 |
TerraPass sweeps the OscarsUpdate: if you’re looking to purchase your own year of carbon neutral living, you can find it here. Be forewarned: this is a luxury item with a luxury price. Tonight was a big night for us. The environment was the unofficial theme of tonight’s Oscars, and TerraPass was able to play a small part.
A little back story. If you’re even moderately pop culturally aware, you’re probably acquainted with gift bags that are given each year to the presenters and performers at the Academy Awards. Over the years, the media attention lavished on the gift bags have turned them into a major marketing vehicle, as luxury retailers compete for a piece of the limelight. The media weren’t the only ones paying attention. As the value of the gift bags — stuffed with offers of exotic vacations, jewelry, cars, and the like — approached $100,000, the IRS took notice as well. The Academy decided this year to get rid of the gift bags. They had outlived their usefulness as a means of expressing gratitude — nothing says thank you like a massive tax bill. This is where TerraPass comes in. Looking for a more restrained token of appreciation in keeping with the spirit of the evening, the Academy decided to give each presenter and performer a year of carbon neutral living. The gift consists of a glass sculpture from designer Simon Pearce and 100,000 lbs of CO2 reductions from TerraPass. Because we’re kind of hung up on the conservation thing, we also made sure to slip a conservation handbook into the gift box. Check it out (pdf). I will confess that I usually can’t make it through much of the Oscar show. I’m just too fidgety for awards ceremonies. But the show does take on a surprising element of drama when you realize that every presenter and performer will be receiving a TerraPass. James Bond has a TerraPass. Spiderman has one too. So does Wolverine. And Batman (#3). We’ve even got Daredevil, but I’m pretty sure no one saw that movie. Half of the cast of Anchorman has a TerraPass (Will Ferrell, Steve Carell, & Jack Black). Dirty Harry’s got his. So do J Lo and Ben Affleck. Al Gore! Jack Nicholson! Francis Ford Coppola! The list goes on. In fact, here it is. Happy gawking.
Comments
Post a comment |
|
About Us | Press | FAQ | Site map | Contact us | Jobs| Privacy policy | Terms & conditions | Customer service | Logos & badges © 2004-2009, TerraPass Inc. All rights reserved. TerraPass is a trademark of TerraPass Inc.
|
That is awesome! Hopefully this will raise even more awareness and they will hopefully buy renewals next year!
Reply
We are home builders and residential land developers in the Washington Metro Area. While we have a great environmental record, we could do even more. How can we use Terrapass for our new home communities. Can we buy credits for our communities?
Bob
Look up www.Augustinehomes.com
Reply
Bravo!
What an awesome idea to donate 100,000 lbs of CO2 reductions. Let's hope all these people carry on their own and pass along their knowledge to all of their family and friends.
Reply
While it might be nice for some to read about "stars" who have TerraPasses, aren't we missing the point? We should be purchasing the passes for more altruistic reasons than to be grouped with "famous people" who were gifted the passes.
Reply
You forgot Clive Owen in your list. He was a presenter. Star of "Children of Men" and nominee for "Closer"!!!
Reply
Adam,
You guys never cease to amaze me. Thank you for what you do in the world. I never watch the Oscars, but I certainly would have if I knew something so meaningful was happening under the spotlights.
Alon
Reply
Congratulations on getting famous. I wouldn't watch the Oscars if you paid me, but was there any mention of the passes to the audience? Did the folks at home hear all about it?
Reply
What wonderful news! The TerraPass is a way to fund our future survival. You are now in the limelight of those with lots of cash to help save the planet
I was at a Dr. David Suzuki venue, and we cheered when we got the news that Mr. Al Gore won! I was disappointed when I heard he would not go for the oval office.
I do respect his decision and hope he at least offers major advice to the democratic party! Go Democrats! Go Gore!
Reply
I like the book. It's accessible enough that it could apply to almost any upper-class community in America, but at the same time, it doesn't suggest that Nicole Kidman should carpool.
