Climate Emergency

planet-of-the-humans

Planet of the Humans

Planet of the Humans is tearing through the climate activism community, spreading confusion, doubt, and even anger amongst many of the people who are interested in doing something about the climate crisis. Unfortunately, the movie is pedalling long debunked tropes about solar and renewable energy, and doesn’t add anything new to discussion of climate action at all.
The main thesis of the movie is that all climate action has been taken over by the banks and that all climate action is as destructive or more destructive than just burning fossil fuels. This is done through a strong focus on the worst form of biomass energy and sustained by using old footage from 2012 interviewing several people who don’t seem to understand how solar energy works.
There are some good points about companies pretending they’re doing something useful for the environment, but that’s called <a href="https://eco18.com/your-guide-to-greenwashing/">Greenwashing</a> and climate activists spend a lot of time and energy fighting that too.
Let’s dive into some of this to help unravel the facts from the misinformation that you’re probably wondering about after seeing this movie.

The movie repeatedly claims that solar is not powerful enough to be taken seriously.
<blockquote>
You use more fossil fuels to do this than you’re getting benefit from it. You would have been better off just burning the fossil fuels.
</blockquote>
The time it takes for a solar panel to pay back the energy used to build it is well under four years. Since it lasts three decades, it means 90 percent of the power it produces is pollution-free, compared with zero percent of the power from burning fossil fuels. &#8211; Bill McKibben
<blockquote>
Although the film was released in 2020, the solar industry it examines, whether through incompetence or venality, is from somewhere back in 2009. – Source: <a href="https://pv-magazine-usa.com/2020/04/22/new-michael-moore-film-charges-enviro-leaders-have-lost-their-way-and-sold-out-to-corporate-interests/">PV Magazine</a>
</blockquote>
This quote is talking about the part where the movie interviews some chap talking about solar panels being 8% efficient. He claims the “football field-sized” solar park they’re standing in only generates 63,000 kWh, which can “only power 10 homes a year” because they could not afford the ”NASA solar panels” which cost “$1 million dollars a square inch.” He also says they only last 10 years. There’s a lot wrong with this, so let’s unpack it all.
Standard solar panels for industrial or home usage are 15-20% efficient, not 8%. Some high end panels are 30% and <a href="https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/a32202373/solar-panel-record-efficiency/">researchers have created experimental 40% panels</a>, but 20% is probably what you’re looking at when you see the standard blueish solar panels on racks.

<table class="table" style="width: 100%; font-size: 18px;" border="0">
<tbody>
<tr style="text-align: left;">
<th>Manufacturer</th>
<th>Model</th>
<th>Rated Efficiency</th>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><a title="Sunpower Reviews" href="https://www.solarreviews.com/manufacturers/sunpower/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Sunpower X Series</a></td>
<td>SPR-X22-370</td>
<td>22.80%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><a title="REC Reviews" href="https://www.solarreviews.com/manufacturers/rec-group" target="_blank" rel="noopener">REC Solar</a></td>
<td>REC Alpha Series 380AA</td>
<td>21.70%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><a title="LG Reviews " href="https://www.solarreviews.com/manufacturers/lg-solar/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">LG Solar</a></td>
<td>High NeON R Module</td>
<td>21.70%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><a title="Canadian Solar Reviews" href="https://www.solarreviews.com/manufacturers/canadian-solar" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Canadian Solar</a></td>
<td>HiDM-345MS</td>
<td>20.46%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><a title="Panasonic reviews" href="https://www.solarreviews.com/manufacturers/panasonic-eco-solutions-north-america/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Panasonic HIT panels</a></td>
<td>N340 HIT</td>
<td>20.30%</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>

Do these ~20% panels cost $1milion a square inch? Absolutely not, that’s ridiculous. In the United States in 2019, the average rooftop installation cost $16,000 without any subsidies involved.
Ok but rooftop setups are dinky right? Well, a reasonable home roof setup in the States <a href="https://news.energysage.com/how-much-does-the-average-solar-panel-installation-cost-in-the-u-s/">might be able to generate 6,000 watts (6kW) of electricity</a>. For every one hour a 1kW solar panel has good sun, it’s generating 1 “kilowatt hour”, (1kWh).
Most of the States <a href="https://www.wholesalesolar.com/solar-information/sun-hours-us-map">get between 3.5 and 6 hours of peak sun a day</a>, so our average rooftop solar panel will be generating that full 6kW for, lets say, 5 hours.
Five hours a day, 365 days a year, would produce 1825 kWh. This is a low number, because they’ll still generate a bit outside those 5 hours, so let’s just round it to 2000. Let’s see how many homes it would take to match 63,000kWh that football field sized farm is trying to power? 63,000 kWh divided by 2000 kWh equals 32.
So back to price, 32 homes * $16,000 (average cost of a rooftop solar setup) and we’re looking at $512,000. Half a million to match the entire output of that “football solar park”, not the nonsense $1million per inch.
That town could have paid to install a few residents rooftop solar panels without needing to take up the space of a football field either.
There’s another important thing to point out if you’ve not seen the movie. For some reason the solar panels featured are old, floppy, “thin-film” panels also known as “Amorphous Silicon Solar Panels”. Their bendy nature makes them well suited for applications on curved surfaces, like the top of a train, or other places where a bulky panel wouldn’t fit. They’re a terrible choice for being put on racks like the solar park featured in this movie, but even those panels have an <a href="https://solarmagazine.com/solar-panels/">efficiency of 11-15% these days</a>.
Finally, do solar panels only last 10 years?
No.
<a href="https://www.engineering.com/DesignerEdge/DesignerEdgeArticles/ArticleID/7475/What-Is-the-Lifespan-of-a-Solar-Panel.aspx">Standard solar panels come with 20-25 year warranties</a>, so if this solar park only has a 10 year lifespan that adds more credence to the idea these panels were second hand.
There’s a few explanations for this section.
The footage is a decade or two old 
The solar park operators cheaped out, dusting off some junk old panels from some warehouse basement 
They consulted somebody to set the solar park up, who didn’t know anything about solar panels
Whatever the cause, the numbers do not hold up to 2020 standards by any means, which is awkward as this premise is used as a foundation for most of the rest of the movie.

