PG&E ClimateSmart program... the right answer?
About a week ago, I received an envelope from PG&E with an image of a little boy walking through a field. The front of the envelope said:
On behalf of Ryan, age 1 and three quarters, we thank you in advance.
I knew right away that it was a conservation effort, so rather than tossing it in with the junk mail, I set it aside to read later. I finally opened it and read about the "ClimateSmart" program, which offered:
For about $5 a month, you can make the energy that you use "climate neutral" by investing in environmental projects that absorb or reduce greenhouse gases.
I was a bit skeptical because of the constant use of scare quotes every time the phrase "climate neutral" was used in the mailer. Turns out, this program is not exactly like green tags, or carbon offsets. As I read at Grist, the ClimateSmart program is not at all a way of purchasing renewable power, and doesn't support programs to create, support or expand renewable power. If you are considering joining the PG&E ClimateSmart program, do read these two posts at Grist:
Comments
ClimateSmart or ClimateCopOut?
PG&E’s own report admits that after 3 years and $17 million dollars of PR, PG&E plans “to enroll approximately 4 to 5 percent of eligible customers into the program.” That leaves 95% of the impact completely untouched.
PG&E’s ClimateSmart plan tells customers that if they care about the climate, they should pay to offset the company’s emissions. PG&E knows that by shifting the responsibility on to the consumers, the overwhelming majority of it’s impact (95%) will never be addressed. This is a common corporate strategy for keeping the public from demanding corporate accountability. Welcome to greenwashing.
On top of the danger of shifting climate responsibility away from energy companies and government and towards the millions of individual consumers, there is the simple fact that offsetting is not an acceptable strategy for the company determining the type of energy being used by 14 million Californians. PG&E’s primary area of impact, and therefore responsibility, is on the type of electricity it provides. And advertising offsets is no compensation for its claim that nuclear is an environmentally-friendly choice nor of its use of 0% solar. We can do better. And we have a clear choice that PG&E is trying to prevent you from demanding. Community Choice Aggregation can get us to 51% renewable energy in ten years. www.CommunityChoiceEnergy.org.
“ClimateSmart”? We think it's more like ClimateCopout. What do you think?
- Green Guerrillas Against Greenwash
www.LetsGreenWashThisCity.org
Posted by: aliza wasserman | March 23, 2008 10:12 PM
Read those two Grist posts carefully: Mr. Romm cites a study that raises questions about the net warming effect of planting trees at high latitudes - which leads Mr. Romm to conclude that trees should never be used for offsets.
We don't support any reforestation projects in California. But we do support reforestation projects in Louisiana and Nicaragua. Check them out.
Russell
Carbonfund.org
Posted by: Russell | March 25, 2008 8:07 AM