Also, I get the feeling that, at least where climate change is concerned, some of these celebs are speaking out of that most nefarious of body cavities; your booklet provides some useful facts, without becoming a mind-numbing melange of statistics.
Reply
I'm so thrilled that the Oscar's took a GREEN turn this year! Congrats TerraPass for your contribution to "wake up" the masses!
Reply
Very nice work. The handbook emphasizing conservation is especially cool. A coup for TerraPass and the environment.
Reply
Good job!! You should be proud of your organizations hard work. You can see the passion in your website!!
Reply
We shifted to CFL's in every light fixture that would accept the base (39). The bulbs were very inexpensive in packs of 4 at Home Depot. We cut all our timers on all outside lights to a minimum and we added attic insulation to bring house up to R-38. Got a new refrig that cut energy 1/3. We restrict our car use as much as we can and don't do single trips. We signed on to TERRAPASS to cover both cars and the house. I would like to invest in a windmill in another area as we can't place here, just don't know where to find out about something like that.
Reply
Nice!
Reply
By the way, congratulations on the great news with the Oscars! Great great work.
Reply
Say Adam, did you happen to see the story that's hitting several web sites today? http://www.tennesseepolicy.org/main/article.php?article_id=367
Tennessee Policy is claiming that Al Gore uses more then 20 times the energy then the national average. Can we get to the bottom of this? Is there anyway to really find out what Al Gores personal carbon footprint is?
thank you,
MNWalleye carbon footprint 6.45
Reply
At last, just plain good sense in an industry that is famous for so much bling & infamous for its lack of being grounded in the real world. Kudos to TerraPass for being centrally involved, Adam!
Gore's more responsible for the sea change that has brought global warming to the main stage than anyone. He should definitely stay away from the rip-you-apart world of politics now that he has found his true calling & has won such success. A President must be a multitasker & a delegator. Al needs to stay full time with what he does best, preserving & building on the reputation that he has achieved. He will certainly have the (Democratic) President's ear. Keeping this position of respect is immensely important. He could eclipse even David Suzuki in terms of effecting change globally.
P.S. Gore's total carbon footprint, without his TerraPass considered, might be large since he's so wealthy, but the end educational effect & ultimate carbon reduction is worth it many times over, I'm sure. I can't imagine that Gore doesn't do things as carbon sensitively as possible. Smacks of the Republican attack on Kerry's Swiftboat experience.
Reply
Pss on Gore's electricity use:
I've asked Tennessee Policy whether any Gore business operations are run from his home (a la G.W. Bush running the country from "his" home). This could account for a large energy use, since Gore is such a successful businessman, in addition to his global warming awareness work. Big business doesn't happen without power use. Also, as Adam says, he compensates by being a TerraPass customer.
Reply
I didn't realize this years oscar gift was so green! I'm not the only one who believe it's still cheaper to preserve this planet than figure out how to find and populate another one...Dave
Reply
Taking into account how much Mr. Gore preaches about saving the environment, there's no excuse for him to use as much electricity in one month as the average American does in one year...in his 20 room Tennessee mansion. He needs to step up and be an example...not a hypocrite.
Reply
If you can't dispute the message, defame the messenger. Gore's personal behavior (for which I'm sure there's a rational explanation) doesn't change his message; he could be the sole shareholder in TXU, but if his arguments are supported by research, they're still valid.
Still, the article appears to be attacking Gore not only for his electricity usage, but also just for finding financial success. I presume that they do that to (a) call him a hypocrite, and (b) perpetuate the image of the "liberal elite," who... somehow... hate success at the same time. (How do these peoples' heads not explode from the self-contradictory nonsense they churn out?)
Reply
Excellent job gentlemen and gentlewomen at Terra Pass!
Reply
"As soon as the coin in the coffer rings, the soul from purgatory springs." - Martin Luther
I don't think I can afford your special environmental dispensation.
My strong divisive opinion must be your insult, else you wouldn't have deleted the previous post.
Reply
Ooops looks like we have a whole lot of Hypocrite deniers amounst us. Sorry but it DOES matter what Al Gore's energy use is if he is preaching for everyone else to cut back.