Confusion: "100% Renewable" and "Off-Grid"

Another claim made throughout the film is that solar doesn’t work because it needs a grid connection for backup. Grid-tied solar is the most cost effective way to run solar panels because it’s using the entire grid like a giant battery. You put what solar into it that you can, put back any extra you have, and take out more if you need it.
When claims are made of being powered by “100% renewable” energy, like the Earth Day concert, <a href="https://www.apple.com/uk/newsroom/2018/04/apple-now-globally-powered-by-100-percent-renewable-energy/">Apple</a>, <a href="https://cloud.google.com/sustainability/">Google</a>, or Tesla, they are definitely still connected to the grid, and that is not inherently bad.
Take Apple as an example. All of their independent buildings around the world will not always have perfect sun conditions, but they can make sure they’re putting enough into various worldwide grids to cover the energy they’re taking out. Imagine the inefficiencies of Apple installing solar plants that are only connected to their buildings. How ridiculous would it be for every company to run their own plants, trail their own power cables past thousands of homes and factories, just to go directly into their office…
<blockquote>
The way ‘x% renewable energy’ works is companies look at how much energy they consume, and buy from the grid the same (or some percentage) quantity of energy sourced from renewables. The grid is one big pool with buckets of energy in and out. This is a revelation to the filmmakers, but a boring reality for anyone remotely familiar with the mechanics of electricity grids. – source: <a href="http://ketanjoshi.co/">ketanjoshi.co</a>
</blockquote>
You generate what solar energy you can on site, store what you have the capacity to store in batteries, then if you&#8217;re producing more than you need you can put that power back into the grid. If you&#8217;re not creating enough, you take that back from the grid.

Myth: Electric Cars are “Powered By Coal Anyway”

When the sales people are suddenly jumped with the question “where is the energy coming from to power this car” they flounder and take a few stabs at answering the question, but it’s hard to answer this sort of stuff is super nuanced.
A car can be charged in various places. Your home, which can be powered by 100% renewable electricity via providers like <a href="https://www.goodenergy.co.uk/">Good Energy</a> in the UK, at the supermarket, petrol stations, anywhere. Some of those might be using energy providers which are still powered by coal plants, so does that mean you might as well just drive a petrol car around?
No.
<blockquote>
[Scientists from the universities of Exeter, Nijmegen and Cambridge] found that in 53 out of 59 regions, comprising 95% of the world, electric vehicles and domestic heat pumps generate less carbon dioxide than fossil fuel powered cars or boilers. The only exceptions are heavily coal-dependent countries such as Poland.
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
In countries such as Sweden, which gets most of its electricity from renewable sources, and France, which is largely powered by nuclear power, *the CO2 savings from using electric cars reach as high as 70% over their conventional counterparts.
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
In the UK, the savings are about 30%. However, this is likely to improve further as electric vehicles grow even more efficient and more CO2 is taken out of the electricity generating system. – Source: <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/mar/23/electric-cars-produce-less-co2-than-petrol-vehicles-study-confirms">Guardian, “Electric cars produce less CO2 than petrol vehicles, study confirms”</a>, 2020
</blockquote>
We need to stop burning fossil fuels, but that’s harder to do when our motors literally contain combustion engines. Whilst car owners switch from fossil fuel to electric, the grid is also switching from fossil fuels to electric, so over time the exact same electric vehicle is causing fewer and fewer CO2 emissions. The same cannot be said for a conventional car. Hopefully we continue to transition towards renewable energy, but if enough policy makers are brainwashed by this movie then that could be at risk.
One legitimate problem raised in the movie is that electric cars require batteries which degrade over time. <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-019-1682-5">Lithium batteries can be recycled</a>, and before needing to be stripped for their raw components they can actually be reused as storage at solar farms to help with maintaining a baseline load to the grid. Reuse is always better than recycling, and thankfully both are possible.
<blockquote>
When the battery packs in a lithium-ion-powered vehicle are deemed too worn out for driving, they still have up to 80 percent of their charge left. So before they ever get to a recycling center, these batteries are used to prop up the grid, especially alongside energy sources that may not be quite as steady, like wind or solar power. The batteries can store power to help the flow of electricity stay on an even keel rather than ebb and flow with the weather. – Source: <a href="https://auto.howstuffworks.com/can-electric-car-batteries-be-recycled.htm">How Stuff Works</a>
</blockquote>
I’m under no illusion that we can all swap our internal combustion engine cars (ICEs) for EVs overnight, but the UK grid can handle a much quicker transition than we’re seeing. With the development of Vehicle to Grid (V2G) technology, EV drivers can actually help balance the UK grid by providing energy from their vehicle batteries to the grid at times of peak demand.  This doesn’t change the fact that the grid still isn’t green enough. In the UK we’ve <a href="http://grid.iamkate.com/">averaged 25% renewables</a> (plus 20% low carbon, excluding biomass) for the last year. Governments worldwide need to increase spending on all sorts of site-relevant renewable energy projects, but we can help flatten this curve by simply not driving as much, or at all.
One part of the movie that is fully accepted by environmental scientists and climate activists is that there’s no magical silver bullet tech here, and we cannot just all switch cars for “green cars”, we need lifestyle changes too. For example, if your household has two fossil fuel cars, the ideal solution would be to sell them both, buy one electric car if a car is absolutely needed, or get into the car sharing economy with turo, cars2go, etc. The best bet is to switch to bicycles, and if that’s not viable due to physical limitations, <a href="https://ebiketips.road.cc/content/advice/buyers-guide/9-of-the-best-e-bikes-under-1000-2020-electric-bikes-on-a-budget-2209">electric bicycles</a>, or even an <a href="https://urbanebikes.com/collections/electric-motorbikes">electric motorbike</a>, instead of needing that electric car.

image3-2

image3

<blockquote>
The mother of two uses this electric cargobike to take her children to school, go grocery shopping, and run her freelance photography business. “It can carry everything I need and go anywhere I need to go,” she says. “I also feel like we’re more part of the community, being out in the open where we can interact with the people around us.” – Source: <a href="https://blog.mozilla.org/firefox/metrofiets-cargo-bikes/">Mozilla,  Working for Good: Metrofiets Cargo Bikes</a>
</blockquote>
Fossil fuel bans are taking the worst offenders off the road (like the <a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-bristol-50292596">diesel ban in Bristol</a>), but we need to drastically speed things up. Coronavirus is pushing this change forward, with hundreds of miles of bike lanes being set up across cities like <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/apr/21/milan-seeks-to-prevent-post-crisis-return-of-traffic-pollution">Milan</a>, <a href="http://www.leparisien.fr/info-paris-ile-de-france-oise/transports/deconfinement-l-lle-de-france-investit-300-millions-d-euros-pour-la-realisation-du-rer-velo-21-04-2020-8303484.php">Paris</a>, and <a href="https://council.nyc.gov/press/2020/04/17/1939/">New York</a>, who are all keen to see less driving in general in their streets. Active transport with minimal EV usage is the way forward here, but EV’s aren’t inherently bad simply because some of their power comes from coal during the transition phase.

