I've been watching the public debate over carbon offsets out of the corner of my eye for some time, and have formed a general impression, which I would like at long last to get off my chest.
Offset critics often strike a moralistic tone, comparing offsets to medieval "indulgences." Let's be clear: That rhetorical gimmick makes no damn sense whatsoever. If there really were such a thing as sin, and there was a finite amount of it in the world, and it was the aggregate amount of sin that mattered rather than any individual's contribution, and indulgences really did reduce aggregate sin, then indulgences would have been a perfectly sensible idea. The comparison is a weak and transparent smear, which makes me wonder why critics rely so heavily on it.
Critics insist that people use offsets to justify and absolve overconsumptive lifestyles. The idea is that the rich and fabulous casually toss a few bucks at offsets to unburden their consciences, so they can keep flying their private jets. But I have quite literally never seen any evidence offered to support this charge. No statistical evidence, no polls or surveys, not even any anecdotal evidence. It's just stated, over and over again, as though it is axiomatically true, that the primary use of offsets is to excuse people's bad behavior.
Critics imply and/or state outright that just as every customer in the private offset market is a dupe, every vendor is a huckster out to make a quick buck off the gullible. But again, no names are ever named, no individual hucksters called out, no fraud identified.
In contrast, the actual offset purchasers I've met -- via the internet or in the "real world" -- tend to be environmentally concerned and engaged. They view offsets as something they can do in addition to other things they do to lighten their footprint. This impression is supported by what little survey data I've seen, as well as by common sense. If you don't give a sh*t about the climate, why bother purchasing offsets? And if you do, why do only that? What is the personality profile of the guy who buys offsets and then considers his work done? I've never met him and have trouble envisioning him.
Similarly, every actual human being I've interacted with who's involved in the private offset market has been articulate, intelligent, environmentally conscientious, and committed to transparency and shared standards. They've all been aware of the problems and perils of offsets and committed to improving the market so that it has the intended effect, i.e., reducing aggregate CO2 emissions. I have been favorably impressed with the people I've spoken to at offset companies, almost without exception.
Now, this isn't meant as a substantive argument about offsets. I have mixed feelings about them and share many of the common concerns -- the difficulty of precisely measuring additionality; the potential for shenanigans in a largely unregulated market; the potential to sap people's willingness to make tough choices. IMO, blanket judgments about the private offset market are premature. This is just an observation about how the debate is playing out.
You can't judge an issue based on the argumentative rigor of either side's proponents -- plenty of bad arguments have been made for true positions, and vice versa -- but at the same time, it's not an entirely irrelevant heuristic. From where I'm sitting, most (not all) offset providers seem to be grappling honestly with issues, while most (not all) critics seem to be waggling their fingers at strawmen.
Kerry-Boxer muddies handling of international offsets
Ask Umbra on climate weapons
Ask Umbra on offsetting work trips
Comments
View as Flat
odograph Posted 5:08 am
11 Jul 2007
The TerraPass did not stop me, and might have been part of my transition.
FWIW.
Permalink
Bart Anderson Posted 5:16 am
11 Jul 2007
I do think the metaphor of buying Medieval indulgences is a good one, however. There's a lot of guilt out there and offsets provide a way to relieve that guilt without changing one's actions. Similar psychological mechanism.
I don't feel compelled to argue against offsets nor against green consumerism, though. They are steps along the way, inadequate though they may be in themselves.
Bart
Energy Bulletin
Permalink
Adam Stein Posted 5:21 am
11 Jul 2007
Another one of my favorites: any given article about offsets will prominently mention the "potential for fraud," as though this somehow distinguishes offsets from...anything else in the world. Usually journalists will put this accusation in the mouth of some random commentator, but often it's taken as so axiomatic that the reporter will include it unattributed.
I've been struggling to think of other industries that so often get smeared with the "potential for fraud" line despite having no actual demonstrated instances of fraud. (And, to be clear, the fraud line is not a reference to quality issues. It's a reference to out-and-out fraud.) There's probably a decent analogy with the way the organic food industry was treated by reporters in the early '90s, but my memory isn't that good.
www.terrapass.com/blog
Permalink
baranoff Posted 5:22 am
11 Jul 2007
See the info I have collected.
http://baranoff.typepad.com/cheaper_electric/2007/05/my_v ...
http://baranoff.typepad.com/cheaper_electric/2007/07/mit- ...
Aaron Baranoff
http://baranoff.typepad.com/cheaper_electric/
Aaron
Help the enviroment while helping the country and yourself in a incremental but common sense way.
Permalink
naturescene Posted 5:23 am
11 Jul 2007
Permalink
David Roberts Posted 5:46 am
11 Jul 2007
There's a lot of guilt out there and offsets provide a way to relieve that guilt without changing one's actions.
One of my points in the post was that people claim this about offsets all the time, without offering a shred of evidence. Now you've come along and ... claimed it again. Without offering a shred of evidence. Who uses offsets to relieve guilt and avoid changing their own actions?
Also: assuming I can, via offsets, produce a larger net reduction in CO2 emissions, for less money and less effort than it would take to change my personal behavior, well, so what? Why should I feel "guilt"? Why should the notion of "sin" enter into it at all? CO2 is a molecule. We want to keep it out of the atmosphere. Is keeping it out only acceptable to you if people do it in the morally appropriate way?
The indulgences analogy is fundamentally logically flawed, in fairly obvious ways. I'm puzzled by your attachment to it.
grist.org
Permalink
JMG Posted 5:51 am
11 Jul 2007
Barbara Tuchman's tremendous book "The March of Folly" notes how indulgences undermined the Church and played a big part in the lead up to the Protestant Reformation.
The corrosive aspect of the church's indulgences, and why they are so apt for carbon offsets, is that there really is no practical limit on sin, or greenhouse gas production, other than to stop sinning so much. The wealthy who bought (and the corrupt who sold) indulgences were basically buying the right NOT to stop the activity that put them ALL in mortal peril (according to the ideology of the time).
You seem to suggest that there is a finite amount of greenhouse emissions, and that only the aggregate total matters. I suggest that, for all practical purposes, there is no limit on the aggregate total greenhouse gas we can emit, because the payback -- the Venusian climate -- won't strike until decades after the emissions are made. The fact that "offsets" rose in step with emissions saves no souls, in other words.
As far as individual contributions not making the difference (and only the aggregate), it's a little like the repeat offender claiming that he should get the reward for crime prevention because he didn't steal his neighbor's car yesterday -- "I could have stolen my neighbor's car, and I've done so in the past (so this represents a real reduction with real "additivity")."
Every jet flight made is a certain contribution to runaway climate disruption NOW; every available purchased "offset" is a hoped-for non-reduction that --- data suggests, since greenhouse emissions are increasing at an increasing rate annually -- actually does nothing but operate on the conscience of the purchaser.
Hence, the comparison is pretty apt.
Save the world: Reduce greenhouse gas emissions 5% annually.
Permalink
odograph Posted 5:51 am
11 Jul 2007
And for good measure, let's throw in the strawman that we are, or will, "rely on offsets" as our only tool.
The basic science is that increased greenhouse gases are giving us trouble. We are still in the realm of science when we conclude that reducing greenhouse gas emissions will reduce our problem.
But, stinky monkeys that we are, we rapidly fall off into semantics, and yes, religion. Group greenhouse gas emissions under a label, and call them the devil.
Permalink
odograph Posted 5:53 am
11 Jul 2007
Permalink
David Roberts Posted 5:55 am
11 Jul 2007
grist.org
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 6:03 am
11 Jul 2007
Forward!
Permalink
JMG Posted 6:05 am
11 Jul 2007
The ship is till sinking, and no amount of "but it would be sinking much faster if we hadn't ..." will change that fact. Gunning the engine to stay afloat while taking on water only appears to help.
