<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Carbon Footprints Need Annual Updates</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.environmentalleader.com/2007/07/05/carbon-footprints-need-annual-updates/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.environmentalleader.com/2007/07/05/carbon-footprints-need-annual-updates/</link>
	<description>The Executive's Daily Green Briefing</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 22 Nov 2009 18:36:47 -0800</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Brian Mello</title>
		<link>http://www.environmentalleader.com/2007/07/05/carbon-footprints-need-annual-updates/comment-page-1/#comment-2696</link>
		<dc:creator>Brian Mello</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 06 Jul 2007 01:24:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.environmentalleader.com/2007/07/05/carbon-footprints-need-annual-updates/#comment-2696</guid>
		<description>Carbon footprints won&#039;t change under the scheme of carbon offset purchasing. I&#039;ll give Starbucks credit, because they don&#039;t have the individual site footprint, to install anything but solar, and it would be difficult to justify. But the rest of the corporate players that are purchasing carbon credits, and bragging about it, need to know that soon, consumers will know this is just green publicity, and they will be offended by it. When is someone of stature going to come forward and say, checkbook environmentalism doe not reduce you carbon footprint? Carbon doesn&#039;t magically disappear when you purchase carbon offsets, it just provides soap box time, opportunity to tell the world how wonderful you are, look at me, holding a handfull of carbon offset credits in front of your smokestack, give me a break. Companies should only be allowed to purchase carbon offsets, that have actually installed renewables, like geothermal and solar. This is such a farse, American&#039;s are so gullible, reduction of carbon has taken a back seat to itself, carbon offsets are a very dangerous misleading fine example of our ignorance in renewables. And the public is onboard,hook,line and sinker.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Carbon footprints won&#8217;t change under the scheme of carbon offset purchasing. I&#8217;ll give Starbucks credit, because they don&#8217;t have the individual site footprint, to install anything but solar, and it would be difficult to justify. But the rest of the corporate players that are purchasing carbon credits, and bragging about it, need to know that soon, consumers will know this is just green publicity, and they will be offended by it. When is someone of stature going to come forward and say, checkbook environmentalism doe not reduce you carbon footprint? Carbon doesn&#8217;t magically disappear when you purchase carbon offsets, it just provides soap box time, opportunity to tell the world how wonderful you are, look at me, holding a handfull of carbon offset credits in front of your smokestack, give me a break. Companies should only be allowed to purchase carbon offsets, that have actually installed renewables, like geothermal and solar. This is such a farse, American&#8217;s are so gullible, reduction of carbon has taken a back seat to itself, carbon offsets are a very dangerous misleading fine example of our ignorance in renewables. And the public is onboard,hook,line and sinker.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