Myth: Solar / Renewable Has a “Huge” Carbon Footprint

An argument made over and over again throughout the movie is that solar panels and wind turbines are terrible because they require fossil fuel energy and minerals to create. Everything has a carbon footprint. The computer I’m writing on, the device you’re reading it on, the reusable coffee cup you’re drinking out of, and the <a href="https://x.ecologi.com/articles/climate-emergency/climate-change-by-bike">bike I’ve been riding around Europe on</a> advocating for climate action, all has a carbon footprint. The important question is: what are the “lifecycle emissions” of the item in question, and is there a net gain from its existence.
The concept of lifecycle emissions analysis is its own science, with people studying for years just to be able to analyze certain types of products, but let’s do a quick example with a topic close to my heart. A bicycle requires fewer emissions to create and ship than a car. Cycling around creates emissions (eating and breathing!) yet still creates fewer emissions than a car. Then, recycling a bicycle takes less energy than recycling the components in a car. Overall, the lifecycle emissions of a bicycle are a mere tiny fraction of the lifecycle emissions of a standard car.
The <a href="https://www.nrel.gov/analysis/life-cycle-assessment.html">National Renewable Energy Laboratory</a>, aggregated research into the full lifecycle of various energy sources, comparing the CO2 emissions per kilowatt-hour: an apples to apples comparison of how energy we get from each power source, compared to how much greenhouse gas was created to make it. See if you can notice a difference between renewable and fossil fuels.

image2-2

image2

This graph is a little tough to read at first, because the graph collates a whole bunch of sources for each. You can see there are 46 estimates for Photovoltaics (solar), 36 for Concentrated Solar Power (another type of solar), and 126 for Wind. The rectangles show the minimum and maximum, with the black line in the middle being the median (average). Generally, even the maximum carbon footprint for any renewable energy places it well below the most efficient gas or coal plants.
So, is renewable energy completely free of fossil fuels? Certainly not, but claims of renewable energy being “worse than fossil fuels” are demonstrably false. Patently untrue. Just completely incorrect.
You can read more about this on <a href="https://www.carbonbrief.org/solar-wind-nuclear-amazingly-low-carbon-footprints">Carbon Brief: Solar, wind and nuclear have ‘amazingly low’ carbon footprints, study finds</a>.

One claim made in this movie was from a random chap being interviewed, talking about ‘mountain-top removal’ for wind. I had to Google for a long time to find any reference of. The best I could find was this:

image1-2

image1

Mountaintop removal/valley fill is a mining practice where the tops of mountains are removed, exposing the seams of coal. Mountaintop removal can involve removing 500 feet or more of the summit to get at buried seams of coal. The earth from the mountaintop is then dumped in the neighbouring valleys. I’ve got friends who live in British Colombia, Canada, and they’ve pointed to gaps between two mountains where another mountain used to be. An entire mountain can be turned into a crater on the hunt for coal, and this is what that looks like:

image4

They’re not the same thing, and most wind farms do not require any logging. They’re placed in wide open spaces, or in the sea.
South Australia closed down its coal plant in 2016 and the state has, arguably, the country’s most reliable grid thanks to its battery storage. It is producing well in excess of 50 per cent of its electricity consumption from wind and solar, and <a href="https://reneweconomy.com.au/south-australia-could-reach-stunning-87-per-cent-wind-and-solar-in-four-years-11675/">could reach 87% in a few years</a>.
How could a country close its coal plants if it needed coal plants to always be running just in case the sun ran out or the wind stopped blowing?
Ah yes, batteries, the well known technology that the movie breezed past at a wonky rate. More batteries would help the renewable transition out a lot, but South Australia has managed to find enough to sustain a 50% renewable grid. Fingers crossed more regions and countries can catch up quick.

Population growth has been a huge problem for the planet. Of course 7.7 billion people are putting a bigger strain on the plant than the 300 million folks here 2000 years ago.
The population growth is slowing down, with the UN suggesting <a href="https://www.un.org/development/desa/en/news/population/world-population-prospects-2019.html">peak population will hit 11 billion in 2100</a>. From there, it’ll be going back down again. Those numbers are considered to be high by other sources, suggesting <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/jan/27/what-goes-up-population-crisis-wrong-fertility-rates-decline">the human population will top out between 8 and 9 billion in 2040-2050</a>, but the narrator doesn’t mention any of that.
The focus on population control touches on a whole bunch of concerning problems, because many of the countries with growing populations are much poorer. I’m not going to get into here, but… it sounds a little racist. Most of the population growth is in countries where the average person does not have a huge carbon footprint, unlike, say, the USA <a href="https://www.cnbc.com/2019/11/26/us-leads-greenhouse-gas-emissions-on-a-per-capita-basis-report-finds.html">which has one of the highest carbon footprints per-person</a>.
Either way, the best thing to do to support the number of people on the planet is to continue to switch away from land and carbon intensive diets, and continue to help provide educations in developing countries, help push women’s rights around the world, and focus on reducing the wasteful lifestyles of the people most responsible for carbon emissions.
Kenya’s average carbon footprint per person is 0.3 tonnes, and the average footprint in the US is 15 tonnes, and the UK is 10 tonnes. We don’t need to worry about Africa we need to sort things out at home.