But, in fact, it makes it things worse, because it delays the needed response --- stopping the inrush of water. Once you have taken on enough water you sink anyway, and you regret not having put your priorities in order the minute you understood that you were taking on water.
As I recall, you were big on Al's 10 point plan to Congress. What is it about "Freeze carbon emissions now and then begin reductions" that is confusing?
Save the world: Reduce greenhouse gas emissions 5% annually.
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 6:06 am
11 Jul 2007
Both contribute to making food more expensive.
Forward!
Permalink
odograph Posted 6:12 am
11 Jul 2007
All is relative.
"If a jet travels over an African forest and someone below plants a tree does the jet contribute to global warming?"
Well, what happens when the jet travels and no tree is planted?
"And how many children will die because someone contributed money to planting trees instead of growing food?"
How many children would benefit from their parents tree-planting?
All is relative. This absolutist stuff is religion.
Permalink
David Roberts Posted 6:16 am
11 Jul 2007
grist.org
Permalink
sunflower Posted 6:21 am
11 Jul 2007
If an offset keeps fossil fuels permanently in the ground then true. Oil and gas will be mined and burned by others so those fossil fuel offsets are false. Trees die so also false. If coal is avoided by an offset and not all coal will be mined by others then that offset is true. Do I have this correct? Are there other logically true offsets?
I like the spin-off values of false offsets, like participatory politics, trees, and conserving gas and oil as bridges into the future. So, many false offsets are good by me, but they sound like social engineering with transparency risks.
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 6:23 am
11 Jul 2007
Permalink
JMG Posted 6:31 am
11 Jul 2007
If the recipe for survival is to freeze greenhouse gas emissions now, and then start reducing them sharply, then any available source of reductions is already spoken for. We need them all, and we need them all on line as soon as possible to reduce PRESENT and PAST emissions, which have to STOP going up.
You ask --
The notion that offsets distract attention from, or otherwise make less likely, more substantial responses to global warming is something else that gets asserted over and over again with no evidence. Why would we think that doing a small thing distracts attention from doing big things?
Ummmm, how about because the institutional support for doing those "small things" is trumpeting them as a way to avoid having to make the "big changes"?
As for evidence, the evidence is that global greenhouse emissions have not only continued increasing while "offsets" have taken off, but they have continued to increase AT AN INCREASING RATE. That is, I submit, strong evidence that you cannot establish any positive benefits from offset programs except by making a priori assumptions that beg the question.
The way to reduce greenhouse gas concentrations is to reduce emissions, not to increase emissions while engaging in a gigantic masturbatory bookkeeping fantasy about how much carbon was not emitted thanks to our bookkeeping.
Save the world: Reduce greenhouse gas emissions 5% annually.
Permalink
SustainableGreen Posted 6:32 am
11 Jul 2007
No, perhaps not any clear evidence to support the indulgence charge, but 2 things from near the opposite ends of the spectrum. 1) You always hear of fatcats buying offsets, but 2) you never hear down at the bowlin' alley: "Yep, got to git me some o' them offsets. Mabel--beer me!" Just ...doesn't...happen.
Actually David, I strongly disagree with you. I have no cable TV to feed me talking points, and I seldom spend any time with the blogosphere. My observations and conclusions are pretty much spontaneously my own.
I see offsets as a clear indulgence, a device of the rich: pure and simple. Further, it is a way, deliberate or not, but I say it is, to delay progress on sustainability.
And every device instituted by the Corporate Oligarchy favors the....what?--Corporate Oligarchy. The U.S. income tax used to be progressive--maybe 90% was too extreme but that is another issue. What has happened, however, is that since the 60s the upper rates have dropped while the lower rates have changed very little. Billionaires--that's BEEEEEEElionnnnaires--now pay the same 28% rate that school teachers and taxi cabs driver pay. Do we not see the potential for abuse and outright fraud? Why do we think offsets would be ANY different?
I have done a LOT to reduce my foot-print, and continue to make incremental improvements. Like someone here has said, we need to brag about it. Those of us who live in a responsible way, by choice, but far more critically by necessity, are very much like small farmers who just want to get a decent return on their effort. At the same time the fatcats are sippin' whiskey and smokin' big seegars.
No. Sorry--it's an indulgence.
David
Sustainability For Life
Messages done with sustainable energy, with Wind and Sun!
s
Permalink
greenwork Posted 6:37 am
11 Jul 2007
LONG-TERM REC GENERATION AND CO2 AVOIDANCE IMPACTS
GRID CONNECTED FARM METHANE PROJECTS
We help build manure digesters on farms whose baseline practice is to store their manure in storage ponds, where it is kept pending bi-annual or tri-annual spreading on the fields. In these storage ponds, all but the very surface of the manure has no access to oxygen, so bacteria that thrive without oxygen decompose the manure, giving off gases including methane (CH4) as a byproduct, which bubble up and enter the atmosphere. There, methane has 21 times the global warming impact of carbon dioxide. Each 95¼ pounds of methane can be expressed as one ton of CO2-equivalent, or CO2e.
The farms we work with install anaerobic digester systems in place of the storage ponds. These are heated, airtight systems that accelerate the decomposition and capture the methane, which the farms then burn to generate electricity and useful heat. The digested manure is then pumped from the digester to pre-spread storage lagoons, with virtually no future methane off-gassing. As the CO2 emissions from burning the methane for electricity and heat are equivalent to the CO2 that would have been emitted if the manure was put directly onto the fields, the electricity and thermal energy are considered CO2-neutral. As a result, the farms create three sources of CO2 or CO2 reductions:
* Reductions from the displacement of electricity from fossil fuels that results from the farms' generation of electricity and delivery of that electricity to the grid ("Electricity-Based CO2 Reductions");
* Reductions from the displacement of the farms' use of fossil fuels for heating and cooling needs that results from the farms' capture and use of heat given off by the generators ("Avoided Fossil Fuel CO2 Reductions"); and
* Reductions from the avoidance, or abatement, of fugitive methane emissions that would have resulted from the farms' continued pond storage of manure that would have occurred in the absence of the digester ("Methane Abatement CO2e Reductions")
Permalink
Adam Stein Posted 6:39 am
11 Jul 2007
But, in fact, it makes it things worse, because it delays the needed response --- stopping the inrush of water. Once you have taken on enough water you sink anyway, and you regret not having put your priorities in order the minute you understood that you were taking on water.
Seriously, what does this even mean? Setting aside pointless analogies about water and sinking and whatever, is there anybody who credibly believes that the thing holding us back from the needed response to climate change is the carbon offset market? How can any reasonable observer of politics, economics, or culture suggest that offsets are the reason that we haven't adequately addressed climate change?
And stepping back a bit: given that offsets are a general funding mechanism for renewable energy and efficiency projects, why exactly can't they be part of the "needed response"? Is wind energy part of the needed response? Improved public transport? More energy efficient buildings? Well, all of these things cost money. Offsets provide money. Explain the distraction thing to me again, please.
I know that some people feel that the only legitimate route to addressing climate change is simply using less energy. But we can't conserve our way out of this problem. We need to switch to carbon-free energy sources, in addition to pursuing efficiency and conservation measures. People who think we're going to conserve our way out of global warming are either uninformed or unserious about the task we face.
www.terrapass.com/blog
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 6:50 am
11 Jul 2007
If the math worked out... A BIG IF... if there was a net gain in fixed carbon in the soil and it more than compensated for the emission of CO2 by the power plant, would y'all think it is an acceptable offset?
I'm sure someone is thinking about it. Once offsets are acceptable, everyone and his neighbor will be looking for them in the craziest places.
Forward!
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 6:50 am
11 Jul 2007
Probably most pre-Reformed Catholics who paid good money for indulgences similarly had good intentions. JMG, having read Barbara Tuchman, would know more about this than I. My feeling is that for most of them, the transaction was not carried out cold-heartedly, as if it were just a very self-conscious process for securing a license to continue doing bad things.