At the Oscars, "It's not hard as you might think" when talking about being green by Al Gore. We'll yea thats true if you have enough money to pay your conscience clear. Someone mentioned Al Gore uses Terrapass? if so how much? Lets walk the walk and put our carbon footprints out there along with Al Gores and the rest of the Hollywood bunch out there. Why does the Hollywood crowd need free offsets? Gads don't these people have enough already?
Lets see, my own personal energy bill for Jan 07;
24.3 Kwh per day, 3.6 gas therms per day, billing cycle, 32 days, average temp 24 degrees. 3- people, 1,400 sq ft house.
No shrill for the oil companies but if I was, I would proudly name an oil carrier after him.
take care,
MNWalleye
6.45
Reply
Let me get this straight. People come here to buy "Carbon credits." The money from selling these "carbon credits" goes towards green technology, such as that being developed, marketed and sold by TerraPass' sister companies. TerraPass and her sister companies are owned by GreenSwitch Corporation, a private, for profit corporation.
Isn't this kind of like sending money to the Hershey Corporation just because you like chocolate? You aren't really getting anything for your money. The companies the monies go to would be doing the same thing anyway. TerraPass sales are just to fatten the bottom line for GreenSwitch Corporation and its shareholders. Why wouldn't I take the same money and purchase shares of GreenSwitch Stock instead? At least that way I would get a share of the profits in exchange for the money I pumped into the company.
And what does it mean to "donate" these carbon credits to the celebrities anyway? I mean, does that mean that someone else is foolishly throwing a ton of money into these companies without getting anything back? Or is it just free advertising for TerraPass to sell more of these environmental indulgences?
Reply
I am fed up with celebs who just "talk green". Is anyone other than maybe Ed Begley,Jr (God bless him!) giving up their private limos or jets? How about the huge mansions with pools, fountains, well watered lawns, etc. How much electricity does it take to power a Hollywood neighborhood? And the Clothes! Talk about conspicuous (sp?) consumption!
Reply
I count 52 names there (not that Jaden Smith really needs his own Terrapass...). That is a lot of carbon offset. Exactly how much wind power in Oklahoma will be generated by the "wind" power of the Oscars?
Reply
I just don't understand how so many bright educated people are paying money to get carbon credits, when all you have to do is send your money directly to the company's that are doing the work. Am I missing something, or is Terrapass just accepting money for these company's and taking some to promote this carbon credit thing.
Reply
common sense --
Your characterization of TerraPass is inaccurate. To begin with, TerraPass is not owned by GreenShift. GreenShift is a venture capital firm with a small minority ownership stake in TerraPass. TerraPass does not do business with any other companies that GreenShift has a stake in (although there would be nothing inherently wrong with such relationships, as long as we are delivering the promised value to our customers).
TerraPass customers do get something when they make a purchase: they get a verified, measurable reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. This is not something you can easily put in your pocket, but the value is very real for those of us concerned about global warming.
Contrary to your claim, the reductions would not have happened in the absence of the purchase of carbon credits. That is the entire purpose of high-quality carbon credits -- they fund reductions that would not happened otherwise.
Investing in the stock of renewable energy companies is also a perfectly fine thing to do, but it is a different thing entirely from purchasing carbon offsets. Investing in stock does not bring about direct reductions in greenhouse gas emissions.
Reply
Anonymous --
It isn't possible for people to buy carbon offsets directly from projects at the small purchase volume that makes sense for individuals. A Road TerraPass costs from $30 to $80. You couldn't, for example, find a dairy farmer in the Midwest capable of handling transactions at this level to fund his methane digester.
So one of the main functions TerraPass performs is helping to create a retail market. The other major function is verification and quality control. There are a lot of renewable energy projects out there, but not all of them are suitable sources of carbon credits. TerraPass puts an enormous amount of effort into finding quality reductions and verifying that our members' funds are put to appropriate use.
Reply
[quote]Your characterization of TerraPass is inaccurate. To begin with, TerraPass is not owned by GreenShift. GreenShift is a venture capital firm with a small minority ownership stake in TerraPass. [/quote]
Fair enough, but please enlighten us, what is the percentage of TerraPass that is owned by Greenshift?