Fact: Biomass Energy from Trees is Terrible

Various people were jumped on camera and asked to offer their position on a very nuanced topic: is biomass good or bad? Biomass is an umbrella term for “storing CO2 in biological matter” and “biomass energy” means “burning it to create electricity.”
At a very small scale, burning wood for fuel is technically carbon-neutral. If a tree falls in the forest, it will decompose, and that produces greenhouse gases (CO2 and methane). If you take it home and put it in your wood stove, it’ll release that CO2 through the process of burning instead. That checks out on paper, but of course giant power plants aren’t wandering around the woods carefully carrying small quantities of wood to a small burner. 
Most of us in the world of climate activism and environmental science absolutely agree on the negative impact of biomass power plants, and it’s devastating to see so many countries running with this as the way forward. 
Bill McKibben (the movie “baddie”): <a href="https://grist.org/climate-energy/burning-trees-for-electricity-is-a-bad-idea/">Burning Trees for Electricity is a Bad Idea</a>, 2016 
<a href="https://www.carbonbrief.org/ccc-uk-should-move-away-from-large-scale-biomass-burning">Carbon Brief: UK should ‘move away’ from large-scale biomass burning</a>, 2018 
<a href="https://www.nsenergybusiness.com/features/biomass-power-europe-coal-deforestation/">Europe urged to end coal-to-biomass subsidies over deforestation concerns</a>, 2019 
Of course, forests are not the only fuel source for a biomass energy plant, they’re just the biggest. The problem with biomass is not the idea, or that anyone ever supported it, it’s the unexpected size of the projects. <a href="https://www.drawdown.org/">Project Drawdown</a> words this rather well.
<blockquote>
Biomass energy is a “bridge” solution—one that can help the world transition from fossil-fuel power to 100 percent clean, renewable energy. Until energy storage grows and the grid becomes more flexible, it can help meet electricity demand, complementing variable wind and solar power. 
Biomass energy is a true solution only if it uses appropriate feedstock, such as waste from mills and agriculture or sustainably grown perennial crops. Using annual grain crops like corn and sorghum depletes groundwater and requires higher inputs of energy. Using native forests is nothing less than an atrocity. – source <a href="https://www.drawdown.org/solutions/biomass-power">projectdrawdown.org</a>
</blockquote>
Biomass energy was meant to be a bridge solution, not one that would continue to be invested in by major countries for decades. Converting coal plants to biomass is an expensive waste of money. Yay the coal plant is gone, but for the money spent, solar would have been a drastically better investment. Thankfully, in the UK <a href="https://www.biomass-uk.org/">biomass is only ~5% of our energy supply</a>, and I’d love to see that drop off. 
The movie, at one point, claims that Germany gets more electricity from biomass than wind and solar, but that’s not at all true. 
Biomass: 45.48 TWh 
Wind: 127.23 TWh 
Solar: 46.54 TWh 
Check the source yourself on <a href="https://energy-charts.de/energy.htm?source=all-sources&amp;period=annual&amp;year=all">energy-charts.de</a>, it’s a fraction of the overall energy use.
Ecologi hashave supported several two <a href="https://www.goldstandard.org/">Gold Standard</a> or <a href="https://verra.org/project/vcs-program/">Verified Carbon Standard</a>-backed biomass energy projects, including projects in <a href="https://x.ecologi.com/projects/biomass-power-project-raipur-india">India</a> and <a href="https://x.ecologi.com/projects/biomass-energy-generation-in-xinjiang-china">China</a> which burn rice husks, bark, dung, and other farm waste. They are smaller and designed to help rural communities which don’t have any alternatives, and clearly state their intentions to burn primarily farm waste on the Gold Standard and Verified Carbon Standard reports.
Biomass can also mean cutting down trees to build wood framed homes, which would effectively store the carbon away for decades, and compared to cement production, the footprint is far lower. In order to have enough trees to support this and to continue net growth in woodland, we need to be dedicating far more land to sustainable forest management. If we follow the UN advice of <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-02409-7">cutting our meat intake by 50%</a> (which would massively reduce greenhouse gases), we’ll have far more land for farmers to switch from beef to wood plantations, and we can drastically increase the amount of wood used for construction.
<blockquote>Shifting to a diet rich in plants is a demand-side solution to global warming that runs counter to the meat-centric Western diet on the rise globally. That diet comes with a steep climate price tag: one-fifth of global emissions. If cattle were their own nation, they would be the world’s third-largest emitter of greenhouse gases. – Source: <a href="https://drawdown.org/solutions/plant-rich-diets">Project Drawdown</a></blockquote>

The director is taking a very real issue, corporate greenwashing, and using it to make a dangerous argument. We’re all on the same team &#8211; nobody wants greenwashing. Let’s not throw out the baby with the bathwater.
Loads of major banks are “eager to get involved” or eager to look like they’re getting involved, but really they’re funnelling trillions of dollars into the fossil fuel industry. $1.9 trillion was invested from major banks around the world in 2019.

image5-2

image5

Bill McKibben, the chap who was attacked throughout the movie, is one of the folks behind <a href="https://www.stopthemoneypipeline.com/">Stop the Money Pipeline</a>, which is trying to raise awareness for the importance of divesting from these major banks.
I’ve put together a bunch of resources for <a href="https://protect.earth/finance/">climate-friendly financial options</a> for those in the US, UK, and Europe, and I’d love help expanding this out globally.
Money works in mysterious ways. What if I told you big oil and energy companies spent 3.3 billion dollars on renewable energy in 2018? I’m surprised the movie didn’t mention this, I’m sure they’d use it to suggest renewable energy is a sham, and that clearly the big oil companies are benefiting from it.
The same information presented another way?
<blockquote>
Top oil and gas companies jointly spent 1.3% percent of their 2018 budgets on clean energy. – Source: <a href="https://www.reuters.com/article/us-oil-renewables/big-oil-spent-1-percent-on-green-energy-in-2018-idUSKCN1NH004">Reuters</a>
</blockquote>
Ah, right, so… probably not some sort of evil scam, just “business as usual” from the companies shredding the natural resources of the world at our expense.
We need everyone, even big corporations, to invest in appropriate renewable energy, so let’s be vocal about how small their renewable energy investments are, and demand that they do better now.