Also, sometimes there was an attractive dimension of international solidarity. In Martin Luther's day, the money that was being raised among German Catholics by the sale of indulgences was sent to Rome, to be thrown into the fund to finance the building of the new Basilica of Saint Peter. Or so everyone was told.
Though it may not appeal much to CO2-watchers and economists, the prophet WiscIdea's idea is nice: Live mindfully, and informally offset your CO2 emissions, in Protestant fashion, by donating for example to humanity-helping and biodiversity-helping organizations, instead of doing the more Catholic-looking thing and locking yourself into a formal offset system.
Chickens are our cousins!
So are other sensitive animals!
Enough is enough!
No more factory farms!
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 6:52 am
11 Jul 2007
Permalink
SustainableGreen Posted 7:00 am
11 Jul 2007
Hey, Sunflower: The only thing I would correct about your message--quite good--has to do with trees. Everyone seemingly makes this mistake so I am just taking this as an opportunity.
TREES are not FORESTS! In the current silviculture business climate, trees are planted as a cash crop, in plantations, just like row crops only taller and with a longer time 'til harvest. They are single species, single age, no understory, little herbaceous growth--they are not forests. They are intended for wood (for some sort of construction) or fiber (for some sort of paper). Tree plantations have about a millionth of the motive force of real forests, which have a tremendous biodiversity, 3-6 physical levels, and are real functioning ecosystems. Tree plantations are like plowed fields, about one species away from being a parking lot.
A real forest does not really die, but once they are old, they do go through long periods of rejuvenation and regrowth, spatially and over hundreds or thousands of years. The amount of sequestered Carbon in a large complex real forest is nearly constant over time. In a large forest portions burn, other portions die and others grow rapidly at every level.
If everyone wishes to think of 'trees', or any other so-designated entity, as offsets, think sterile row crops as vessels for some pretentious someone's CO2, which someone else will come along and harvest. ON the other hand, real forests are precious nearly eternal natural institutions that must be protected. It's about biodiversity.
David
Sustainability For Life
Messages done with sustainable energy, with Wind and Sun!
Permalink
sunflower Posted 7:05 am
11 Jul 2007
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 7:07 am
11 Jul 2007
Permalink
naturescene Posted 7:17 am
11 Jul 2007
Here's my solution:
Stop calling them carbon offsets. Market them as something larger - environmental protection credits. Trees provide many other services aside from carbon sequestration - storm buffers, habitat, & filtration to name a few. It's time to start selling these services the way we sell lumber. EPCs would be a way to ensure the protection and even creation of ecosystems that provide these services.
Not all environmental credits will produce all services. For example, a project may not actually sequester any carbon. This is not a problem inherent in offsets, this is a problem with measurement. You can't control what you can't measure.
Stop wasting your time trying to stop voluntary offsets and start using to figure out how to measure their services so that we can make them better.
Permalink
sunflower Posted 7:18 am
11 Jul 2007
I saw what happened in New Zealand when they clear cut their forests. They can not get the indigenous trees to grow back in spite of valiant seedling efforts. So they plant rows of invasive trees like corn.
Permalink
Adam Stein Posted 7:25 am
11 Jul 2007
But as long as we're making arguments about environmental policy based on imaginary conversations at a bowling alley, here are some other things I didn't overhear the last time I hit the lanes:
"I've been putting in overtime at the factory so I can get that new Energy Star fridge."
"Are these raspberries locally grown and organic? I'm trying to cut down on my food miles."
"Can't wait! I'm picking up the plug-in conversion kit for my Prius at Wal-Mart tomorrow."
Clearly, energy efficiency standards, organic food, and hybrid cars are the province of fatcats who enjoy Glenlivet and hand-rolled Cohibas. Burn the Priuses, I say! Burn them!
www.terrapass.com/blog
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 7:25 am
11 Jul 2007
Afterall, those in favor of offsets do seem to go on an awful lot about all of the other advantages and even admit that offsets might not result in a decrease of atmospheric CO2.
Every single pollutant or otherwise harmful chemical -- since CO2 is not really a pollutant as much as something you just don't want too much of -- could be assigned a number reflecting harm to the environment. It might have to be tweaked now and then, since a few hundred years ago CO2 was not a problem. Only because so many people are releasing it has it become a problem. Anyway, those wishing to release any harmful chemical would have to purchase an environmental protection credit proportional to the number reflecting harm and the amount released.
All costs are INTERNALIZED! Let the most benign processes for generating power win!
The funds collected could be used to mitigate harm to the environment, repair past damage, or go toward research into finding alternatives to the harmful chemical.
BRILLIANT!
Forward!
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 7:37 am
11 Jul 2007
Many ecosystems are so old, that the very conditions that led to their establishment no longer exist. The forests of South America, for example, probably relied on now-extinct mega fauna to distribute their seeds. Apparenty, some will not germinate very easily because they evolved to first pass through the digestive system of a large herbivore. The oak savannas of North America might have relied on Passenger Pigeons to accidently drop acorns some distance from the parent trees, so now oak groves to not spread as quickly as they used to and are not as capable of occupying ground exposed to sunlight by a wind storm or fire. It is a severe disadvantage when there are alien species eager to fill a niche. I mentioned whale carcasses on the ocean floor some time ago... apparently important for life to move from an old deep-sea vent to a new one.
If offsets involve repairing ecological damage and are intended to sequester carbon, there has to be enough work done to re-establish working ecosystems. A tree is definitely not a forest.
Thanks for the observation.
Forward!
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 7:43 am
11 Jul 2007
Question TWO:
In one hundred words or less, what are the top 10 preferred carbon offset activities? Use whatever criteria you prefer for ranking them.
Thank you.
Forward!
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 7:53 am
11 Jul 2007
Permalink
sunflower Posted 8:13 am
11 Jul 2007
Permalink
Bart Anderson Posted 8:22 am
11 Jul 2007
Others are less conscientious, and one suspects they use offsets for PR purposes (politicians, corporations and rock stars). But why be indignant? "Hypocrisy is the homage vice pays to virtue." I myself am tempted. My wife is devoted to Europe and would love me to fly with her to England and France. Several years ago I made a vow not to fly ... couldn't I make up for a transgression by buying offsets?
David and odograph maintain that a molecule of CO2 is a molecule of CO2 - why should we care about how it is kept from the atmosphere? In other words, this is purely a scientific problem.
On the contrary, I submit that this is a social problem. Our actions have a cascading network of consequences. For example, by choosing to fly, one enriches the airlines, encourages the construction of more airports, and sets an example for others (friends and family).
If Priuses, cloth shopping bags and carbon offsets were sufficient to deal with the problem, then I'd jump on the bandwagon. Unfortunately, these measures are woefully inadequate.
The underlying cause of global warming is a set of paradigms (consumerism, frequent travel, suburbia, etc.) which offsets do not address. To some degree, they numb awareness and allow the paradigms to continue.
Because the problem is deeply rooted in our culture and behavior, I don't think that science and techno-fixes are enough.
To change as much as we need to, we must turn to religion, morality, belief systems.
For a good discussion of different strategies for change, see Leverage Points: Places to Intervene in a System, by Donella Meadows, the late co-author of Limits to Growth.
Bart
Energy Bulletin
Permalink
SustainableGreen Posted 8:44 am
11 Jul 2007
So far, I have virtually nothing but a litany of 'buy/plant trees', which is so vague, pardon me, vacuous, that it could have come from the Stooge-In-Chief, George Dumbass Bush. So, someone provide a list of Carbon offsets offered, and since some of you are so proud of them, rank them by value, importance, or efficiency. And as someone here said, the only qualifier should be to the extent that it prevents Carbon, sequestered over geologic time, from being extracted and consumed--you can't "un-ring" the bell, you can't put the Genie back in the bottle--not in the time of crisis. All the rest is a shell game. Let's vet them. Go!
Oh, and a prima facie argument that offsets are a distraction: this thread...and the eleventeen Godzillion ones before.