[quote]TerraPass does not do business with any other companies that GreenShift has a stake in (although there would be nothing inherently wrong with such relationships, as long as we are delivering the promised value to our customers).[/quote]
So where do you get your carbon credits? The attestation report on the website merely states that you acquired the credits, it does not give any detail as to who they were acquired from.
[quote]TerraPass customers do get something when they make a purchase: they get a verified, measurable reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. [/quote]
Where do these reductions in greenhouse gas emissions come from? Don't they come from companies that are developing, marketing, and selling energy obtained via "green technologies"? Wouldn't these companies be doing the exact same thing, even if nobody ever purchased a single "carbon credit"? I mean, there is going to be a huge financial windfall for the companies that develop the next big energy source.
Look, I ride my bike to work. Isn't this whole carbon credit scheme the same as say ... having someone who drives to work pay me because I ride my bike to work (which I would do anyway), just to assuage their guilty conscience? Riding my bike to work already provides inherent benefits (saving gas money, saving wear and tear on my car, providing me with exercise, etc), the only purpose behind someone paying me to ride my bike to work is to assuage their own guilty conscience over driving themselves to work.
[quote]That is the entire purpose of high-quality carbon credits — they fund reductions that would not happened otherwise.[/quote]
So the companies that are generating the "carbon credits" would not be conducting the research and development of new technologies? They wouldn't still be selling the energy they are currently selling? They wouldn't still be trying to find the next big marketable energy source? And even if they didn't, wouldn't some other enterprising company step up to take their place?
Anonymous:
[quote]Am I missing something, or is Terrapass just accepting money for these company's and taking some to promote this carbon credit thing.[/quote]
You're not missing a thing. That is exactly what is going on here.
Oh, by the way, if anyone does want to assuage their guilty conscience for driving to work, let me know. I will gladly accept payment for riding my bike to work.
Reply
common sense --
This entire web site is devoted to answering the questions that you are posing. Here is a complete list of the projects that TerraPass has purchased carbon credits from:
http://www.terrapass.com/projects/portfolio.html
Our project pages also describe the types of projects we invest in and how the reductions are achieved:
http://www.terrapass.com/projects
Carbon credits are not derived from research and development projects. They are derived from renewable energy or greenhouse gas abatement projects, and specifically from projects whose financing is dependent on the revenue stream from the credits. For example, super-regulatory landfill methane flaring projects make up 1/3 of TerraPass' portfolio. The only revenue stream from these projects is carbon credits, which means that no "enterprising company" is going to pursue these reductions in the absence of offsets.
The issue that you are referring to is called additionality, and it has been discussed extensively on this site and elsewhere. For example:
http://www.terrapass.com/terrablog/posts/2006/11/some-thoughts-on-additionality.html
Reply
Adam,
Thank you for the links. I will read up on what is posted there, as well as continue to research for myself.
Reply
Hey webmaster, you took down my opposing thoughts. Sigh..Another Orwellian liberal.
Reply
Adam,
Could you elaborate on the landfill gas-flaring projects? Is it simply burning the methane generated by landfills with no energy conversion or use of the waste heat? Thanks.
Reply
I was appalled when I viewed a recent TV news story "exposing" Al Gore's high use of energy for his home. At the end of this story, the reporter added (most nonchalant) that he was doing Co2 offsets. Can't the newspeople report the news from the positive, i.e. the fact that he is OFFSETTING his use, rather than the quantity of his use?
It takes a lot of 'power' to SAVE THE PLANET!
Reply
We should be applauding ANY and ALL incremental changes. Even if he uses 20x the "norm" - atleast he is buying the offsets. Is there room for improvement - absolutely.
Do I think Nichole Kidman should carpool? Do I think Al Gore should get a smaller home so he uses less energy? Nope. That's called class warfare. You cannot tell another person what they should do with their lifestyle. We should only encourage incremental change.