The movie mixes some facts with a lot of fiction backed with outdated and false data to make the dangerous argument that renewable energy is inherently bad, and that the leaders of climate activism cannot be trusted. This is making people question climate action in general, which is only going to damage the entire movement.
Emily Atkin, author of the excellent newsletter <a href="https://heated.world/">Heated</a> puts it best:
<blockquote>
Planet of the Humans reminded me of an argumentative essay from a lazy college freshman—as if, after a few hours of studying, he realized there wasn’t enough evidence to support the argument he chose for the assignment. But he was so wedded to the original idea, and didn’t want to waste the hours of work he did, so he overcompensated by being an overly aggressive narrator instead of starting over with a new argument. – Source: <a href="https://heated.world/p/really-michael-moore">Heated</a>, Emily Atkin, ”Really? Micheal Moore?” 
If you’re not convinced then there are more than a few other reviews and explanations of the movie from subject matter experts.
</blockquote>
<ul>
<li class="has-line-data" data-line-start="6" data-line-end="7"><a href="https://ketanjoshi.co/2020/04/24/planet-of-the-humans-a-reheated-mess-of-lazy-old-myths/">Planet of the humans: A reheated mess of lazy, old myths</a>, Ketan Joshi</li>
<li class="has-line-data" data-line-start="7" data-line-end="8"><a href="https://www.vox.com/2020/4/28/21238597/michael-moore-planet-of-the-humans-climate-change">Michael Moore produced a film about climate change that’s a gift to Big Oil</a>, Leah Stokes</li>
<li class="has-line-data" data-line-start="8" data-line-end="9"><a href="https://cleantechnica.com/2020/05/04/michael-moores-planet-of-the-humans-traffics-in-myths-errors-dangerous-misdirection/">“Planet of the Humans” Is Full Of Myths, Errors, &amp; Dangerous Misdirection</a>, <a href="https://cleantechnica.com/">Clean Technica</a></li>
<li class="has-line-data" data-line-start="9" data-line-end="10"><a href="https://benwehrman.com/planet-of-the-humans-disaster/">6 Reasons Why “Planet of the Humans” is a Disaster of Misinformation</a>, Ben Wehrman</li>
<li class="has-line-data" data-line-start="10" data-line-end="11"><a href="https://medium.com/@btincq/10-reasons-planet-of-the-humans-gets-everything-wrong-on-climate-and-energy-400f04b3b2ee">10 Reasons « Planet of the Humans » Gets Everything Wrong on Climate</a>, <a href="https://medium.com/@btincq?source=post_page-----400f04b3b2ee----------------------">Benjamin Tincq</a></li>
<li class="has-line-data" data-line-start="11" data-line-end="12"><a href="https://www.ecoequity.org/2020/04/why-the-planet-of-the-humans-is-crap/">Why “Planet of the Humans” is crap</a>, <a href="https://www.ecoequity.org/author/tomaecoequity-org/">Tom Athanasiou</a>, <a href="https://www.ecoequity.org/">EcoEquity</a></li>
<li class="has-line-data" data-line-start="12" data-line-end="13">_Planet of the Humans _Comes This Close to Actually Getting the Real Problem, Then Goes Full Ecofascism](<a href="https://earther.gizmodo.com/planet-of-the-humans-comes-this-close-to-actually-getti-1843024329">https://earther.gizmodo.com/planet-of-the-humans-comes-this-close-to-actually-getti-1843024329</a>), Brian Kahn, <a href="https://earther.gizmodo.com/">Gizmondo</a></li>
<li class="has-line-data" data-line-start="13" data-line-end="14"><a href="https://www.thenation.com/article/environment/planet-humans-film-moore/">Meet the New Flack for Oil and Gas: Michael Moore</a>, Josh Fox, The Nation</li>
<li class="has-line-data" data-line-start="14" data-line-end="15"><a href="https://insideclimatenews.org/news/29042020/inside-clean-energy-michael-moore-planet-of-the-humans-review">Inside Clean Energy: 6 Things Michael Moore’s ‘Planet of the Humans’ Gets Wrong</a>, Dan Gearino, <a href="https://insideclimatenews.org/">Inside Climate News</a></li>
<li class="has-line-data" data-line-start="15" data-line-end="16"><a href="https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/political-commentary/bill-mckibben-climate-movement-michael-moore-993073/">A Bomb in the Center of the Climate Movement’: Michael Moore Damages Our Most Important Goal</a>, Bill McKibben, Rolling Stone</li>
<li class="has-line-data" data-line-start="16" data-line-end="17"><a href="https://blog.ucsusa.org/john-rogers/movie-review-michael-moores-planet-of-the-humans-traffics-in-myths-errors-and-dangerous-misdirection">POTH Traffics in Myths, Errors, and Dangerous Misdirection</a>, John Rogers, Union of Concerned Scientists</li>
</ul>
Main image credit: Rumble Media
&nbsp;
<a href="https://x.ecologi.com/plan">Sign up to Ecologi</a> today to start taking meaningful climate action!

Blog

carbon_compensation_vs_contribution_blog_header

Carbon_Compensation_Vs_Contribution_Blog_Header

Carbon Compensation vs. Contribution - What’s the difference?

Climate change is a topic that many of us are discussing at work each day. You may have heard terms such as ‘carbon compensation’ or ‘contribution’ being used in conversations about how to take meaningful action against climate change, but what do they actually mean, and how do they differ from one another? 
We regularly speak to businesses who have similar questions and in this guide, we’ll break it all down. Here’s a quick run-through of what we will cover:
<ul>
<li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">What are the definitions of carbon compensation and contribution?</li>
<li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">What is the purpose of each approach?</li>
<li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">What mechanisms do both approaches utilise? </li>
<li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">What types of projects do they involve?</li>
<li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">What types of certification are associated with each approach?</li>
<li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">What kind of costs are associated with each approach?</li>
<li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">What role do they play in achieving net zero?</li>
<li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">What are examples of each?</li>
</ul>

carbon_compensation_vs_contribution_blog_banner_definition

Carbon_Compensation_Vs_Contribution_Blog_Banner_Definition

<h2>Definitions of carbon compensation and contribution</h2>
 
Carbon Compensation
Carbon compensation refers to the idea of balancing out a certain amount of carbon emissions by investing in projects that prevent or remove an equivalent amount of carbon dioxide elsewhere. This tonne-for-tonne ‘balancing’ or ‘offsetting’ is compensatory.
 
Contribution
This approach focuses on separating financial contributions from any compensatory claims. Instead, it involves directing funding to projects that will support global net-zero and nature restoration – but crucially without making compensatory claims. <a href="https://www.onepercentfortheplanet.org/join?utm_feeditemid=&amp;utm_device=c&amp;utm_term=one%20percent%20for%20the%20planet&amp;utm_source=google&amp;utm_medium=ppc&amp;utm_campaign=&amp;hsa_cam=20766754741&amp;hsa_grp=155667469859&amp;hsa_mt=b&amp;hsa_src=g&amp;hsa_ad=680329727495&amp;hsa_acc=%7B8900384824%7D&amp;hsa_net=adwords&amp;hsa_kw=one%20percent%20for%20the%20planet&amp;hsa_tgt=kwd-299092657918&amp;hsa_ver=3&amp;gad_source=1&amp;gclid=CjwKCAjwooq3BhB3EiwAYqYoEs0haU6oWnJZze5_b4QrYSQvdqPvXRSRdMCOrjloCv_URVN-RaIXIBoChu8QAvD_BwE" target="_blank" rel="noopener">1% Percent For the Planet </a>is an example of this kind of scheme.

carbon_compensation_vs_contribution_blog_banner_purpose-1

Carbon_Compensation_Vs_Contribution_Blog_Banner_Purpose (1)

<h2>What is the purpose of carbon compensation and contribution</h2>
 
Carbon Compensation
Compensation is aimed at achieving a ‘carbon-neutral’ status by offsetting specific emissions through equivalent carbon reduction elsewhere.
 