David
Sustainability For Life
Messages done with sustainable energy, with Wind and Sun!
Permalink
SustainableGreen Posted 8:58 am
11 Jul 2007
Wiscidea's suggestion of a top-10 would also work.
Also, Jon, Wiscidea, and Sunflower have pointed out what should be painfully obvious, which I will extend: old-growth forest of all types (rain-, coniferous, deciduous, Alpine, upland, riparian, you name it) and every other biome on the planet must be protected. Period. Not for us--we are only one species which won the natural selection lottery--but for their own intrinsic value. Otherwise, we are a bunch of narcissists. This used to ostensibly be the function of governments, but in the rush of gobbleization, it has lost all priority.
David
Sustainability For Life
Messages done with sustainable energy, with Wind and Sun!
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 9:11 am
11 Jul 2007
It's fun to say. Gobbleization. Gobbleization. Gobbleization. I'll have to find ways to include it in everyday conversation, as well as in my usual, and apparently leftist, rants
THANK YOU!
Now where's those lists of offsets?!
Come on, Dave Roberts! Please give us a list of YOUR favorite offsets. What should an industry interested in pouring CO2 into the atmosphere do to cancel out their contribution to global climate change? Which airline would you use, if each purchased a different offset?
Forward!
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 9:35 am
11 Jul 2007
Unless of course it's maintaining mature rainforrests.
An offset which takes 20-40 years to kick in is NOT equivalent to emitting stopping that same level of emmisions in the short term.
Merely because given feedback loops, by the time that offset is accounted for, the resultant warming effect would be much larger in 20-40 years.
In effect tree carbon should be near worthless, unless it's already mature trees. (Which as Romm points out, should also have to be certified trees, since you don't even know if the tree will last that long)
_
Also the concept of biofuels is rather distressing, since it's NOT the same as the raw ammount of carbon.
BioFuels emit N2O, NOx, O3, and CH4. All of which are far more potent greenhouse gases than the sum of their deconstructed parts.
Especially when you consider that the laws of thermodynamics do not allow for a "Free lunch", biofuels cannot inheriently be carbon nuetral (Much less carbon negative).
_
With ONE rare exception being where biomass is turned into charcoal, with 30% of the rest being turned into gases and liquids.
Buy using ONLY the gas/liquid, and burying the carbon, you can achieve a net reduction in GHG.
HOWEVER, this assumes that the soil where you bury it is not significantly distrurbed (i.e. Tilling the soil)
So if you assume the high quality charcoal isn't just burned, AND you assume the charcoal is left sequestered in the soil then you might be able to recieve a net reduction in carbon benefits.
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 9:40 am
11 Jul 2007
When in reality, due to feedback loops, it really should be more akin to a payday loan. (i.e. gignormous interest)
_
Saying for instance, "I'll take $10000 from you, and pay you back $10000 in the next 40 years"
The capitalist system doesn't work that way.
And in this case, neither does the natural system.
Permalink
JMG Posted 9:43 am
11 Jul 2007
I'm not sure that anyone has suggested that offsets are THE thing holding back the needed response to climate destabilization; I think what has been suggested is that, like the indulgences, offsets permit those with the greatest resources, the very people who have the greatest ability to change their behavior, to rationalize doing something OTHER than change the behavior. That's all. (Though that's quite a lot.)
As for the sinking ship metaphor, sorry you don't like it. I think it's more apt all the time. The first rule of survival at sea during flooding is stop the flooding. Any time/effort/ resources spent on doing other things is taken from that available for the prime objective, stopping the flooding.
And stepping back a bit: given that offsets are a general funding mechanism for renewable energy and efficiency projects, why exactly can't they be part of the "needed response"? Is wind energy part of the needed response? Improved public transport? More energy efficient buildings? Well, all of these things cost money. Offsets provide money. Explain the distraction thing to me again, please.
I believe that assisting with capital formation was the argument I made in favor of offsets the last time this row started; you might be interested to know that I bought a Terrapass a few years ago, and then switched to making a monthly donation to Carbonfund.org, which I continue to do.
So I don't have any particular animus towards offsets -- I just think that, to use another tired cliche (is that, itself, a tired cliche; anyone know of any peppy cliches?), offsets are very much like the famous deckchairs on the Titanic.
I know that some people feel that the only legitimate route to addressing climate change is simply using less energy. But we can't conserve our way out of this problem. We need to switch to carbon-free energy sources, in addition to pursuing efficiency and conservation measures. People who think we're going to conserve our way out of global warming are either uninformed or unserious about the task we face.
And I'd respond that anyone who thinks that voluntary carbon taxes (which is what offsets are) is a solution is either uninformed, unserious, or biased.
The most comprehensive solution that gets at the capital formation question, prompts conservation and efficiency AND carbon free supplies of energy is a stiff carbon tax.
The critical question is whether offsets lead us closer to the universal carbon tax or away from it. I'm still just barely leaning towards the hope that, by taxing myself voluntarily with Carbonfund, I'm sending a signal to the political powers that (a) we must respond to climate change, and (b) that they won't be lynched for responding in the most effective way.
But every time I meet an offset frequent flyer I move a notch toward saying that offsets are actually hurting us because they are encouraging precisely the most aware people to keep on spewing greenhouse gases.
Save the world: Reduce greenhouse gas emissions 5% annually.
Permalink
trock Posted 12:20 pm
11 Jul 2007
Why did George Bush beat Al Gore in 2000? Some say it was because of Florida. It was because Bush outspent Gore by 60 million dollars in the campaign.
Carbon offsets are nothing but disarmament in the face of a war to change the politics in America and around the world.
George Washington said that Government is Force. It's only the force of taxes for carbon and reduction of other taxes that gives us any hope of doing anything meaningful.
Permalink
Gary Gifford Posted 1:00 pm
11 Jul 2007
I myself offset my emissions. That is, the ones remaining after having purchased a Prius, a new fridge, changing out all my incandescents to CFLs and some other energy saving devices and changes in habits.
I've also contributed to John Edwards campaign, Environmental Defense and others, and I can't help but think that if I took those dollars that I've put into offsets and put them into more PAC fundraising efforts that they would have more of an effect on the climate by way of improving our leadership in Washington.
I'm only personally able to afford so much to improve our global situation, and I want to make sure my dollars are being put to their most effective use. So I might just start offsetting my emissions by making more political contributions....
Cheers,
Gary Gifford
Permalink
SustainableGreen Posted 2:26 pm
11 Jul 2007
Man, the crickets and other night critters are deafening! Or, is it, "I know you're out there I can hear you breathing." Or maybe more appropriate to the cyber venue, "Gee, what happened--yer keyboard broke?"
Or is it that planting trees is actually all that is available? Now, would that be a straw man or a smokescreen? Oh....but it was our illustrious thread author who referred to "straw men". So, what about these putative "offset providers"?
I would sincerely like to know, is there anything beyond the sappy (ooh, sorry) idea of planting trees? It really is a simple genuine request.
Regarding the plea from several of us here, and I suspect millions around the world, of preserving biomes worldwide, it really should be done without regard to offsets. In reality it is an act of generosity and humility, and not an act to somehow compensate for a lifestyle. You are not offsetting anything.
Someone here mentioned changing the name of offsets. Taking the suggestion at face value, I would say absolutely not: change the color of the lipstick on a pig and you still have a pig.
I mentioned, not at all facetiously, that for many, offsets are a form of distraction from the real issues. Judging from the large number of threads on offsets here on Gristmill, one has to wonder just how the "distraction" function works, and to whose benefit. It certainly is a distraction trying to track the threads. Just what purpose does this serve?
Some of us await constructive honest answers.
David
Sustainability For Life
Messages done with sustainable energy, with Wind and Sun!
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 2:47 pm
11 Jul 2007
Question TWO:
In one hundred words or less, what are the top 10 preferred carbon offset activities? Use whatever criteria you prefer for ranking them.
