In a prime example of how voluntary offsets fail to resemble indulgences:
As someone who once sunk a shrimp boat as an act of civil disobedience, Diane Wilson was disappointed when two big environmental groups opted for a less-than risky alternative to blocking a new coal-burning power plant that's poised to blaze in her community of Calhoun County, Texas.
If she had the time and resources, Wilson, a fourth generation fisherman and leader of the lonely environmental group Calhoun County Resource Watch, says she would have tried to "stop [the plant] dead in its tracks."
Instead, the Sustainable Energy and Economic Development (SEED) Coalition in Texas and the national watchdog organization Public Citizen ended their opposition to the plant this month. The groups agreed to drop their permit challenge of the 303-megawatt coal plant in exchange for NuCoastal Power Corporation's commitment to offset 100 percent of its mercury and carbon dioxide emissions. The proposed plant, which will burn petroleum coke, will be located in Point Comfort, Texas.
Kerry-Boxer muddies handling of international offsets
Ask Umbra on climate weapons
Ask Umbra on offsetting work trips
Comments
View as Flat
Colin Wright Posted 10:30 am
02 Sep 2007
For the record, here's James Hansen's take on carbon offsets from today's LA Times: "These offsets are not addressing the problem that must be addressed now," said James Hansen, NASA's top climate researcher. "If we just fool around with marginal things, we will be up a creek without a paddle in the rather near future."
Permalink
wildleaf Posted 11:05 am
02 Sep 2007
The Black Car Project
Permalink
wayneluke Posted 11:22 am
02 Sep 2007
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 11:40 am
02 Sep 2007
Only to have them all wither and die after they were planted.
Permalink
Jones Posted 12:37 pm
02 Sep 2007
If she had the time and resources, Wilson...says she would have tried to "stop [the plant] dead in its tracks."
Talk is cheap. Offsets exists precisely because time and resources are limited for all of us.
The linked article was high on morals and short on details, but a few seem important:
Texas is not a painless place to rein in polluting industries, and battles fought in court can be insanely expensive, with victories far from guaranteed. I'm not suggesting that stopping mighty coal is another easy day in the office. But giving coal the green light should never be done, even on the hardest terrain. No new coal means no new coal, regardless of the corporations' concessions.
I see she's read the Charge of the Light Brigade...
In this case, the concessions seem grand. NuCoastal has agreed to offset 100 percent of its mercury reductions by reducing emissions by 80 percent and purchasing mercury emissions credits. The corporation has also promised to offset 100 percent of its carbon dioxide emissions through a variety of credible-sounding avenues: funding energy efficiency programs, shutting down a comparable source of emissions, building wind turbines, or investing in carbon sequestration equipment.
So, rather than get concessions from the company, they should pour valuable resources into a lost cause?
There's a time when direct, symbolic action will be strategically effective. But there's also a time when it will bear high costs and low returns, and the best course of action would be to pursue your efforts elsewhere. From the information supplied in this article, it's impossible to say that that occurred in this instance, but it seems quite plausible.
Let's assume that they were powerless to stop the plant: they got their concessions, and freed up resources to pursue more effective strategies, like, say, pressing for a moratorium, rather than fighting each plant individually. How on earth could that be: a) an indulgence, or b) a bad thing?
Only if it could be proved that a deathmatch would yield a net positive result. Can you do that, Gar? Until we know better, shouldn't we trust "a group that otherwise does stellar work" to understand where their strategic interest lies?
Again, an offset can be either an indulgence or a valuable strategic tool. Every case must be weighed on its own merits.
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 12:41 pm
02 Sep 2007
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world
Permalink
David Roberts Posted 2:24 pm
02 Sep 2007
It would be extremely expensive for the coal plant to eliminate its carbon emissions. But that same amount of emissions could be eliminated elsewhere relatively cheaply. So for the coal plant, it's cheaper to buy the equivalent amount of offsets than to reduce emissions.
That is the entire point of creating a carbon market -- to channel money to the cheapest reductions first.
Now, I'm in favor of a moratorium on new coal plants without sequestration. But the thing to do there, as Jones says, is push for the moratorium. We can't fight coal plants one by one. Who knows why Public Citizen decided offsets were the best it could get -- I'm not competent to judge the negotiations.
If you want to argue that the choice was between offsets or no-coal-plant, you need to argue it. You can't just assume it, and blame offsets.
grist.org
Permalink
Gar Lipow Posted 3:15 pm
02 Sep 2007
Note that the press release(pdf) by all 3 parties refers to this as "a precedent-setting agreement". We don't need to hand the coal industry a new way to pull the teeth from future regulations by adding a exemption where they can offset violations.
You are the one who constantly makes a big deal of how absurd it is to label offsets as indulgences. But in this case it is pretty obvious that that indulgences is what they are. I question whether the environmental groups really advanced their causes by helping NuCoastal put a coat of green paint on their plant, rather than using it as poster child.
In any fight, from something as formal as a chess game, to something as chaotic as back ally brawl you have to think more than one move ahead. Helping your opponents cover up their dirty tricks is not smart strategy. The concessions, in spite of what the reporter says, are not "grand". They are minor, and provide the industry with a new precedent to help fight a moratorium.
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 5:40 pm
02 Sep 2007
Or rather is "carbon neutral" enough to get things done.
Cause frankly, we need to get "carbon negative" if we want to have a prayer of dealing with global warming sometime in the next decade.
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 12:24 am
03 Sep 2007
This is the first time I can recall ever seeing an ad for coal. They are getting concerned about public opinion and are already working to plant the necessary images. They know what happened to nuclear.
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world
Permalink
drfrances Posted 12:43 am
03 Sep 2007
I think public transportation is generally a very good thing but that did give me pause.
Frances
Permalink
JMG Posted 3:44 am
03 Sep 2007
Save the world: Reduce greenhouse gas emissions 5% annually.
Permalink
JMG Posted 3:47 am
03 Sep 2007
Save the world: Reduce greenhouse gas emissions 5% annually.
Permalink
wildleaf Posted 7:11 am
03 Sep 2007
The Black Car Project
Permalink
Sam Wells Posted 7:21 am
03 Sep 2007
Ka-ching, absolved, they paid their indulgences. All is good now. Here's your permit to emit.
Onward through the fog
Permalink
Gar Lipow Posted 10:17 am
03 Sep 2007
Permalink
ids Posted 1:07 pm
03 Sep 2007
Applauding another new CO2 plant for its accompanying efficiency savings or wind turbines they call offsets is the neo-con's Straussian noble lie. It follows relativism to nihilism. It's contemptuous of ordinary people, condemning them to ignorance in a cave. It kills any remaining hopes and wishes of the world for U.S. leadership on the anthropomorphic global climate problem she practically started.
These paper tiger enviro's should not try to justify their existence with propaganda press releases touting more coal use that ignores its accompanying waste.
Permalink
trock Posted 2:29 pm
03 Sep 2007
Permalink
trock Posted 2:35 pm
03 Sep 2007
Permalink