Ford put out a press release today claiming that the Thanksgiving Day football game between the Detroit Lions and Green Bay Packers will be carbon neutral because they are planting trees to offset the carbon used during the game and in transit to the game.

While tree planting is a noble effort, in reality it will take years for the trees to absorb the carbon emitted on that day. Not emitting some of that carbon in the first place would have made Ford's effort more beneficial and noteworthy.

Ford has done some positive things with the stadium management, including recycling plastics and paper used in concessions. But the company should have also encouraged carpooling or (although a car company never would) taking mass transit to the game. Tailgating has become a big part of the football culture, but not reducing the number of vehicles driving to the game (28,000 vehicles, according to Ford) is unacceptable if a company wants to claim to be "going green." Perhaps they could have given away hot dogs free to anyone who took mass transit, or free parking for all vehicles with 4 or more passengers.

Also, buying wind or solar energy equivalent to the electricity used during the game would have been good for the environment and PR.

Ford claims this is the first "100 percent carbon neutral football game," but the last two Super Bowls, including one played in Detroit, as well as a regular season game previously made that claim.

Ford is one of just dozens or even hundreds of companies that we can similarly question for claiming to hold carbon neutral events without addressing carbon emissions on the creation side. Without conservation -- by recycling, using more energy efficient lighting, renewable power, and reducing the carbon footprint of transportation -- "carbon neutrality" is completing only half the mission. The term is being devalued by companies (or people) who write off their emissions without making changes to their daily activities.