Thank you.
We've one vote for preserving mature ecosystems and one for freeing the government... I'm not sure what that means.
But seriously, if I want to purchase and offset so I can go out and buy a Humvee, guilt-free, what are my options? I would like someone who is a strong supporter of offsets or, even better, someone who is a broker to post of list of the top 10 preferred offset activities.
This is your chance to change someone's view by presenting some really good examples. THE WORLD IS WATCHING. I know you're out there. You believe in offsets. You should be able to quickly give us a list or direct us to a website.
Forward!
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 3:16 pm
11 Jul 2007
I SUSPECT that a combination of offsets and a carbon tax, especially when corporations enter the picture, would create a regulatory/tax collection nightmare. There would be tax advisors searching for all sorts of loopholes and schemes to avoid both. Lobbyists would have ample opportunity to beg for exemptions. Those buying offsets would say they shouldn't have to pay the tax. They would probably buy offset from themselves to avoid taxes -- one subsidiary buying the right to pollute from another subsidiary!
Anyway...
Question THREE:
Why is a carbon offset better than a carbon tax?
Thank you.
P.S. Please answer Question TWO (see above) first.
Forward!
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 4:48 pm
11 Jul 2007
She slowed the release of carbon. Global warming is a related rates problem.
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world
Permalink
BiggusCattus Posted 9:32 pm
11 Jul 2007
Many people are nervous about the environment and want to help in some way, and I agree with Romm that the best thing you can do is reduce your own footprint. But, if you have to buy goods and services, just buy them; your obligation to the environment is included in the price. This is not a perfect system but it is improving, and when some cap and trade legislation comes through prices will jump considerably.
The situation seems bad, but there is no reason to jump the gun; fly to France, drive a Hummer if you want, etc. while you still can afford it. This is in fact what most people are doing. Offset project will be funded in plenty of time to make a difference, by corporations with much deeper pockets than yourself who are legally obligated to do so. Don't take on the weight of the world.
Permalink
GreenMom Posted 10:56 pm
11 Jul 2007
So...find offsets that fund clean power generation which displaces grid power from coal-burning power plants. In this category, wind farms and methane digesters in strategic locations are the clear choices. To that end, I bought my offsets from Native Energy and directed them to wind, figuring that helping the wind industry along will also pay off down the road.
I also want to agree that the people who buy offsets are generally those taking other, more tangible steps as well -- so I really don't see them as indulgences. They're just one more piece of the puzzle.
Permalink
spaceshaper Posted 11:15 pm
11 Jul 2007
But. Forget about indulgences, people - too far in the past, too Catholic, too dependent on a knowledge of medieval church history. Think about a parallel much closer to home. Recycling. Anyone with any serious knowledge of the recycling industry will tell you that some areas of recycling make a whole lot of environmental sense and some do not. Some kinds of recycling are even environment-negative (sound familiar?). Money and other resources are nevertheless dropped into municipal and private recycling programs with little accounting of the true value: it sounds like a good thing good to do and plenty of folks are uncritically happy to see it done. But the greatest damage that has been done by the yes, feel-good emphasis on recycling is that it has resulted in almost total neglect of the first two of the the three R's - Reduce, Re-use - remember them? Anyone care to tell me which of the three has the greatest potential for environmental benefit, and which has the least?
Since the three R's concept was introduced - what, 30 years ago? - with its baby-step, almost pain-free third option available to salve our environmental consciences, our consumption of energy and primary materials has gone through the roof with the global consequences we see today. So much for the "every little bit helps" approach. We've been burned once, Dave. Recyclomania has NOT led to conservation and other sensible environmental policy and practice. Tell me again how offsets are going to raise public awareness and help us do REALLY smart stuff down the road?
The true meaning of life is to plant trees, under whose shade you do not expect to sit.
Permalink
GreenMom Posted 11:49 pm
11 Jul 2007
Offsets aren't going to do much to raise public awareness, but they ARE helping us do smart stuff down the road by funding cleaner technology, which really needs the capital....and that, in itself, is reason enough for me to buy some.
Permalink
sunflower Posted 11:57 pm
11 Jul 2007
According to Jim Hansen, emissions is an absolute quantity, not a rates problem. Because CO2 remains in the air for many centuries it does not matter if we delay emissions, the totals will still cause tipping points into disaster. Offsets that offer temporary reductions and not permanent reductions will not help, not a wedge solution.
GreenMom -- Yes! Put wind turbines in coal country.
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 12:05 am
12 Jul 2007
In one hundred words or less, could an expert in the field please present a list of the top 10 preferred carbon offset activities? Use whatever criteria you prefer for ranking them. Please present it in a clear manner. We can discuss the details later.
Thank you.
Forward!
Permalink
Adam Stein Posted 1:06 am
12 Jul 2007
Yep, that sure has been suggested. Again and again and again. It's unsupported by any available evidence and happens to be untrue, but that shouldn't stand in the way of a good suggestion.
And I'd respond that anyone who thinks that voluntary carbon taxes (which is what offsets are) is a solution is either uninformed, unserious, or biased.
No one thinks this. Not a single person. If there's anything that offset retailers are unanimous about, it's that a long-term program for addressing climate change will require legislative solutions that put a price on carbon. The hope is that the voluntary market can hasten and supplement regulation, but not one single person has ever suggested that it will replace it. So why attack this absurd strawman other than as a sleazy way to insinuate bias?
On the other hand, I daily hear someone suggesting that what we "really need to do" is stop driving SUVs and flying to academic conferences. I know it's fun to rant about how everyone needs to change his behavior. Affecting righteous moral postures in front of an eager choir is a lot easier than coming up with realizable solutions. Just don't be surprised when nothing good comes of it.
www.terrapass.com/blog
Permalink
spaceshaper Posted 1:16 am
12 Jul 2007
To stretch the topic even further: I get nervous about David Sustainablegreen's intensity sometimes but he's spot-on about how public policy on everything environmental (actually, just on everything period) is crippled by public governance that's lost its accountability to the general population and which is hand-in-glove with business governance that never had any of that accountability to begin with (David, I hope this is an acceptable paraphrase of some of your thinking in this area). Crack THAT nut and we can hope for some serious progress. Otherwise - bidness as usual.
The true meaning of life is to plant trees, under whose shade you do not expect to sit.
Permalink
Adam Stein Posted 1:17 am
12 Jul 2007
In terms of some broad guidelines, I would suggest the following:
Supporting renewable energy is way more important than protecting old-growth forests. Every coal plant that gets built is going to be with us for a long time. The best long-term dividends come from hastening the transition to low-carbon sources of energy.
In terms of additionality, methane abatement projects are generally considered quite solid. These include landfill methane abatement, dairy farm methane, and others. There are some nuances here, but I'm mentioning it because these projects are probably off the radar screen for most people.
Project type isn't really as important as project quality, which can vary dramatically even within project categories. This will become easier for consumers to sort out as standards emerge, but right now I don't have a 100-word rule of thumb.
Sorry not to have a better answer. It's a complex topic, not amenable to a top ten list.
www.terrapass.com/blog
Permalink
Rune Posted 1:37 am
12 Jul 2007
Issue one is the credibility and reliability of carbon emissions remediation or carbon fuel conservation programs. Such an issue is the stock and trade of accounting. It's a matter of making some simple rules to approximate the complex real world impacts of carbon fuel use, counting up the impacts that would take place without countervailing programs, counting up the impacts with countervailing programs, auditing the counts for accuracy, and accurately reporting the contributions of each actor involved.
Issue two has to do with predicting the likely human responses to various schemes of assigning rights to and costs of releasing carbon into the atmosphere as a consequence of other individually desirable activities. Such matters are exactly what is captured in the frame of economic analysis. Yes, physical sciences are necessary to understand probability and possibility of carbon emission of sequestration given a certain set of human actions, but it is economics that best predicts which actions will be taken in the context under discussion.