Contribution
Contribution focuses on supporting and financing sustainability projects and initiatives to encourage environmental stewardship, without associating this with compensation for emissions.

carbon_compensation_vs_contribution_blog_banner_mechanism

Carbon_Compensation_Vs_Contribution_Blog_Banner_Mechanism

<h2>What mechanisms do carbon compensation and contribution utilise?</h2>
Carbon Compensation
Compensation is carbon-centric and relies on detailed measurement and verification processes to ensure that the projects avoid or remove the claimed amount of CO2. Whilst projects may have ‘co-benefits’, project quality and credit utility is predicated on whether the carbon dioxide benefit is being delivered.
 
Contribution
Contribution is not predicated on carbon dioxide. It involves making donations to strategic funds which are designed to produce a range of benefits for net-zero and nature restoration – but may not require rigorous CO2 measurement or verification, but other kinds of monitoring and reporting are essential to ensure benefits are being realised.

carbon_compensation_vs_contribution_blog_banner_projecttypes

Carbon_Compensation_Vs_Contribution_Blog_Banner_ProjectTypes

<h2>What types of projects do carbon compensation and contribution involve?</h2>
 
Carbon Compensation
Compensation is limited to projects which generate carbon credits,  typically those that are issued to an ICROA-endorsed carbon standard like Verra, Gold Standard or Puro. It includes projects such as afforestation, blue carbon removal, landfill gas, cleaner water systems and enhanced rock weathering.
 
Contribution
Contribution can include carbon credit-issuing projects but is not limited to them. Other projects that can be financed include funding for environmental research, habitat restoration, conservation programs, reforestation projects, educational initiatives, and donations to NGOs working on climate action.

carbon_compensation_vs_contribution_blog_banner_certification

Carbon_Compensation_Vs_Contribution_Blog_Banner_Certification

<h2>What type of certification is associated with carbon compensation and contribution?</h2>
 
Carbon Compensation: 
Carbon compensation requires third-party verification and certification by bodies such as the Gold Standard, Verified Carbon Standard (VCS) and Puro to ensure the credibility of carbon credits. 
 
Contribution:
Contribution typically does not require certification as it is focused on voluntary financial support for environmental causes. However, reputable organisations receiving contributions may provide transparency reports or impact statements.

carbon_compensation_vs_contribution_blog_banner_cost

Carbon_Compensation_Vs_Contribution_Blog_Banner_Cost

<h2>What kind of costs are associated with carbon compensation and contribution?</h2>
 
Carbon Compensation: 
Costs for carbon compensation vary depending on the project type and verification costs. The price per tonne of CO2 offset can differ significantly with some being much more expensive than others.
 
Contribution: 
Contribution is usually more flexible when it comes to costs. This is because the focus is on voluntary contributions towards environmental outcomes,  rather than compensating for a specific amount of emissions.

carbon_compensation_vs_contribution_blog_banner_role

Carbon_Compensation_Vs_Contribution_Blog_Banner_Role

<h2>What role do carbon compensation and contribution play in achieving net zero?</h2>
 
Carbon Compensation:
The <a href="https://sciencebasedtargets.org/net-zero" target="_blank" rel="noopener">SBTi’s Net-Zero Standard</a> specifies that businesses must achieve a minimum 90% reduction in emissions on their path to net-zero &#8211; at which point a compensatory approach can be applied for the remaining &lt;10% of emissions which cannot be reduced directly. In this case, compensation is limited to carbon removals only, not carbon avoidance credits. To understand the difference between carbon avoidance and removal credits, <a href="https://x.ecologi.com/articles/blog/carbon-removals-vs-carbon-avoidance" target="_blank" rel="noopener">read our blog post here.</a>
 
Contribution:
The SBTi also promotes ‘beyond value chain mitigation’ known as BVCM. This involves a company funding climate action to support global net-zero efforts. BVCM does not count towards the organisation’s own corporate net-zero goals, however, the SBTi considers it “urgent and essential” that businesses contribute to global climate action outside of their value chain.

carbon_compensation_vs_contribution_blog_banner_examples

Carbon_Compensation_Vs_Contribution_Blog_Banner_Examples

<h2>Examples of carbon compensation and contribution</h2>
 
Carbon Compensation:
A company offsets its annual carbon emissions by investing in carbon credits from a landfill methane capture project that prevents an equivalent volume of emissions.
Contribution: 
A company contributes to an environmental project that works on biodiversity conservation, without claiming an offset of its own emissions. Instead, the company reports on how much it contributed, and the outcomes intended, and monitors the project’s progress over time.

<h2>Conclusion</h2>
In summary, Carbon Compensation focuses on the idea of ‘balancing’ or ‘offsetting’ emissions through purchasing carbon credits. The credits purchased are often used to offset emissions generated by businesses.  Contribution focuses on funding projects that support global net-zero goals without compensatory claims. Through supporting a contribution model, you can support a wide range of projects all offering crucial co-benefits, and in some cases, credit-issuing projects too. 
Both approaches play a critical role in supporting climate action. The Oxford Principles for Aligned Net Zero recommend a combination of carbon compensation (durable removals only)  and contribution to help maximise impact. At Ecologi, we believe that while both have their merits, prioritising high-quality, holistic climate action through a contribution-based approach is the best way to support global net-zero efforts and future-proof your sustainability strategy. This is why we created <a href="https://x.ecologi.com/business/ecologi-impact-funds" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Impact Funds</a> &#8211; to allow our customers to support a wide range of projects that contribute to a particular climate goal.

