Wind-powered vs. offset by wind power

While researching green printing companies, I ran across GreenerPrinter, which boasts on its home page that it's "100% Wind-Powered!" Cool! Wind turbines turning printing presses!

However, when I clicked on that claim, I was taken to a more detailed page with a more qualified statement: "GreenerPrinter's energy usage is offset 100% by Wind Power!" No, wind turbines don't actually produce all the energy used to turn the printing presses and light up GreenerPrinter's offices -- even if the bottom of every page of GreenerPrinter's website states that the company is "100% Wind-Powered." What GreenerPrinter actually does is get its energy from the grid we all use, then buy offsets, a.k.a. renewable energy credits (RECs), equivalent to its non-renewable energy consumption.

Buying RECs is basically like investing money in projects that take greenhouse gases out of the environment, thus "offsetting" the greenhouse gases that you've produced. For example, eco-thinking drivers might buy RECs to offset the greenhouse gas emissions produced while driving around. That money might go, for example, toward a wind farm project that, when built, will reduce our dependence on coal-powered electric plants -- thus taking out of the atmosphere an equivalent amount of the emissions a car put into it.

Of course, an environmentalist might ask: Why not just stop driving? So as you can imagine, buying offsets is a controversial issue within the environmentally-conscious community. Some argue that offsetting is akin to sweeping environmental problems under a rug. People should get out of their Hummers, period, they say, arguing that offsets simply assuage eco-guilt while doing little to change the behavior that leads to environmental degradation.

Others argue that not everyone's in a position to get rid of their cars. They may live in an area with close to no public transportation, for example. In those cases, buying offsets can help bring about the bigger green changes we need to see in this world -- i.e., more green energy sources -- while educating people about the fact that their habits do indeed have an impact on the environment AND giving them an option to do something about those impacts.

The middle ground many environmentalists take is to first reduce their environmental impact as much as possible, then buy offsets for the remainder of their impact. As Google's green energy czar Bill Weihl said: "I would describe offsets as something that if that's all you do, then it is tantamount to greenwashing."

Which is to say that I don't have quibbles with GreenerPrinter's decision to buy offsets. GreenerPrinter appears to be an environmentally-committed company -- and I understand that most companies don't have the means to build their own wind farms.

What I am quibbling with is statements like "we're 100% wind-powered!" which, to me, seem extremely misleading. I mean, when I bought an offset for my car back when I had one, I didn't tell everyone my car ran on solar power -- because it didn't. I just said I bought an offset. Then later, I got rid of my car.

GreenerPrinter isn't at all alone in making these types of rather misleading claims; many green companies will say their companies are 100% powered by solar or wind or some other alternative energy when really, they've just bought offsets. And to GreenerPrinter's credit, it does clarify this fact -- albeit deeper in the site.

But being the type of person who switched from a web host that bought RECs to one that actually IS powered by solar energy, I'd like to see more companies clearly identify and clarify their eco-claims up front.

Photo by fieldsbh and freefotouk via Flickr