Hunting for a present for a pair of environmentally-sensitive newly-weds? Try this -- a "just married" voucher worth US$234 in carbon offsets.
Smaller than a toaster but more meaningful, this piece of paper will compensate for nine tonnes of perilous, climate-damaging carbon dioxide.
That is the amount of pollution that bride and groom are likely to generate by staging a wedding party with 150 guests and by taking a long-haul return flight for their honeymoon.
The voucher, launched by French firm Climat Mundi, is only one of a fast-growing array of products in the market for carbon offsets.
Put simply, carbon offsets are a form of self-imposed tax that more green-living people are contemplating, aware that their lifestyle inflicts an environmental cost that is simply not reflected in the price of fossil fuels.
Burning oil, gas and coal releases carbon dioxide, which causes solar heat to build in the atmosphere.
This greenhouse effect -- global warming -- is driving potentially catastrophic changes in the Earth's climate system. Water stress, floods, shrinking snow cover, retreating glaciers and permafrost, more powerful hurricanes and typhoons -- all these feature in the expected weather changes of the 21st century.
Carbon offsetting is a practice that dates back about a dozen years and includes among its advocates former US vice president Al Gore, maker of the Oscar-nominated global warming documentary An Inconvenient Truth.
It entails compensating for one's own unavoidable carbon dioxide pollution by investing in projects elsewhere that reduce or eliminate those emissions.
For instance, the French government, who staged last week's meeting of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), calculated that the meeting would generate 1,150 tonnes in carbon dioxide, or its equivalent in other greenhouse gases, mainly from air transport.
To help make this calculation, each of the 500 scientists attending the IPCC talks was asked to fill in a questionnaire, detailing his or her itinerary and the mode of travel.
To ensure that the meeting was "carbon neutral," France reduced 1,150 tonnes of carbon dioxide elsewhere. It is financing high-yield cooking stoves in rural Eritrea, in the Horn of Africa.
These stoves are heated by wood, the traditional fuel in Eritrea, but they are 50 percent more energy-efficient than previous models.
Corporations and individuals who want to ease carbon guilt -- or flourish green credentials -- can buy the offset through an intermediary.
Some intermediaries deal with investments in huge foreign projects, such as biogas initiatives in China aimed at weaning the world's most populous country from its dependence on coal.
Such schemes typically fall under the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) or Joint Implementation initiative of the UN's Kyoto Protocol.
Other schemes, though, are smaller, local and targeted at the individual.
For example, the CarbonNeutral Company in Britain calculates that driving a car with a petrol engine of between 1.4 and 2.0 liters for around 10,000km a year generates around two tonnes of carbon dioxide.
With a purchase of just US$29.6, the firm says, you could help plant trees in native forests in Britain that would soak up these emissions -- in effect, making your driving a zero-emissions activity.
The broadening range of offsets innovations is triggering debate about the quality of some schemes.
Earlier this month, the British government launched a consultation about standards and a code of practice as a safeguard against ripoffs or disappointment that could badly damage a promising activity.
"People need to be sure that the way they offset is actually making a difference," said Environment Secretary David Milliband.
Alister Scott, spokesman for the University of Sussex Energy Group, an independent group researching energy projects, said offsets were "well-intentioned" but variable in their effect.
The best schemes were those that built capacity -- in other words, they generated further emissions reductions in their own right.
"Simply taking a straight carbon dioxide number and thinking that you are solving the problem is a bit naive," Scott said. "It is not enough, you have to look at the question critically."
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
As Maldivian President Mohamed Muizzu’s party won by a landslide in Sunday’s parliamentary election, it is a good time to take another look at recent developments in the Maldivian foreign policy. While Muizzu has been promoting his “Maldives First” policy, the agenda seems to have lost sight of a number of factors. Contemporary Maldivian policy serves as a stark illustration of how a blend of missteps in public posturing, populist agendas and inattentive leadership can lead to diplomatic setbacks and damage a country’s long-term foreign policy priorities. Over the past few months, Maldivian foreign policy has entangled itself in playing
A group of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers led by the party’s legislative caucus whip Fu Kun-chi (?) are to visit Beijing for four days this week, but some have questioned the timing and purpose of the visit, which demonstrates the KMT caucus’ increasing arrogance. Fu on Wednesday last week confirmed that following an invitation by Beijing, he would lead a group of lawmakers to China from Thursday to Sunday to discuss tourism and agricultural exports, but he refused to say whether they would meet with Chinese officials. That the visit is taking place during the legislative session and in the aftermath