Green Car Insurance - Who's best

absence

Hi

My car insurance is coming up for renewal shortly and was wondering who to insure it with - ibuyeco or thegreeninsurancecompany.

I've looked at both sites (not got a quote yet) and noticed a few differences. ibuyeco only donate £5 to an environmental charity and from some research (correct me if I'm wrong) this will surely not offset 100% of my vehicles CO2 emissions? Whereas the greeninsurancecompany states it will offset 100% of my vehicles CO2 at no extra cost. I really can't see how they can do this at no extra cost - it must be added to the price of the policy.

Any help or advice will be appreciated

Thanks

forgotmyname

All rubbish, But the fact you are considering them proves the hype works.

If you are worried about the planet use less fuel.

The government have the right idea, Make it too expensive for mere mortals to be able to afford it. Only the very rich and MPs on expenses will be able to afford it.

Best cover and good price far outweigh what a company claim... to do to offset CO2.

paulwf

I have to agree that carbon offsetting is of limited benefit at most, I wouldn't pay much extra (if any) for a policy that included offsetting.

I would rather use the money to use the ETA for breakdown cover (https://www.eta.co.uk). RAC and AA are very pro car when it comes to lobbying which doesn't help the environment, the ETA supports a much more balanced range of travel options which is likely to be of more use than offsetting.

absence

Why is it all rubbish?

Yes you can do things to use less fuel (reduce your carbon footprint) like making sure your tyres are inflated to the correct pressure, reduce your speed, drive smoothly etc etc ....... but your still going to have those unavoidable CO2 emissions.

I'm aware that offsetting is not an alternative to carbon reduction but it is a measure that needs to be put in place as we go down the road to a low carbon future.

If my vehicle produces for example 1 ton of CO2 a year and I can offset the 1 ton (by making an equivalent carbon dioxide saving elsewhere) then why is it such a bad thing.

Ben84

absence wrote: »

Why is it all rubbish?

Yes you can do things to use less fuel (reduce your carbon footprint) like making sure your tyres are inflated to the correct pressure, reduce your speed, drive smoothly etc etc ....... but your still going to have those unavoidable CO2 emissions.

I'm aware that offsetting is not an alternative to carbon reduction but it is a measure that needs to be put in place as we go down the road to a low carbon future.

If my vehicle produces for example 1 ton of CO2 a year and I can offset the 1 ton (by making an equivalent carbon dioxide saving elsewhere) then why is it such a bad thing.

I'm not one of the posters who was critical of offsetting earlier in this thread, but I am sceptical that it works, or that it even has a positive effect.

I'm concerned that offsetting by increasing biomass (tree planting, for example) isn't very long term and can't be scaled up to do anything significant about the problem. The fossil fuels and their carbon would have stayed in the ground for millions of year, perhaps never returning to the atmosphere if we hadn't dug them up and burnt them. Trying to adsorb them with plants that last at most decades isn't long term enough. There's also the problem with scale. We burn fossil fuels each year in the 21st century that took many many years to form in prehistoric times. The rate of sedimentation was very slow, and during the Jurassic/Triassic period much of the earth was covered in tropical type forest. Adsorbing that much carbon with biomass on our much less green and much more heavily populated planet at the rate we're emitting it doesn't look likely to add up. So, I suspect we can't adsorb enough and we can't contain it long enough either.

Other offsetting schemes involve installing/paying for renewable energy to be used elsewhere, but this too has failed to add up in many examples. The carbon credit system is full of loopholes.

Offsetting also does nothing about air pollution, acid rain, ashes from coal plants, or the environmental damaged from extraction, and it doesn't help with dwindling reserves either.