When the "Green Community" attacks someone that takes a positive step, it turns people off to the cause. We need to stop this damaging behavour. Why attack our own troops? Applaud their change, shine a spotlight on their actions and encourage them to make more, small steps in the right direction. They get it. They're making a difference.
Reply
I want to congratulate the owners of TerraPass - WOW making money from the fools in hollywood that believe that this is a good thing...you guys are amazing!!! Keep up the good work and enjoy capitalism at is best.
Reply
I want to congratulate the owners of TerraPass - WOW making money from the fools in hollywood that believe that this is a good thing
That's not a very nice thing to say, especially when you present nothing to back it up. The scientific community has presented a mountain of findings that say we need to reduce pollution. TerraPass offers a cheap market-based solution (meaning that you don't have to pay for it if you don't like the concept), and has an independent audit that says that their solution works. So you counter with... name calling?
-- A.
Reply
Aaron, you are right...I am sorry if I insulted you. Go ahead and buy tons of TerraPasses...I am sure the owners of TerraPass and the hollywood "elite" will thank you for it...after all it's your money :-)
PS... I have enviromentally clean ocean front property in Arizona...in case you are interested?
{ED Note: As part of the Gore slam tactics, we're getting more than the average amount of trolls. I'll leave this up, but my advice is to ignore}
Reply
Keep up the good work guys. As furniture retailers, we demand a lot of freight trucks to deliver our products. We just signed up to TerraPass as our first step to protecting the environment.
Carlos
www.RusticDirect.com
Reply
How were these gifts of Terrapasses to the Hollywood stars paid for? Hopefully not from my carbon credit purchases.
Reply
The Academy paid for the carbon. These were a gift from the Aacademy, not from TerraPass.
Reply
Eight Reasons Why ‘Global Warming’ Is a Scam
January 23, 2007 — budsimmons
Eight Reasons Why ‘Global Warming’ Is a Scam
Written By: Joseph L. Bast
Published In: Heartlander
Publication Date: February 1, 2003
Publisher: The Heartland Institute
When Al Gore lost his bid to become the country’s first “Environment President,” many of us thought the “global warming” scare would finally come to a well-deserved end. That hasn’t happened, despite eight good reasons this scam should finally be put to rest.
It’s B-a-a-ck!
Similar scares orchestrated by radical environmentalists in the past–such as Alar, global cooling, the “population bomb,” and electromagnetic fields–were eventually debunked by scientists and no longer appear in the speeches or platforms of public officials. The New York Times recently endorsed more widespread use of DDT to combat malaria, proving Rachel Carson’s anti-pesticide gospel is no longer sacrosanct even with the liberal elite.
The scientific case against catastrophic global warming is at least as strong as the case for DDT, but the global warming scare hasn’t gone away. President Bush is waffling on the issue, rightly opposing the Kyoto Protocol and focusing on research and voluntary projects, but wrongly allowing his administration to support calls for creating “transferrable emission credits” for greenhouse gas reductions. Such credits would build political and economic support for a Kyoto-like cap on greenhouse gas emissions.
At the state level, some 23 states have already adopted caps on greenhouse gas emissions or goals for replacing fossil fuels with alternative energy sources. These efforts are doomed to be costly failures, as a new Heartland Policy Study by Dr. Jay Lehr and James Taylor documents. Instead of concentrating on balancing state budgets, some legislators will be working to pass their own “mini-Kyotos.”
Eight Reasons to End the Scam
Concern over “global warming” is overblown and misdirected. What follows are eight reasons why we should pull the plug on this scam before it destroys billions of dollars of wealth and millions of jobs.
1. Most scientists do not believe human activities threaten to disrupt the Earth’s climate. More than 17,000 scientists have signed a petition circulated by the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine saying, in part, “there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate.” (Go to www.oism.org for the complete petition and names of signers.) Surveys of climatologists show similar skepticism.
