So the New Scientist sent me a v. nice lil package all the way from London — to celebrate the launch of its environment site. More on that later — but what really caught my eye was a fancy, beribboned envelope, as thick as a wedding invite.
Turns out that inside was a notice that the whole package from New Science had been offset by CarbonNeutral — meaning a tree in Crossroads Wood was planted on Dec. 25, 2006, on my behalf.
A second notice let me know that Crossroads Wood has lost a number of hedgerows and ponds over the years. Restoration will encourage “snipe, bluebells, bats, native black poplar and ruddy darter dragonflies back on the site.”
I sort of had mixed feelings about this fat envelope, just because it seemed so fat and heavy (it travelled over here from London), albeit with high post-consumer content. That said, it’s pretty, and I do think offsets can be part of the solution….
I’m caught between liking the prettiness of the packaging, but not liking what seems to me like overpackaging so much. It’s hard to know when to draw the line; I mean, I don’t think we should all walk around wearing smocks sans belts or jewelry for the sake of “less packaging”….
In the meantime, I’m gonna reuse the thick envelope and ribbon –
Update, 1/24/07: New Scientists makes me think long and hard about why I didn’t go into science –

hi siel
two reports on why carbon offsetting does not really work:
Larry Lohmann
“Carbon Trading – A Critical Conversation on Climate Change, Privatisation and Power”
Dag Hammarskjöld Foundation
http://www.thecornerhouse.org.uk/summary.shtml?x=544225
Kevin Smith
“The Carbon Neutral Myth – Offset Indulgences for your Climate Sins”
Transnational Institute
http://www.carbontradewatch.org/pubs/carbon_neutral_myth.pdf
Comment by Johan — April 17, 2007 @ 6:30 am