, the Postal Service, etc.) is larger than a one-planet carbon footprint. That impact is made in your name, with your tax dollars, for your benefit, but you can't change it with what you buy or what you forego."
It has nothing to do with what social class you belong to, if you live in this country, nearly everything you take advantage of on a daily basis is unsustainable.
I have always been harsh about carbon offsetting, but the way Alex put it in this discussion is eminently rational (if the offsets can be guaranteed to be valid).
While I support the idea of carbon offsetting, I have to take issue with the basic rationale for the Carbon Clean Slate certificates. It is claimed:
"Our Carbon Clean Slate gifts lift that guilt by offsetting their childhoods. They can go forward in life knowing that their emissions have been balanced by your gift, and they are free to make their own way in the world, unhampered by the past... Your grad gets to head out into the world with the moral weight of their personal choices lifted from their shoulders..."
SERIOUSLY? While I certainly want to do my part to encourage a more sustainable world, I feel not a single ounce of "moral weight" from my childhood holding me back. I will never feel guilty for having parents who raised me in the best way they knew how, even if I can look back and see the damage this caused. I don't feel guilty for slaughtering native North Americans or for the slave trade, even though I surely benefited from both and am fully supportive of modern acts of restitution and justice. I know wrongs were committed, and I know that because I directly benefit from them that I should pay to try to fix them (when the government gives them cash for example), but to say that I should feel guilty is crazy. In the same way, I would love to see all those thousands of dollars go to TerraPass, but when they try to get donations using the shame of the past instead of the hope of the future, it pisses me right off.
Your comments echo a small 'niggle' I've had about the good ancestry principle. Namely, that there is an implicit assumption that future generations will blame us for our predicament. I don't believe this is true. After all, I don't think early pioneers are condemned for wiping out bison, or passenger pigeons, or thylacines (or the mid-west locust). We might wish they hadn't, but there's always the feeling that they didn't really know any better.
So, it isn't a matter of who is to blame, it's a matter of who is going to fix.
However, I do think the principle (and this certificate) is a useful framing tool for focussing your efforts to provide for the future. After all, *don't* you want to be a good ancestor?
Posted by: Tony Fisk on May 11, 2008 5:45 PM
I'm curious as to why TerraPass isn't offering these things as standalone packages. If half of the cost is tax-deductible, is it safe to assume the actual cost of the offsets are half the costs listed above if purchased through Worldchanging?
Also, what's the total annual carbon footprint assumed by this? It seems to be around 20 tons per year, perhaps a bit less.
Posted by: za on May 11, 2008 7:17 PM
Please note that comments will remain open for only 14 days after the article is posted. While previous comments will remain visible, attempts to post new comments after this period will fail. This helps stop comment spam, so your forebearance is appreciated.
The Worldchanging comments are meant to be used for further exploration and evaluation of the ideas covered in our posts. Please note that, while constructive disagreement is fine, insults and abuse are not, and will result in the comment being deleted and a likely ban from commenting. We will also delete at will and without warning comments we believe are designed to disrupt a conversation rather than contribute to it. In short, we'll kill troll posts.
Finally, please note that comments which simply repost copyrighted works or commercial messages will be summarily deleted.
