Tweet
NYT Environment Reporter Floats Idea: Give Carbon Credits to Couples That Limit Themselves to One Pet
Monday, October 19, 2009
By Edwin Mora
Washington (CNSNews.com) – Andrew Revkin, who reports on environmental issues for The New York Times, floated an idea last week for combating global warming: Give carbon credits to couples that limit themselves to having one pet.
Revkin later told CNSNews.com that he was not endorsing the idea, just trying to provoke some thinking on the topic.
Revkin participated via Web camera in an Oct. 14 panel discussion on “Covering Climate: What’s Domesticity Got to Do With It” that was held at the Woodrow Wilson Center in Washington, D.C. The other participants on the panel were Dennis Dimick, executive editor of National Geographic, and Emily Douglas, web editor for The Nation magazine.
At the event, Revkin said: “Well, some of the people have recently proposed: Well, should there be carbon credits for a food benefit in Africa let's say? Should that be monetized as a part of something that, you know, if you, if you can measurably somehow divert poverty, say toward an accelerating decline, shouldn't there be a carbon value to that?
“And I have even proposed recently, I can't remember if it's in the blog, but just think about this: Should--probably the single-most concrete and substantive thing an American, young American, could do to lower our carbon footprint is not turning off the lights or driving a Prius, it's having fewer pets, having fewer animals to feed," said Revkin.
“So should there be, eventually you get, should you get credit--If we're going to become carbon-centric--for having a one-pet family when you could have had two or three," said Revkin. "And obviously it's just a thought experiment, but it raises some interesting questions about all this.”
When CNSNews.com later followed up with questions about his comments, Revkin responded in an e-mail.
“I wasn't endorsing any of this, simply laying out the math and noting the reality that if one were serious about the poverty-climate intersection, it'd be hard to avoid asking hard questions about USA discretionary spending,” wrote Revkin.
“By raising the notion of carbon credits for, say, single-pet American families,” he continued, “I was aiming to provoke some thinking about where the brunt of emissions are still coming from on a per-capita basis.”
In a Sept. 19, 2009 blog entry, “Is sterilisation the Ultimate Green-Technology?” Revkin cited an August 2009 study by the London School of Economics that highlighted having fewer pets as a solution to diminishing our carbon footprint.
The study was sponsored by the British activist group Optimum Population Trust, which advocates reductions in the number of domestic animals.
“More pets equal more carbon dioxide emissions,” blogged Revkin. “And recent research has resulted in renewed coverage of the notion that one of the cheapest ways to curb emissions in coming decades would be to provide access to sterilization for tens of millions of animals around the world.
“I recently raised the question of whether this means we’ll soon see a market in pet-avoidance carbon credits similar to efforts to sell CO2 credits for avoiding deforestation,” he later added. “This is purely a thought experiment, not a proposal.”
Furthermore, he blogged: “But the issue is one that is rarely discussed in climate treaty talks or in debates over United States climate legislation. If anything, the poverty-climate question is more pressing in the United States than in developing countries, given the high per-capita carbon dioxide emissions here and the increase in the number of domestic pets. If giving owners an incentive to limit the number of pets is such a cheap win for emissions, why isn’t it in the mix?”
Monday, October 19, 2009
By Edwin Mora
Washington (CNSNews.com) – Andrew Revkin, who reports on environmental issues for The New York Times, floated an idea last week for combating global warming: Give carbon credits to couples that limit themselves to having one pet.
Revkin later told CNSNews.com that he was not endorsing the idea, just trying to provoke some thinking on the topic.
Revkin participated via Web camera in an Oct. 14 panel discussion on “Covering Climate: What’s Domesticity Got to Do With It” that was held at the Woodrow Wilson Center in Washington, D.C. The other participants on the panel were Dennis Dimick, executive editor of National Geographic, and Emily Douglas, web editor for The Nation magazine.
At the event, Revkin said: “Well, some of the people have recently proposed: Well, should there be carbon credits for a food benefit in Africa let's say? Should that be monetized as a part of something that, you know, if you, if you can measurably somehow divert poverty, say toward an accelerating decline, shouldn't there be a carbon value to that?
“And I have even proposed recently, I can't remember if it's in the blog, but just think about this: Should--probably the single-most concrete and substantive thing an American, young American, could do to lower our carbon footprint is not turning off the lights or driving a Prius, it's having fewer pets, having fewer animals to feed," said Revkin.
“So should there be, eventually you get, should you get credit--If we're going to become carbon-centric--for having a one-pet family when you could have had two or three," said Revkin. "And obviously it's just a thought experiment, but it raises some interesting questions about all this.”
When CNSNews.com later followed up with questions about his comments, Revkin responded in an e-mail.
“I wasn't endorsing any of this, simply laying out the math and noting the reality that if one were serious about the poverty-climate intersection, it'd be hard to avoid asking hard questions about USA discretionary spending,” wrote Revkin.
“By raising the notion of carbon credits for, say, single-pet American families,” he continued, “I was aiming to provoke some thinking about where the brunt of emissions are still coming from on a per-capita basis.”
In a Sept. 19, 2009 blog entry, “Is sterilisation the Ultimate Green-Technology?” Revkin cited an August 2009 study by the London School of Economics that highlighted having fewer pets as a solution to diminishing our carbon footprint.
The study was sponsored by the British activist group Optimum Population Trust, which advocates reductions in the number of domestic animals.
“More pets equal more carbon dioxide emissions,” blogged Revkin. “And recent research has resulted in renewed coverage of the notion that one of the cheapest ways to curb emissions in coming decades would be to provide access to sterilization for tens of millions of animals around the world.
“I recently raised the question of whether this means we’ll soon see a market in pet-avoidance carbon credits similar to efforts to sell CO2 credits for avoiding deforestation,” he later added. “This is purely a thought experiment, not a proposal.”
Furthermore, he blogged: “But the issue is one that is rarely discussed in climate treaty talks or in debates over United States climate legislation. If anything, the poverty-climate question is more pressing in the United States than in developing countries, given the high per-capita carbon dioxide emissions here and the increase in the number of domestic pets. If giving owners an incentive to limit the number of pets is such a cheap win for emissions, why isn’t it in the mix?”
Comment