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."
Taiwan’s status in the world community is experiencing something really different; it’s being treated like a normal country. And not just a “normal” country, more like a valuable, constructive, democratic and generous country. This is not simply an artifact of Taiwan’s successes in combatting the novel coronavirus. It is a new attitude, weighing Taiwan’s democracy against China’s lack of it. Before I continue, I should apologize to the readers of the Taipei Times. I have not visited Taipei since the opening of the American Institute in Taiwan’s new chancery building in Neihu last year, so I was unprepared for the photograph
At a June 12 news conference held by the Talent Circulation Alliance to announce the release of its white paper for this year, President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) emphasized that, in this era of globalization, Taiwan should focus on improving foreign language and digital abilities when cultivating talent, so that it stands out from global competitors. I suggest the government should consider building a professional translation industry. If the public believes that there is a relationship between learning English and national competitiveness, then the nation must consider the social cost of language education. This should be assessed to maximise educational effectiveness: Is
In the face of the COVID-19 crisis, cities around the world are re-evaluating the importance of accessible green spaces for the benefit of public health and well-being. However, Taiwan’s success in containing the virus might impede opportunities to transform its cities into greener, healthier and more resilient places. Urban vegetable gardens have been highlighted by community planners worldwide during this wave of the green-space movement. Such gardens help enhance food security and also mental health, which in turn fosters social resilience in local communities during lockdowns. Since 2015, Taipei has run the “garden city” program, which allocates vacant land for use as
In March 2011, then-US president Barack Obama’s director of national intelligence, James Clapper, told the US Senate Intelligence Committee that, considering both its capabilities and intent, communist China presented “the greatest mortal threat” to the US, followed by Russia. In the ensuing years, in the face of faltering US responses, China expanded and intensified its hostile actions against US interests and values. Consistent with US President Donald Trump’s call for a dramatic new approach, within months of taking office, his administration’s National Security Strategy said of China’s multidimensional assault: “China is using economic inducements and penalties, influence operations ... implied military