Most of all however, I question why are people spending money on these schemes when there are still many poorly insulated houses in the UK that are consuming more fossil fuels than they need to, and the majority of our power plants are still dumping vast amounts of heat in to the sky through cooling towers when we could attach them to local heating networks or use the energy for industry, and then there's the high price of bus tickets in many areas despite their being a great way to cut transport emissions. That's just three examples of many, and in every case this money could be used to stop the waste and pollution and keep more of the fossil fuels buried. I worry that offsetting is a distraction that's pulling money away from better investments that give the most environmental benefits.

paulwf

In 2007 the Guardian published some articles on carbon offsetting, I think it was to coincide with a Channel 4 (?) documentary which was also very critical of the offsetting industry:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2007/jun/16/climatechange.climatechange

I'm the type of person that would probably be labeled a starry eyed hippy green, but even I wouldn't bother with offsetting. I would rather save the money that the offsetting cost and donate it to a charity that you know is doing good environmental work. So I'm not saying you should give up doing anything worthwhile because you have a car, but rather put your money where it will be of most use. Actually the best thing to do would be to buy a bike rather than offset...

"In the UK, 50% of all car journeys are for less than 2 miles[...]Short car journeys are also the most damaging to the environment. Catalytic converters are only effective for journeys over 5km and the first kilometre produces 60% more fumes."

absence

I have done some more research into carbon offsetting and I agree there has been some bad press in previous years. The standards of practice needs to change and the carbon offsetting market needs to be regulated to prevent the scrupulous practices that we read about.

There’s a number of carbon offsetting companies out there and choosing one to offset your CO2 to a high standard is important. Most companies act as brokers who buy carbon from third party projects and sell it on. This in my opinion increases the risk and credibility.

I eventually found a company called co2balance who control the projects themselves. They operate their projects under a set of principles one of them being the 50 -50 rule for their stove project. At least half of the capital cost of the project is funded from the sale of carbon credits, making it clear that the project would have not been implemented without the carbon funding. They have no supply chain, all projects are managed by co2balance.

I still feel carbon offsetting as well as the other measures (insulating your home, energy saving light bulbs etc) is a good way to help the environment.

I’ve decided to use a comparison website to find cheap insurance for my car and then use co2balance to offset my annual co2 emissions. This will save me more money but at the same time make my driving carbon neutral (win,win,win)

absence

After doing some more research into green insurance I have come across a green comparison website that will offset 50% of your annual CO2 emissions for FREE. They use a percentage of the fee they receive from the insurers to offset 1.5 tons of CO2. The site is called gogreencompare
This means you can compare the market for the cheapest quote and offset your CO2 (50%) for FREE. You don’t have to pay a penny. How good’s that. Unfortunately I’ve already took insurance out using confused.com and then using some of the money I saved paid co2balance to offset my CO2 emissions. Oh well, I’ll remember this for next year’s renewal.

forgotmyname

absence wrote: »

Why is it all rubbish?

Yes you can do things to use less fuel (reduce your carbon footprint) like making sure your tyres are inflated to the correct pressure, reduce your speed, drive smoothly etc etc ....... but your still going to have those unavoidable CO2 emissions.

I'm aware that offsetting is not an alternative to carbon reduction but it is a measure that needs to be put in place as we go down the road to a low carbon future.

If my vehicle produces for example 1 ton of CO2 a year and I can offset the 1 ton (by making an equivalent carbon dioxide saving elsewhere) then why is it such a bad thing.

So your green insurance company inflate your tyres & check your car is efficient for you, Thats jolly good of them. Shame its all just rubbish.

They give money to a green charity, Like one that have nissan L200 pickups in their fleet and drive 160 miles to see if an old oak tree should be preserved or if its beyond saving.
All very green.

Being green is all about one thing, MONEY.

Jojo_the_Tightfisted

Offsetting is the equivalent of medieval papal indulgencies - pay enough money and we'll forget all about your indiscretion whilst sitting at the finest table, eating the finest food at your expense. The action of liberal market economics is hardly likely to solve the problems caused as a result of liberal economics, IMHO.

I suggest insuring with a vaguely ethical place - the Co-op is the first that springs to mind - then, if you feel the need to salve your conscience (not being mean, but that is what you are doing), you can look at things you can do to make a difference, whether it be putting the money towards a project you feel strongly about or replacing a hugely inefficient appliance at home with one more so.