VW to Offset One Year of Carbon Emissions for Each New VW Sold in US through End of Year
30 August 2007
Volkswagen of America has partnered with Carbonfund.org to offset one year of carbon emission from each new Volkswagen vehicle sold in the US from 1 September 2007 through 2 January 2008.
Working with Carbonfund.org, a non-profit carbon offset company, Volkswagen plans to reforest land in the Lower Mississippi Alluvial Valley (LMAV) in Northern Louisiana, a wetland ecosystem that had been largely converted to farmland. The total carbon reduction is estimated at more than 372,000 tons of carbon dioxide from the planting of over 250,000 native trees in the Volkswagen Forest.
The climate, soils, and growing conditions in the LMAV result in carbon absorption rates that are among the highest of any region in the United States, according to the partners: 450 tons of carbon dioxide per acre, compared to 170 tons per acre in comparable projects world wide.
In addition to this carbon offset program, Volkswagen has also partnered with Carbonfund.org to offset carbon emissions at a vehicle test drive program at the Teva Mountain Games and for an upcoming “Clean Diesel Tour” promoting the upcoming Jetta Tier 2 Bin 5 diesel (earlier post) and VW’s alternative fuel strategy.
In addition to enlarging the carbon sink, the project restores native trees to habitat, provides food for local wildlife, reclaims barren pastureland and increases water security.
We developed this partnership to help bring our customers to the forefront of environmental initiatives. Vehicles are an important and necessary part of our society, but there are actions we can all take to help ensure a cleaner environment for future generations. We hope that Volkswagen’s investment will serve as a catalyst to involve our owners and create awareness beyond our defined contribution.
—Adrian Hallmark, executive vice president, Volkswagen of America
Consumer offsets. Consumer carbon offsets have been criticized as a modern form of indulgence, or as a way to avoid making more substantive changes. Terrapass, one of the older companies in this still young space of providing consumer carbon offsets, recently surveyed its customers to gauge their environmental habits.
Our survey results are striking, if perhaps unsurprising: it turns out that anyone willing to voluntarily fund clean energy is someone looking for as many ways as possible to reduce his impact. TerraPass customers are way greener than the average US citizen.
—Tom Arnold, Chief Environmental Officer, Terrapass
Results from the TerraPass customer survey include:
26% of TerraPass customers take public transportation to work—more than 5 times the national average.
24% of Terrapass customers bike to work, 22 times the national average.
64% of customers have installed compact fluorescent light bulbs.
16% drive hybrids, about 7 times the national average.
50% of TerraPass customers have contacted an elected representative about climate change.
69% support nonprofit environmental groups.
6% have home solar panels—200 times the national average
The TerraPass survey went out to 11,000 purchasing TerraPass members in June 2007. The total response rate of n=2,059 corresponds to a +/- 2.1% confidence interval at a 95% confidence level.
Ok, +1 for VW for trying and +1 for Carbonfund for the work they do.
However, how does planting trees on some of the most fertile cropland on the Planet make sence. I mean, is'nt there CO2 eating green stuff already being farmed on that land. Do the trees eat that much more CO2 than the crops do? Are you not reducing the food supply by doing this?
Why not plant trees on barren land that is NOT being used to feed us!
Posted by: Joseph | 30 August 2007 at 11:01 AM
Joseph, I think the point you are making extends to biofuels as well. It seems that a lot of assumptions are being made when people claim a particular biofuel is carbon neutral. What was growing on the land before the biofuel, and what was it used for? How much carbon was the previous plant life sequestering into the soil as opposed to the GHGs emitted by the rotting biomass? Most situations certainly seem better from a CO2 perspective than burning fossil fuels, but how often is the use of biofuel truly carbon neutral? I've read that some pathways even purport to be carbon negative, which would certainly be nice.
Posted by: Bob Bastard | 30 August 2007 at 12:57 PM
So we buy more cars and create a significant carbon spike from the cars and the trees until they mature. Hell, if the carbon released in planting them is more than what they'll eventually sequester, it's a total loss no matter what. Given how some of the positive feedback loops from the decrease in albedo near the poles and increase in the release of methane from thawing land are going, I would say this will either do next to nothing, or make the situation slightly worse.
Posted by: yesplease | 30 August 2007 at 02:13 PM
Mostly I'm stunned that only 64% of the people buying carbon offsets have installed compact fluorescent light bulbs. This number absolutely should be 100%. It's hard to think of anything simpler and easier to do, with less compromise of the western lifestyle, and it even saves you money at the same time. That and the other descriptions make me think these are "feel good" types who in many cases (at least 36%) don't actually know or care about doing simple, meaningful changes. I wonder how many of them drive a hybrid only when they aren't driving their Porsche or LX470.
