How to offset an election campaign
Yesterday Invercargill Greens candidate Craig Carson came in for a bit of stick from Kiwiblog and Whale Oil. The story goes that National MP Eric Roy is offsetting his election campaign by planting native podocarps in Invercargill’s Queen’s Park. Carson applauded that decision but said he didn’t have the time or resources to follow suit. (Incidentally Carson plants quite a few trees for Forest and Bird). Whale Oil then suggested the Greens had been caught out saying that only rich, unemployed people should/could offset carbon emissions.
It’s worth pointing out that Eric Roy and his party do not offset the emissions from their air travel. An average MP’s air travel for one year is ~15 tonnes CO2 equivalent. The Green MPs have been voluntarily reducing and offsetting these emissions out of their own pockets. National does not.
Roy states each tree will offset 250kg over its “growing life”. If that number is correct, the 20 new podocarps which will mature in 500-odd years, will take decades if not centuries to sequester anywhere near the carbon his 6 weeks of driving emits.
Planting native trees is great, especially podocarps in lowland areas, but his mistaken maths suggest the initiative is more theatre than seriousness.
Offsetting emissions is good, but it needs to be robust and the focus should be on reducing emissions where possible. Did Roy consider using a small car for the campaign would be better than a 3 litre ute? Or, even better maybe a bike?
October 2nd, 2008 at 2:32 pm
I think a bike would make it a bit tough to go the 1500km Roy intends to drive…
October 2nd, 2008 at 2:51 pm
Frog - although your arguments against National in this post are fair ones, I think you’ve missed the bigger point.
The point is that the the environmental solutions favoured by your party (such as carbon offsetting) are also said by one of your candidates to be only appropriate to adopt if you have adequate resources. This argument, reported by the Southland Times gives credence therefore to the idea that “the economy comes first, and the environment second”. For if your candidates justify not using carbon offsetting on the basis of them as individuals being too busy and not rich enough, then why would your party insist that the nation as a whole take a different stance? It seems rather hypocritical of the Greens.
Bryce
http://www.liberation.org.nz
October 2nd, 2008 at 3:04 pm
StephenR: Fair point. 1500km over six weeks is 35 kms a day, which is a lot but not unachievable. It partially depends on whether the 1500km is made up of lots of small short journeys (Invercargill is a flat cycling city with wide roads) or big long drives out to other parts of Southland. It could be that there is room for both forms of transport?
October 2nd, 2008 at 3:08 pm
Heh, 35 kms a day doesn’t leave much time for campaigning though.
October 2nd, 2008 at 3:42 pm
Depends whether you consider the cycling part of the campaigning or not
October 2nd, 2008 at 4:11 pm
Eric Roy’s photo op in the park, planting out podocarps to counter his campaigning emissions is transparent greenwash. Craig Carson ought to have opened his campaign with something like it, but the Times would have given him only a brief mention (sans photo) as is their habit. His challenge today to Roy to campaign by bicycle was covered in just that way - a tiny byline. I suggest to Craig - cycle into Roy’s Invercargill office and deliver the challenge personally (take a glove for the traditional ‘thwack’). There’s still time, Craig, to make a splash! Perhaps a cycle joust on Oreti Beach
October 2nd, 2008 at 4:14 pm
Bryce - you’ve misread the article (not your fault) Craig carson said that he hadn’t the time or resources to campaign as extensively as Roy, not that he hadn’t the time to plant a few trees. Craig will have planted more trees in his time as Forest and Bird chair than Eric Roy would ever have dreamed of planting.
October 2nd, 2008 at 5:27 pm
Would it be better if we lived in the 17th century and never went more than 50 miles from the village we were born? That would reduce our carbon emissions wouldn’t it?
Frog, you need to grow up and realise your cute idea of communist environmental nirvana isn’t gonna happen any time soon. Who knows, at the election you might not get the necessary 5% and you will be all forgotten about.
October 2nd, 2008 at 7:17 pm
Greenfly, hooray you’re back. I thought all our Southerner friends had left in some exodus together. Do you know where your neighbours Jack Humm and Fulton Long have got to?
October 2nd, 2008 at 7:33 pm
Hi Frog! Spring has kicked in in the south and that’s what’s kept me busy. I’ve been planting hedgerows of native trees over the past few weeks (that’s why I found Eric Roy’s stunt so galling or rather the media coverage thereof) Good on him for planting trees and good on him for front-footing the emissions issue (still see it as pure greenwash though
October 2nd, 2008 at 11:55 pm
Hey,he is 250 kms a day leave much time for campaigning though.
October 3rd, 2008 at 11:18 am
Come on guys , a national MP has at least aknowledged the need to off set carbon emissions, it is a start at least.
May be you guys could give a definition of the exact requirements, or level of “greenness” needed before the greenwash label can be safely be put back in the hemp sack.
It kinda seems like they’re damned if they do and damned if they don’t.
October 3rd, 2008 at 2:03 pm
hey shunda - you’re right, Eric has made the right noises here and Craig Carson did praise him for it. Eric Roy does however, continue to big-note the extraction and use of lignite from the ‘enormous Southland reserves’ along with broadcasting a resounding silence over farmers responsibility for emissions and many other true-blue causes, so his token effort at mitigation rings hollow. Do you expect the green lobby to roll over at Eric’s gimmick? We’d be a bit feeble if we did.