Issue three has to do with the further complexity of unintended consequences to other scarce resources, such as water, topsoil, and biodiversity, given a certain economic program or set of programs that aim to alter carbon emissions or sequestration behaviors in multiple societies. Again, physical sciences will provide the details of the likely environmental impacts of human activity, but (sound) economics will best describe what activities are likely under various economic conditions, such as carbon trading markets, carbon taxes, or carbon caps.
I made a stab at laying down an initial framework for appropriate economic analysis of the problems at hand in Joseph Romm's initial thread on this issue when I hastily jotted down Rune's Rulez before taking off for an extended backcountry outing. In my opinion, Romm got himself into a never ending cycle of unsatisfying conjecture and exceptions to his own conjectures by completely ignoring the language and lessons of economics and accounting, instead relying on moral and ethical pontification and over generalization, such as insisting that each individual make the maximum effort to reduce their carbon emissions related activities before availing themselves of the opportunity to invest in others' possibly more effective efforts toward the same end, or simply declaring that no tress should ever by cultivated in the name of carbon reduction. Others have simply played off of this unproductive approach rather than reframing the issue in the terms that have been used by numerous studies to assess the problems and effectiveness of carbon reduction regulatory and market mechanisms.
If I had the ability to start a thread of my own on this subject, I would refine my initial Rune's Rulez, point to the analyses that have convinced most well intentioned policy wonks and business people that carbon taxes backed by sound auditing measures are more effective, reliable, and efficient means of reducing carbon emissions worldwide, while politicians and business opportunists favor carbon offset trading, which is more likely to result in a system that is gamed for quick and ill gotten profits by those making the markets and those using accounting tricks and outright lies to sell something on paper that does not actually produce the declared value for which it is sold in the real world. However, I have no way of starting such a thread, so I will just wait and see if anyone else who does is inclined to dig into the economics and accounting angle. So far, it appears that was a thread killer when I brought it up early on, so I won't take the time here to clean up some obvious flaws in my first contribution toward that end. I am certainly not inclined to dive into any of the numerous rounds of conjecture and personal insults. That's just pointless.
Permalink
JMG Posted 1:38 am
12 Jul 2007
I certainly plead guilty to thinking that addressing the climate crisis will require everyone changing his or her behavior.
What about you? Do you think otherwise?
Save the world: Reduce greenhouse gas emissions 5% annually.
Permalink
Steven T Posted 1:51 am
12 Jul 2007
Scratch below the surface and one quickly finds the battle of either/or, white/black, good/evil logic chains. One way they manifest is in looking at social change in purist terms. To be crass: Who's greener than thou, and who's not? Sociologists have described this process as "boundary maintenance."
Go to pretty much any environmental activist meeting and you can see this at work. We engage in boundary maintenance so routinely that we have stopped seeing it. Alas, when we don't see it our activist group is more likely to resemble a knitting club than one that actually accomplishes social change out there in the real world.
One analytical tool for transcending either/or thinking is to pull out a copy of Alan AtKisson's "Believing Cassandra" and play the "Innovation Diffusion Game" he describes in Chapter 9. The exercise sheds light on how social change is a complex SYSTEM. Us green visionaries are only one small part of it.
Embracing that perspective requires a certain amount of humility, because it beckons those of us with more utopian visions to acknowledge that we will likely never see them fully realized. Indeed, even achieving a small part of our vision may REQUIRE us to make our peace with those holding very different attitudes.
Offsets are nothing more than a tool for trying to bring together people with differing agendas. Like all large-scale social experiments, offsets are going to have contradictions that drive purists nuts with indignation.
David does a good job of pointing out the logical weaknesses of purist arguments against offsets. My only criticism would be his apparent wrapping of offset participants in the flag of idealism. Right now the "industry" may be new enough that it is dominated by idealism, but I would expect that to decline as the practice becomes more "mainstream." Outright corruption is always a possibility.
In other words, it is POSSIBLE that offsets could start to function somewhat like medieval indulgences. Does that completely negate the potential value of offsets as a social change tool? In my view, no. At least not yet.
Permalink
SustainableGreen Posted 2:42 am
12 Jul 2007
JMG writes:I certainly plead guilty to thinking that addressing the climate crisis will require everyone changing his or her behavior.
What about you? Do you think otherwise?
AS do I--plead guilty, that is. We are all in the problem together but many, mostly in the West, but also those elsewhere who are influenced by the West, are a much bigger part of the problem. Simple per capita overconsumption, driven up to some small amount by simply middle class people, but mostly by the rich, whose consumption most of us cannot imagine. So, no, I do not think otherwise on this issue.
Thank you, JMG, for the timely opportunity. This is how it is done. This is how questions are asked and answered.
Furthermore, for those whose profligate lifestyle and consumption has made much of the problem, and made it much worse by their negative role models, more is expected. This is why offsets are so suspect on the face of them, since they are a device of the Corporate Oligarchy. As I tried to explain, suddenly causing Adam Stein to apparently turn stupid but certainly condescending, the progressive nature of the U.S. income tax has been completely undone, and offsets are no better, being part of the same phenomenon. If offsets are to have any value they have to realize real reduction on Carbon, i.e., the reason for Wiscidea's and my request for substantive projects; and the value of the offsets have to be proportional to the consumption of the individual buying the offsets, i.e., progressive.
Real reductions come from practical doable effective activities. Speculation and hype and research and future unproven hopes do not belong in that group. This is why agro-fuels are such a disaster on so many fronts.
Ignoring serious and sincere questions make the so-called experts look less and less qualified. Avoiding clear and direct answers make you the experts look condescending and arrogant. Or it makes you look like you have a dark, ulterior, greed-driven motive, which of course you will not share.
Give us some answers. Wiscidea has repeated his question, very decently and honestly. Some of the so-called experts have sought to tear down 'planting trees' (by the way, said in the most superficial blase manner imaginable, reflecting NO understanding of biology or ecology or their intrinsic non-human values), but while tearing down trees, have nothing else to propose, but vague generalities.
Come on. My rule is simple: a type of project receiving offsets qualifies to the extent it prevents Carbon, sequestered over geological time, from being extracted and consumed. Can't possibly rank them ("OH, dear me!")? Just name them.
There are some excellent comments here that deserve response or at least praise, but the format and practice here seems to thwart that. I regret this condition.
Let's have some real answers. I have modeled the process for you.
David
Sustainability For Life
Messages done with sustainable energy, with Wind and Sun!
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 3:09 am
12 Jul 2007
Just forget you ever heard about this nonsense, join your local democratic party, and the next time your democratic senator or congressman comes to town, talk directly about stopping the war, corporate welfare of all types, and diverting the money to incentives for taxpaying voters to invest in plugin vehicles, conservation, and renewable energy.
And volunteer to get democrats elected and republicans ousted if you have republican congressmen or senators in your area.
When you volunteer your voice trumps lobbyists. grassroots is real political environmental action. This offset "industry" is a flat out scam. Indulgencies? Who cares? Another non-issue.
Carbon trading? Another "free" market scam. Carbon taxes? Regressive and political suicide for our green friendly democrats.
Just get out there and do it. Stop debating issues designed to divert attention and energy from this battle to save the living planet.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
SustainableGreen Posted 3:24 am
12 Jul 2007
Adam Stein writes:Supporting renewable energy is way more important than protecting old-growth forests.
Suddenly I see: with apologies to K.T. Tunstall. The covers become a little loosened, and the anthropocentric shallowness of the motive is revealed, as well as a lack of understanding of the broader world, of which humans are only a small part. Our lack of humility is our ruin. I have mentioned this elsewhere but it deserves constant repeating; read some Thoreau, Muir, Leopold, Carson, Wilson, Lopez, Williams, Abbey, or any number of other fine gifted authors. You who have no appreciation of life but your own existence have no vision, despite your objective measured intellect, and until you do, you deserve no following.