2. Our most reliable sources of temperature data show no global warming trend. Satellite readings of temperatures in the lower troposphere (an area scientists predict would immediately reflect any global warming) show no warming since readings began 23 years ago. These readings are accurate to within 0.01ºC, and are consistent with data from weather balloons. Only land-based temperature stations show a warming trend, and these stations do not cover the entire globe, are often contaminated by heat generated by nearby urban development, and are subject to human error.
3. Global climate computer models are too crude to predict future climate changes. All predictions of global warming are based on computer models, not historical data. In order to get their models to produce predictions that are close to their designers’ expectations, modelers resort to “flux adjustments” that can be 25 times larger than the effect of doubling carbon dioxide concentrations, the supposed trigger for global warming. Richard A. Kerr, a writer for Science, says “climate modelers have been ‘cheating’ for so long it’s almost become respectable.”
4. The IPCC did not prove that human activities are causing global warming. Alarmists frequently quote the executive summaries of reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a United Nations organization, to support their predictions. But here is what the IPCC’s latest report, Climate Change 2001, actually says about predicting the future climate: “The Earth’s atmosphere-ocean dynamics is chaotic: its evolution is sensitive to small perturbations in initial conditions. This sensitivity limits our ability to predict the detailed evolution of weather; inevitable errors and uncertainties in the starting conditions of a weather forecast amplify through the forecast. As well as uncertainty in initial conditions, such predictions are also degraded by errors and uncertainties in our ability to represent accurately the significant climate processes.”
5. A modest amount of global warming, should it occur, would be beneficial to the natural world and to human civilization. Temperatures during the Medieval Warm Period (roughly 800 to 1200 AD), which allowed the Vikings to settle presently inhospitable Greenland, were higher than even the worst-case scenario reported by the IPCC. The period from about 5000-3000 BC, known as the “climatic optimum,” was even warmer and marked “a time when mankind began to build its first civilizations,” observe James Plummer and Frances B. Smith in a study for Consumer Alert. “There is good reason to believe that a warmer climate would have a similar effect on the health and welfare of our own far more advanced and adaptable civilization today.”
6. Efforts to quickly reduce human greenhouse gas emissions would be costly and would not stop Earth’s climate from changing. Reducing U.S. carbon dioxide emissions to 7 percent below 1990’s levels by the year 2012–the target set by the Kyoto Protocol–would require higher energy taxes and regulations causing the nation to lose 2.4 million jobs and $300 billion in annual economic output. Average household income nationwide would fall by $2,700, and state tax revenues would decline by $93.1 billion due to less taxable earned income and sales, and lower property values. Full implementation of the Kyoto Protocol by all participating nations would reduce global temperature in the year 2100 by a mere 0.14 degrees Celsius.
7. Efforts by state governments to reduce greenhouse gas emissions are even more expensive and threaten to bust state budgets. After raising their spending with reckless abandon during the 1990s, states now face a cumulative projected deficit of more than $90 billion. Incredibly, most states nevertheless persist in backing unnecessary and expensive greenhouse gas reduction programs. New Jersey, for example, collects $358 million a year in utility taxes to fund greenhouse gas reduction programs. Such programs will have no impact on global greenhouse gas emissions. All they do is destroy jobs and waste money.
8. The best strategy to pursue is “no regrets.” The alternative to demands for immediate action to “stop global warming” is not to do nothing. The best strategy is to invest in atmospheric research now and in reducing emissions sometime in the future if the science becomes more compelling. In the meantime, investments should be made to reduce emissions only when such investments make economic sense in their own right.
This strategy is called “no regrets,” and it is roughly what the Bush administration has been doing. The U.S. spends more on global warming research each year than the entire rest of the world combined, and American businesses are leading the way in demonstrating new technologies for reducing and sequestering greenhouse gas emissions.
Time for Common Sense
The global warming scare has enabled environmental advocacy groups to raise billions of dollars in contributions and government grants. It has given politicians (from Al Gore down) opportunities to pose as prophets of doom and slayers of evil corporations. And it has given bureaucrats at all levels of government, from the United Nations to city councils, powers that threaten our jobs and individual liberty.
It is time for common sense to return to the debate over protecting the environment. An excellent first step would be to end the “global warming” scam.
Reply