<h2>Why did you create Impact Funds?</h2>
Our industry is moving and evolving all the time in an effort to reach global Net Zero goals and at Ecologi we witnessed the challenges firsthand through our Impact Partners, below is a quote from our Impact Partnerships Manager, Katie; 
<blockquote>At Ecologi, our partners were extracting tree-planting costs from a wider landscape restoration project because that’s what the market wanted. We need to change this &#8211; and educate the market on the solutions our planet needs.</blockquote>
Contribution models are increasingly focused on outcomes rather than inputs and go beyond metrics such as carbon credits purchased, or the number of trees planted. These projects produce a host of diverse impacts that aren’t being captured by single metrics. Supporting projects such as landscape restoration focused on the wider strategy &#8211; in addition to tree planting, landscape restoration captures co-benefits such as increased biodiversity, improved soil health, and reduced pollution.
Interested to learn more? <a href="https://info.ecologi.com/ecologi-impact-funds/get-started" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Get in touch to find out more about our Impact Funds</a>.

Speak to our team. We're here to help you find your perfect climate solution.

Case studies

blog_case_study_biopak_header

Blog_Case_Study_BioPak_Header

Case Study: BioPak UK

<h2>About BioPak UK</h2>
A world without waste. That’s the mission of BioPak, and they’re working hard to achieve it. By disrupting the current take, make, waste model, BioPak’s sustainable food packaging solutions are leading the way to a truly circular economy.
Founded in 2006, BioPak has become a globally recognised brand, loved by businesses and consumers across Australia, New Zealand, the UK, the US, Hong Kong and Singapore.
BioPak’s packaging solutions are designed to be better for our planet. They use renewable plant-based materials that are sourced responsibly. To promote responsible disposal of their packaging, BioPak encourages composting through their Compost Connect scheme—a not-for-profit initiative that connects customers to compost pick-up services.

blog_case_study_biopak_banner_initiatives

Blog_Case_Study_BioPak_Banner_Initiatives

BioPak is better for people too. The company is B Corp certified and donates 5% of all profits to positive change via their Give Back Fund. BioPak is a business that’s truly committed to the principles of the Triple Bottom Line: People, Planet, and Profit.

blog_case_study_biopak_banner_stats

Blog_Case_Study_BioPak_Banner_Stats

<h2>Issue</h2>
BioPak’s commitment to combating climate change is unwavering. Having been carbon neutral certified for over a decade, in 2022 the team took the strategic decision to shift away from carbon-neutrality, and instead focus on emissions reduction.
This decision wasn’t taken lightly, but they recognised the need to move beyond mere carbon offsetting. They view it as a leap forward rather than a step back, and a move to create a more substantial positive influence on the planet. 
The team believes that understanding their total carbon footprint is vital. They are dedicated to clarifying the sources of their emissions, which span the entire product lifecycle, encompassing offices, product transportation, packaging production, raw material extraction, and end-of-life emissions.
BioPak uses an independent third party to measure their carbon footprint, cost to the environment (including impact on biodiversity, human health, climate change and material scarcity) and lifecycle phases of their products. This is done to enhance transparency, accountability and demonstrate their commitment to combating greenwashing.
BioPak is serious about combating climate change, with reducing carbon emissions being crucial in achieving this goal. A key part of this goal is supporting industrial composting through the Compost Connect scheme. The team is committed to diverting food waste and compostable packaging from landfill and incineration by making compost facilities more accessible across Australia, New Zealand and the UK.
Working together with customers, BioPak truly believes it can pave the way for a more sustainable world for future generations.

<h2>Challenges</h2>
As a B Corp and leader in sustainable food packaging, the team at BioPak feels a keen obligation for environmental stewardship. They describe BioPak as a “profit for purpose business”, and as such are driven to preserve and protect the environment while giving back to the communities in which they operate. 
To honour this obligation, BioPak set up its Give Back Fund in 2012, and since then have dedicated their time and energy to partnering with leading environmental and social charities to bring about positive change. So far they have donated a total of £2,495,352.
In the last decade, BioPak’s commitment to Australian environmental conservation has flourished through a partnership with Rainforest Rescue, which has planted and safeguarded 95,720 trees and reclaimed eight hectares of endangered Daintree Rainforest.

<h2>Solution </h2>
BioPak donates 1% of all profits to community and environmental projects, and here in the UK we’re proud that Ecologi has been chosen to support that commitment through tree planting. The team firmly believes that tree planting is a powerful solution that produces oxygen, stores carbon, and helps tackle climate change.
BioPak’s reforestation work with Ecologi underpins a global commitment to ecological restoration. This ambitious initiative is a cornerstone of BioPak’s corporate responsibility ethos, aiming to not only mitigate the impacts of climate change but also foster local biodiversity, enhance soil health, and support local communities in achieving sustainable development goals.
Working with Ecologi proves BioPak’s cast iron commitment to the environment, and in turn boosts its credibility, enhances its brand reputation and helps its customers make a positive impact. The team regularly communicates their sustainability milestones with customers and colleagues alike, through impact certificate, emails and internal communications.

blog_case_study_biopak_banner_profile

Blog_Case_Study_BioPak_Banner_Profile

<h2>Outcome</h2>
Since 2021 BioPak has planted 102,479 trees with Ecologi, and the team plans to continue to regularly donate to increase this figure as much as they can. 
As a profit-for-purpose business, BioPak’s commitment to protecting the environment is vital in retaining current customers and attracting new customers, who are looking to make a positive impact through their supply chain. The Give Back Fund, and the work with partners like Ecologi, remains a fundamental part of BioPak’s brand messaging and ethos.
Sam Walker, Technical Director at BioPak UK, said:
<blockquote>It&#8217;s great to partner with Ecologi and support both the large scale reforestation projects they do and the more grass roots initiatives which really make a difference locally&#8230; Reforestation and habitat restoration are the foundations of reversing biodiversity loss and critical in the fight against climate change. We&#8217;re proud to work with Ecologi and share the impact data with our customers.</blockquote>

blog_case_study_biopak_banner_quote

Blog_Case_Study_BioPak_Banner_Quote

<h2>Is your business ready to take climate action?</h2>
If this article has inspired your business to start its climate journey, talk to our team today.

blog_impactshop_transactional_header

Blog_ImpactShop_Transactional_Header

At Ecologi we believe in transparency, which is why, when we make changes, we want to let you know.
As of Tuesday 1st October 2024, we will be making a few changes to the Ecologi Impact Shop, including discontinuing some projects, as well as adding new ones and changing our prices slightly. 
Keep reading to find out more, or jump to the section on <a href="#customers">What these changes mean for our customers</a>, or our <a href="#faqs">FAQs</a>.