I would also ask - assuming carbon offsets actually do what they advertise, wouldn't it be more environmental to forego purchase of a new vehicle and spend the entire amount on carbon offsets? Or, perhaps, buy the base model Civic and spend the difference between that and a Passat TDI on offsets?
Posted by: Zach | 30 August 2007 at 02:31 PM
Joseph asks
However, how does planting trees on some of the most fertile cropland on the Planet make sence. I mean, is'nt there CO2 eating green stuff already being farmed on that land. Do the trees eat that much more CO2 than the crops do? Are you not reducing the food supply by doing this?
Not much detail, which is unfortunate because details count. As far as crops go, they are generally harvested in a year and consumed (turned back to CO2). They also require fossil fuel inputs for fertilizer, plowing, harvesting, etc. The trees in this case would be planted and pretty much left alone, so there is no need for upkeep and the trees would sequester carbon for decades to centuries, not a single year as crops would.
As far as food concerns go, may be an issue if we are short of it (I don't know what was planted there). It appears to have been originally wetland, however, and if it reverts to that it would also be valuable for mitigating floods and the further loss of wetlands at the delta.
Posted by: dt | 30 August 2007 at 04:11 PM
I can believe that returning farmland to native forest/wetland will sequester carbon for a while. But when the forest eventually reaches maturity, it will give up as much through rotting biomass as it takes in, unless that biomass is buried permanently somehow.
Forests are nice, however, and restoring wetland is a good thing in general (wildlife habitat, flood control, water quality, etc. etc.) None the less, I don't see this as a long-term solution for reducing our carbon footprint.
Posted by: Nick | 30 August 2007 at 05:19 PM
I think the best thing to do regarding vegetation and climate change is to leave it alone in the first place unless absolutely necessary.
Posted by: yesplease | 30 August 2007 at 06:19 PM
Planting tees are best thing to absorb carbon dioxide.it can be wronged.
Posted by: mercedes shock | 30 August 2007 at 10:13 PM
Nick says:
I can believe that returning farmland to native forest/wetland will sequester carbon for a while. But when the forest eventually reaches maturity, it will give up as much through rotting biomass as it takes in, unless that biomass is buried permanently somehow.
It is sequestered for as long as the wetland/forest remains. It is only a sink as it grows toward maturity. At maturity it no longer sequesters more (except for burial, which in a wetland would be significant, in a forest much slower) but the mass of wood and litter remains a carbon reservoir. If we were to log or farm that land, however ...
Wetlands will continue to sink carbon for as long as they last. That carbon ends up as peat, and if conditions are right eventually coal. In the process they will generate more methane than forest, but will also sink more carbon than forest. (For farmland, the GHG issues are CO2 and N2O from denitrification of fertilizer).
Posted by: dt | 31 August 2007 at 08:27 AM
dt:
I agree with your points, and I think re-forestation is a good thing. But how much permanent forest/carbon reservoir would need to be created each year to balance the amount of fossil carbon we take out of the ground and put into the air? (Perhaps someone has those figures handy.) I'm guessing that reforestation is like trying to backfill an expanding open-pit coal mine with a teaspoon.
Posted by: Nick | 31 August 2007 at 09:39 AM
To whom it May concern,
We are high tech petroleum CNG maintenance company in Pakistan. We have very cost effective spare parts with rebuilding your CNG compressor mobile facilty for Pakisan wide services.
Posted by: abbashir | 01 September 2007 at 08:10 PM
Nick said:
But how much permanent forest/carbon reservoir would need to be created each year to balance the amount of fossil carbon we take out of the ground and put into the air?
More than I suspect we're willing to give up. No single thing will be enough without serious cutbacks in carbon emission. Details are short on this particular proposal, but from here it looks like a worthwhile effort.
Posted by: dt | 02 September 2007 at 10:37 AM
As long as the forest is growing, carbon is sequestered. When within a few decades, carbon sequestration stagnates, it will be rather easy to take out the wood and carbonize it (actually, it is already easy). the charcoal can be thrown back into the woods (=good fertiliser). the CO2 can be geologically sequestered and the H2 can be used. This way we can sequester carbon temporary today the easy and cheap way, and in the future sequester this carbon permanently. If we would want to, we could do this on a large scale today also. grown-up woods can not be considered a carbon sink, since an equal amount of wood is converted to CO2 as CO2 is converted to wood. But if we would 'harvest' trees (or dead wood) ecologically and carbonize them, also mature woods could be used as carbon sinks. (wood + heat --> charcoal + syngass --> charcoal + biofuel). Return the charcoal to the woods, sell the biofuel to pay for the work.
Posted by: | 02 September 2007 at 10:59 AM