Suddenly I see: an interesting dichotomy, which is probably spontaneous. Many of us here enclose a saying or motto or philosophical message; others have a website or other link. Still others remain into themselves. How interesting to be able to tie these things to the purposes and goals of the participants. Many are quite revealing; some are less than appealing.
David
Sustainability For Life
Messages done with sustainable energy, with Wind and Sun!
Permalink
Adam Stein Posted 3:54 am
12 Jul 2007
Sorry, David, but no. Building a bunch of new coal plants is bad for the broader world. There's nothing anthropocentric or shallow about this recognizing this. Unabated global warming is expected to lead to, among other things, mass extinction. I understand that you might prioritize other environmental issues more highly, which I can respect, but don't presume that this speaks to the purity of anyone's motives or understanding.
www.terrapass.com/blog
Permalink
Adam Stein Posted 4:07 am
12 Jul 2007
Ah, but that's not the controversial part, is it? The controversial part is the "what we really need to do" mindset that denies the necessity of a multipronged approach to combating climate change and in fact tries actively to vilify non-favored solutions. And yes, this is an accurate characterization of the way many approach climate change.
Of course behavioral change is necessary. No controversy there. But it is not even close to sufficient. Nor will it be the major source of carbon reductions if we are to attain the 80% goal by 2050. Globally, per capita energy consumption will increase over the coming decades as the developing world grows richer. Renewables are key.
I concur with the commenter who said this is getting stale. Signing off now...
www.terrapass.com/blog
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 4:26 am
12 Jul 2007
Why the hell should we care about renewable energy then??? Why bother supporting renewable energy if you are going to allow the last few remaining intact ecosystems to disappear. Why stop global climate change if we are going to allow current ecosystems to disappear? Let's just convert it all to energy right now and go out in a blaze of glory.
Adam Stein's comment reveals that renewable energy has nothing to do with preserving our environment. Offsets are another corporate scam. Green-washing. Who's the puppet master? Exon Mobile?
It over. We are all going to die.
PLEASE tell me I'm wrong! What am I missing here???!!!
Forward!
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 4:31 am
12 Jul 2007
Forward!
Permalink
NonprofitWatch Posted 4:40 am
12 Jul 2007
I had hoped for a response in that thread http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2007/7/9/94458/59897/#3
from Adam of TerraPass who was responding to others therein,
but didn't occur -- maybe in this thread?
I did get a response from someone's sock puppet "naturescene"
who commented that,
"The real question is, why do you think it is necessary to harm businesses in order to address climate change? We would like to see some changes in the way businesses function, but that in and of itself does not imply that we must harm businesses to do so. I think that environmentalists need to drop the anti-corporate position,"
which is reminiscent of E.D.'s Sheryl Canter's comment that,
"It's good for businesses to be able to meet emissions targets while keeping their businesses strong. A crippled economy is bad for everybody, and no one would cooperate if that was the price." http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2007/5/8/9412/65181
The problem for me with the above "pro-corporate" and "protect the economy" positions is that these ignore the immense harm that corporations have and are doing to the environment as well as people, as exemplified by global warming. And while the corporations are partnering and donating to E.D. and Nature Conservancy and CI and others, they are simultaneously marketing/selling (their greenhouse gas-spewing SUV's for example), as well as funding anti-environmental think tanks and Republicans -- thereby making it all the harder to attain environmental goals. And the mainstream enviro groups through befriending, partnering and being funded by the corporate sector aren't going to dare put on the table the matter of liability for the global warming perpetrated by the products of these companies. (Meanwhile E.D. has one or two lawyers on its board from the law firm that defends Exxon.)
Re the concern by "naturescene" to not "harm business" and Canter for a "crippled economy", it would seem that their own "let's partner with and be gentle to business approach" may in of itself be quite harmful in various ways. Let's recollect deregulation in California which was sold by E.D. and NRDC as a means for people to buy "green energy" while these groups were playing footsie with Enron and the other utilities. Where do we start in regards to pondering the harm that occurred from that fiasco -- blackouts, higher prices for energy, many billions paid from public coffers and ratepayers to utilities to payoff their nuclear power plants and for expensive energy ( think of the loss opportunity of those funds having not been used for green energy projects; furthermore, Wall Street, the utilities, and pension funds did not bear the true cost of the first generation of nuclear plants, thus they will be all the more game to embark upon future nuclear power plants; by the way USCAP partner G.E. has just announced plans for a new nuclear energy venture http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/07/10/business/hitachi.p ... - does this fall under their Ecomagination division?)
Besides, business and the economy are quite brutal. Ponder the effects of Walmart ( an E.D. partner and funder -- via Walmart heirs ) upon other businesses when it sets up shop and drives an agenda of production to far away places with weak human rights and environmental standards.
All for now. Next up -- a specific example of an obscene product that a group tried to legitimize with carbon offsets.
bernardo issel - http://www.NonprofitWatch.org -
bernardo (at) NonprofitWatch.org
Permalink
SustainableGreen Posted 4:46 am
12 Jul 2007
Adam: stop waffling on the words you use. Write clearly. Own up to what you write. Distortions and poor writing make you look like a liar, or at best, insincere.
You write: "Supporting renewable energy is way more important than protecting old-growth forests." Only then do you refer to coal. Then you posit a title based on false choices you would ascribe to others.
Bulldozers and deliberately started wildfires are far more immediately destructive to habitats than unsustainable energy sources. Human encroachment into wild areas for every conceivable reason is worldwide. The difference distills the difference between direct and indirect. I could bulldoze and clear and cause the biodiversity of 1000 acres to crash irretrievably and forever--per day--if I wished. Sadly, thousands of others worldwide have no qualms or hesitation to do so. One only needs to watch the news to understand the scale of incompetently managed wild habitat and the fires that are started out of ignorance and avarice.
The scale of actual clearing occurring right now, of all habitats, terrestrial and aquatic, around the world, is immense and measurable today--every day--in real time. You yourself state "Unabated global warming is expected to lead to, among other things, mass extinction." While correct, it nevertheless reveals your own poor understanding of priorities. And here I don't need to presume: the facts are clear, as revealed by your statements.
Protecting habitats now is the only choice. In the time it took to write this short correction to a distorted comment, hundreds of acres of all kinds are being lost forever, along with the incalculable biodiversity they possess.
Protecting and preserving biodiversity is a critical need. Sustainability is a critical need. The first more critical problem can be solved right now by acting forcefully. The second can be solved easily too, but requires longer term efforts. We won't be able to protect in the future what we have destroyed now.
Read some of the authors that have been presented.
Finally, to restore the focus of the discussion, will someone (else) answer the question(s) presented?
David
Sustainability For Life
Messages done with sustainable energy, with Wind and Sun!
Permalink
Adam Stein Posted 5:00 am
12 Jul 2007
When I say that "renewable energy is more important than preserving old growth forests," please understand that this was in response to a question about the best uses of carbon offsets, not a normative statement about what matters in life. You posed the question, so I hope this is clear.
Further, understand that unabated global warming potentially has a range of consequences that includes the destruction of forests, plus the destruction of numerous other ecosystems, plus mass extinction, plus lots of human suffering. So I am unapologetically focused on the higher order goal of seeking the most effective solutions to climate change -- although, for the record, there is absolutely no reason we can't focus on forest preservation and renewables simultaneously.
If you ask me -- which you did -- about the best way to address climate change, my opinion is that it through investment in renewables. Climate change is in some respects a math problem. We put so many gigatons of CO2 in the air every year, and we need to get that number down to a certain level as quickly as we can. Given the demographic trends in the developing world, it is going to be impossible to achieve those reductions without massive investment in renewable energy.
However -- and this is important -- no one strategy is going to get us all the way there. The concept of stabilization wedges is the most useful way to conceptualize the problem. We need renewables. We need efficiency measures. We need conservation and behavioral change. We need forests. Not all of these wedges will be equally important, but neither will any of them alone suffice.