<h2>Update to our ‘Carbon avoidance’ project</h2>
We will be removing our generic ‘<a href="https://x.ecologi.com/impact-shop/support-carbon-avoidance" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Carbon avoidance</a>’ product from the Impact Shop, and replacing it with a new type of carbon avoidance project, which specifically supports landfill methane capture. This project is among the first in the world to receive the CCP-Approved quality label from the Integrity Council for the Voluntary Carbon Market (ICVCM).
<h3>Why are we making this change?</h3>
In June of this year, the ICVCM, an independent governance body dedicated to establishing a global benchmark for high-quality carbon credits, <a href="https://icvcm.org/integrity-council-announces-first-high-integrity-ccp-labelled-carbon-credits-as-assessments-continue/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">announced the first carbon-crediting methodologies</a> that meet its high-integrity Core Carbon Principles (CCPs).
As part of this, the ICVCM have applied its ‘CCP-Approved’ label to a variety of projects that tackle potent greenhouse gases by capturing methane from landfill sites (like our supported <a href="https://x.ecologi.com/projects/avoiding-methane-emissions-from-landfill-in-brazil" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Macaubas LFG project</a>), and by destroying ozone-depleting foams and refrigerant gases from discarded equipment such as refrigerators and air conditioners.
We have been supporting landfill gas projects through our platform since our early days, including some of these first projects which have received this ICVCM stamp of approval. Effective on 1st October 2024, we are replacing the general ‘support carbon avoidance projects’ product on our Impact Shop, to specifically support these newly CCP-Approved landfill methane capture projects.

<h2>Discontinuation of our ‘Renewable energy carbon avoidance’ project</h2>
In addition, we will be removing the ‘<a href="https://x.ecologi.com/impact-shop/support-renewable-energy" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Renewable energy carbon avoidance</a>’ product from our Impact Shop. The ICVCM recently decided it would not award the existing renewable energy credit methodologies its CCP-Approved label, so we’ve opted to preemptively stop offering these on our platform. For additional insight into this decision, we encourage you to read our <a href="#faqs">FAQs</a> further down on this page.
<h3>Why are we making this change?</h3>
One of the next decisions made by the ICVCM as part of its assessment of carbon credit methodologies was to acknowledge that existing renewable energy generation credit methodologies do not meet the standard to achieve CCP-Approval. 
One key reason these methodologies don’t meet the CCP-Approved criteria is that the methodologies themselves fail to meet the stringent requirements for additionality, a key factor in ensuring that carbon credits represent genuine emissions reductions that wouldn&#8217;t have occurred without the carbon finance. See this quote from Sylvera on what additionality refers to: 
<blockquote>Additionality refers to the causal relationship between the project&#8217;s activities and the climate benefits it claims including the risk of the project over-crediting. A project is considered additional if the project activities would not have occurred without the revenue from a voluntary carbon credit. The additionality score is a function of how likely it is that the project is additional, and how likely it is that the project is over-crediting on the carbon avoidance or removal it is delivering.</blockquote>
Ecologi has always had a regionalised approach to our impact, consistently applying additional scrutiny to the projects we elect to support through our platform. Only six renewable energy projects are currently eligible for receipt of funding from our platform – out of an estimated &gt;2,200 renewable energy projects on the voluntary carbon market. Our careful selection process has ensured that we consider not only the type of project but also its specific implementation location.
For example, we have deliberately chosen not to fund large hydroelectric dams due to their associated social and environmental risks and we have generally steered clear of offshore wind projects, favouring onshore wind solutions that are more appropriate for the regions we support. We have always prioritised those situated in areas where the energy grid is still heavily reliant on fossil fuels, such as Morocco and Mexico, to maximise impact as much as possible.
This all said, following the ICVCM’s ruling on renewables, we have made the decision to stop offering renewable energy carbon credits via our Impact Shop.
We believe it is a good thing that the ICVCM is rejecting certain methodologies from receiving its high-quality label. This rigorous approach is necessary to maintain and improve the integrity of the carbon market – to raise the quality of projects across the board – and to ensure that all participants can trust that their investments are driving real, additional climate benefits.

<h2>Updates to pricing on the Impact Shop</h2>
Finally, on October 1st we will be updating pricing across our Impact Shop to reflect recent changes in market prices, and as a result some of our products will be cheaper to support.
<h3>Why are we making this change?</h3>
As part of our commitment to staying aligned with the evolving voluntary carbon market and providing the best prices we can to customers, we are also adjusting our pricing structure. To better reflect current market prices, we have reviewed and updated all the prices for carbon projects, some of which have reduced in price slightly. We are pleased to report that none of our existing projects have increased in price.
Pricing in the carbon market is dynamic, influenced by a variety of factors including regulatory updates, market demand, geographies, ratings, and broader project qualities. We aim to stay responsive to these changes and ensure that our offerings continue to provide value to all stakeholders involved, from project developers to buyers and the communities benefiting from these projects.
As an impact-driven organisation who put planet first, we want to ensure that we are responsive to the market and our customers are getting the best deal for the impact they want to support.

<h2>What do these changes mean for our customers?</h2>
There are no direct actions that our customers will need to take in light of these changes.
As of October 1st you will notice that our generic ‘<a href="https://x.ecologi.com/impact-shop/support-carbon-avoidance" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Carbon avoidance</a>’ project and our ‘<a href="https://x.ecologi.com/impact-shop/support-renewable-energy" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Renewable energy carbon avoidance</a>’ project will no longer be available on the Impact Shop. You will also notice that our new CCP-Approved landfill gas capture project will be available to support, and that the price of some of our existing projects have decreased slightly.

Picking apart Michael Moore’s The Planet of the Humans

Myth: Solar Power Is Inefficient

Confusion: "100% Renewable" and "Off-Grid"

Myth: Electric Cars are “Powered By Coal Anyway”

Myth: Solar / Renewable Has a “Huge” Carbon Footprint

Myth: Wind Requires Mountain Top Removal

Population

Fact: Biomass Energy from Trees is Terrible

Myth: Banks Support Green Energy

Summary

More posts

Carbon Compensation vs. Contribution: what’s the difference?

Case study: How BioPak UK is engaging customers and leading the way to a world without waste

Upcoming changes to the Ecologi Impact Shop

Stay in touch with Ecologi