Among bad deals, TerraPass’s methane offset project? 7

Comments View as Flat

1. 

   Werdna Posted 3:42 am
   22 Mar 2007

   TerraPassIt's an interesting story.  They accuse TerraPass, an offset trading company, of having funded dubious offset projects.  TerraPass has responded by doing a full review of the project in question.  The review is being done openly and the current status can be found here:
   
   http://terrapass.pbwiki.com/
   
   and a blog posting about it here:
   
   http://www.terrapass.com/terrablog/posts/2007/03/digging- ...
   What I like about this is that if TerraPass is truly be upfront and honest about its review, it is raising the bar for all other offset trading companies.  
   At this point, selling carbon offsets feels like the wild west.  Anyone can say they are selling offsets, but how do we know if they are telling the truth or if the offsets really do remove the GHG that they are supposed to?  
   If all carbon trading companies voluntarily follow the same rigor that TerraPass is, then this industry has a future.
   
   

   Permalink

2. 

   thebrowze Posted 7:29 am
   22 Mar 2007

   Scams and SuckersThis strikes me as very similar to the many phony charities set up in the wake of Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans.  People want to do the right thing but they don't want to spend the time or effort to make sure their dollars are going to the right place.
   This is one of those things that will get better the more light is shone on the situation.  The fact that the company in Colorado refuses to demonstrate or point to any of their projects for which these resorts are paying hundreds of thousands of dollars shrieks of a scam to me.
   What will probably end up happening is that more information with drive better consumer choice.  Right now the market is very young, but as time goes by the good companies will be able to demonstrate what they're doing and the scam artists without serious substance will fade away.

   Permalink

3. 

   Vail Resorts Inc Posted 8:35 am
   22 Mar 2007

   Vail Resorts, Inc.In response to BusinessWeek's article "Another Inconvenient Truth" (The Environment, Mar. 25), I would like to register Vail Resorts' position on carbon offsets.  The article may have left readers with the impression that our commitment to the climate is nothing but hype.  Nothing could be further from the truth. Vail Resorts is committed to reducing our energy use and looking for sources of alternative energy.  While it's true that we considered building a wind turbine on Vail Mountain, we quickly determined that trying to power our entire company through our own wind turbines was neither feasible nor environmentally responsible.  Our local utilities were not an option because they simply did not have enough alternative energy for our needs.  We have been purchasing renewable energy in varying quantities to offset our energy use for years, allowing us to fulfill our commitment to tap alternative energy sources and provide the investment necessary to encourage new wind power development, in places where it made sense.  
   Since the climate is a truly global problem, it should not matter where the green electricity is generated, only that it replaces fossil fuel generation.  Of course, there should be no secrecy in the process and contrary to the article's insinuation, Vail Resorts is committed to transparency.  Our purchase of 152,000 RECs (kWh) has supported Flying Cloud Wind Farm in Iowa, Elk River Wind Farm in Kansas, Trimont Area Wind Farm in Minnesota, Oklahoma Wind Energy Center in Oklahoma, Wolverine Creek Wind Farm in Idaho and Rock River Wind Farm and Foote Creek 1 Wind Farm in Wyoming. More about our wind power purchase and how we are encouraging our guests and employees to choose clean energy can be accessed at http://www.snow.com/windpower.  
   The commitment of Vail Resorts to the environment is deeper than our investment in wind power alone. Our company has a long track record of incorporating responsible environmental stewardship into the daily operations of our resorts from energy and water conservation, to recycling and reducing waste, to wildlife habitat improvement. Vail Resorts is protecting our forests through a partnership with the National Forest Foundation and we recently announced a green building project called Ever Vail that will be the largest LEED-certified resort development in North America.
   Our real concern in responding to BusinessWeek's misleading article is to make sure other businesses are not discouraged from making investments in alternative energy.  Vail Resorts is proud of its leadership in the area of corporate environmental responsibility.
   Sincerely,
   Rob Katz, CEO Vail Resorts, Inc.
   
   

   Permalink

4. 

   ltlf653 Posted 8:36 pm
   22 Mar 2007

   questionable support?Mr Katz:
   Vail is not "offsetting" its energy use by purchasing renewable energy. By purchasing RECS from an existing wind farm, Vail may only accurately claim to be using clean energy. You are not making an investment that is directly resulting in more renewable energy development, and you are only "supporting" these wind farms in the way that you "support" Wal-Mart when you shop there.
   Unless you're purchasing legitimate offsets (not necessarily to be found on the Chicago Climate Exchange!) you cannot really claim to be encouraging the growth of windfarms--they'd be producing those RECs whether or not you bought them. Only when you're making purchases in REC-based offsets that meet the additionality criteria can make that claim.

   Permalink

5. 

   Tom Stoddard Posted 11:47 pm
   22 Mar 2007

   questionable supportNativeEnergy here.  I'd like to thank ltlf653 for pointing out an important distinction between buying green power (through RECs) and offsetting CO2 emissions, and for linking to our web site for more information.
   I'd like also to clarify NativeEnergy's view that while purchasing RECs absent demonstrated additionality isn't a waste.  Far from it.  "Using" clean energy through the purchase of RECs is valuable and beneficial to the market for clean energy and for the environment.  We commend Vail for its purchase.
   Nevertheless, the issue isn't merely one of semantics, and that's why we are careful on our web site to distinguish between our Green-e certified CoolWatts product - RECs from operating wind farms - which we sell as a green power option, and our "help build" RECs and offsets products that meet our additionality requirements (http://www.nativeenergy.com/additionality) and thus qualify as offsets for purposes of offsetting direct fossil fuel use, such as for driving, flying, heating and business process heating.

   Permalink

6. 

   Tom Stoddard Posted 12:12 am
   23 Mar 2007

   One more thoughtNativeEnergy again.  I may have left readers with the impression that our view is that no RECs from operating wind farms qualify as carbon offsets.  That's not the case.  Many, perhaps even most, wind farms would qualify as "additional" projects.  But we believe that additionality must be assessed on a project-by-project basis, however, and for our CoolWatts product, we do not do additionality assessments because there is no need to, for green power purposes.  We have in the past conducted project-specific additionality assessments and we do sell RECs from operating, additional projects to some of our business customers who choose that option.
   Ultimately, the primary distinction is not whether a given project is operating, but whether its implementation was, at the time, beyond business as usual.  That is critical to qualifying the RECs as offsets.  Among projects that are additional, it is a matter of taste whether one would want to have his or her purchase support an operating project or help build a new one.  We're pleased to offer both alternatives.

   Permalink

7. 

   A Siegel Posted 1:26 am
   23 Mar 2007

   As a thought ...Is it not worthwhile to note the best guide out there on offsets?  Clean-Air/Cool-Planet's (http://www.cleanair-coolplanet.org/) The Comsumer's Guide to Retail Carbon Offset Providers. (Note, considering postings here, NativeEnergy is well rated in this.)
   My view:   "the fact remains that carbon offsets are -- at best -- confusing among many legitimate paths/programs, there are also many that are just short of fraud.  ... The real point -- this should be easier and shouldn't require research to have confidence that offsets are legitimate."

   Permalink