This is not greenwashing or an Exxon-inspired conspiracy. One of the messages that we try to promote at TerraPass is that activity on many fronts is required to address this problem. The green community has done a great job whipping up passion over this issue. What is also needed is a nuts and bolts focus on what it will take to truly get us to the promised land.
www.terrapass.com/blog
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 5:15 am
12 Jul 2007
So...
Potential offsets are:
(1) subsidizing renewable energy in general (wind, photovolatics, biomass)
(2) purchasing old-growth forests
(3) financing landfill methane abatement
(4) financing dairy farm methane abatement
(5) constructing nuclear power plants
(6) planting trees in tropical areas
(7) constructing hydroelectric dams
Is that it? Does everyone agree that these are the options? I realize it is a complex issue, but we have to have at least a few solid pieces of information to build on.
Forward!
Permalink
Bart Anderson Posted 6:33 am
12 Jul 2007
Press release
BTW... I think this is a GOOD thing - but it's only a beginning. The key is whether this is the start or the end of the conversation.
Also, I note (as a non-Catholic) that the Catholic Church has been making progress on environmental issues.
Bart
Energy Bulletin
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 7:43 am
12 Jul 2007
I wish to thank The Vatican for investing in construction of a new forest in Europe that will offset their carbon emissions for a year. I did not realize there was that much bare ground in Europe! I hope the new forest will sequester more carbon than the plants currently occupying the site. And, regardless, I'll put a little extra cash in the collection plate next time I see one. A forest is valuable and should be restored, even if it doesn't reduce the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. Plenty of other ecosystem services for us and other animals.
But this information caused me to wonder about something. It seems environmentalists are very concerned about sustainability. We are supposed to invest in programs, projects, and technology that can continue without exhausting resources, further encroaching on natural habitat, or destroying agricultural land.
So my question, or set of related questions...
How sustainable are various carbon offsets?
For example, how long could the current coal-burning power plants in the world continue to pump CO2 into the atmosphere before all the land available for planting trees is committed to 50 years of photosynthesis for every 1 year of CO2 emissions?
Or, how many miles can people fly, using current technology, before capture of all the methane released by dairy cows and landfills has been spoken for?
I imagine it is fairly sustainable, but it would be nice to know that once the system is put in place it will be able to function for, say a few dozen years. Or will industry and consumers quickly buy up all the easy projects? How long will there be low-hanging fruit?
By the way, thank you everyone who answered questions ONE and TWO. I really want to understand this offset stuff.
Forward!
Permalink
SustainableGreen Posted 8:19 am
12 Jul 2007
Hey, Wiscidea: First, what on Earth have you to apologize for? The impertinence of asking questions? Oh, the audacity! Bring out the Cat-o'-Nine-Tails!
How disappointing yet revealing that you have to answer your own questions. So much for the so-called experts.
So one wonders, which of these are actually in use, rather than potential or hypothetical? And is there any means of determining amounts invested?
I would quickly vet these from a biology/ecology point of view, since some are kinda out there:
We can and should spend money on sustainable sources--wind and sun. Biomass sounds much more intensive and potentially an energy merry-go-round.
Purchasing old-growth forests is great but it is not an offset at all.
and 4) sound like subsets of biomass.
Well, nukes ain't Carbon but they have their own horrible destructive unsustainable characteristics. If anything offsets should be used for displacing and ultimately dismantling nukes.
As long as locally native trees are included as additions to existing high quality forest, good; otherwise, bad, and merely a scam. And despite the study from another thread on albedo and Carbon, forests everywhere should be added to. Also, forests need to have strict conservation easements.
Hydroelectric dams are very environmentally destructive and are a bad idea for offsets. The thread on whales referring to the Baiji dolphin provides a good example.
To my eye, only 1 and 6 have any value as sustainable activities. This is another reason why offsets make so little sense when the individual can invest in some direct way, in sustainability.
If Catholics will actually ADD to old-growth forests by their actions, instead of merely their own updated "indulgences" , I take back some of what I have said about 'em.
David
Sustainability For Life
Messages done with sustainable energy, with Wind and Sun!
Permalink
Irish Posted 4:41 pm
13 Jul 2007
Yet because (1) I'm a Dave Roberts fan and (2) I may be the original author of this metaphor (at least I think it was original when I first used it a couple years ago), and (3) two other posters have sent me links to it, I feel I should respond.
I purchase offsets for all my air travel and my gasoline. I view them as charitable contributions that will make the world a better place. Alas, unlike other charitable gifts, they don't qualify for an income tax deduction, and they have little if any correlation with atmospheric carbon.
Purchasing these offsets did not dissuade me from buying a Prius, bicycling to work, insulating my house, buying a new efficient furnace, or searching out non-stop flights.
So why term them indulgences?
Medieval indulgences were purchased when people thought they had done something sinful. The money went to a church that, in theory, was supposed to have used the cash to advance God's work. And at least sometimes, this is indeed what occurred. Viewing sin and redemption as "offsetting" one another, the indulgence was supposed to have done to the sin what a positron does to an electron: wipe it out.
The aptness of the metaphor is so obvious that it requires little explanation or defense. That is precisely what carbon offsets are supposed to do.
Both require a significant leap of faith. Both have been abused. (Whether some options are "fruadulent" is a question for the FTC (for younger readers, the FTC was once a regulatory body that rooted out consumer fraud), but I have seen offers to buy a sapling for $2 and receive credit for all the carbon "sequestered" by the tree over its lifetime. That is the sort of thing that got under Martin Luther's skin.)
There is no reason to oppose offsets in principle -- any more than there is any reason to oppose charitable contributions to the Solar Electric Light Fund or The Nature Conservancy -- each of which does exactly what most option sellers do. The world is better off for such gifts. In fact, DeTocqueville considered such acts to be one of the sources of American greatness.
But they don't do squat for the climate. Because the US has no carbon cap, we cannot have a legitimate cap-and-trade program. The "cap" is more important than the trade. Trading is just a mechanism to make the cap more efficient and more politically palatable.
Today's offsets are simply a voluntary transfer of wealth to a group that the donor believes will do something good with it. I don't know whether my offsets do more good than my gifts to Grist, but they come out of the same pocket.
What they don't do, though, is offset -- i.e., cancel -- the greenhouse gases I deposited in the stratosphere during my flight yesterday to Denver.
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 5:37 pm
13 Jul 2007
Myself, I don't know nothin' 'bout nothin', so cannot comment on whether this is true:
<<
Viewing sin and redemption as "offsetting" one another, the indulgence was supposed to have done to the sin what a positron does to an electron: wipe it out.
>>
Or whatever.
As I suggested earlier, though perhaps did not make the suggestion at all clear, the only thing that mattered (matters?) with indulgences is the intention of the believer (yes, fully sincerely believing pious believer). This is entirely consistent with DR's emphasis on the intelligence and excellent intentions of everyone that he knows who is interested in working out an offset regime.
As I did not suggest anywhere near so clearly, save insofar as I was following up on a suggestion of the excellent Prophet WiscIdea, whether on this thread or elsewhere, the whole issue of why anyone might wish to "offset" a trans-Atlantic flight, say, should be rethought.
Yes, of course there will be those who analyse that flight in terms of how much GHG is emitted. And if those people think that they can positively do something by way of sequestering the equivalent amount of GHGs, well, good for them.
But since we got into all of this on the question of planting trees, I feel it is necessary to add another ethical option: Do something good for the World, and its community of living creatures, regardless of the arithmetic of CO2. Plant trees, plant orchids, plant tulips, plant grasses, help crocodiles, help butterflies, help coral reefs, help the friends of Steve Irwin, help Oceana, for starters. And there are countless other Earth-loving causes that one may help. Without bogging down in that depressing CO2 arithmetic.
Chickens are our cousins!
So are other sensitive animals!
Enough is enough!
No more factory farms!
Permalink