Summer is upon us, unofficially at least. So to usher in the driving season, may I introduce Carbonfund.org, a new way to offset your personal carbon emissions from driving -- as well as from flying, and heating, cooling, and powering your house.
Obviously, Carbonfund.org isn't the only carbon offset program in town; Terrapass is more established and better known. But one thing about Carbonfund.org is unique: it's cheap. I mean, really, really cheap. A ton of CO2 costs just $5.50 U.S., which is, oh, about a quarter of the current price on the European Union carbon futures market, and substantially less than other carbon offset programs I've found (see here and here for a rundown).
In fact, Carbonfund.org is so cheap it made me wonder: is it for real? With some caveats, I'm inclined to think it is.
The real question in figuring out whether Carbonfund.org could be real is this: is it really possible to reduce U.S. carbon emissions by one ton for the low, low price of $5.50? I don't see why not.
Here's how it works: Carbonfund.org invests in energy efficiency, in solar and wind power, and in tree-planting projects. And those projects either offset electricity that would have been generated from fossil fuels (coal and natural gas, mostly) or capture carbon from the atmosphere and sequester it in trees and forest soils.
Let's leave aside tree planting for the moment. On energy efficiency and renewables: there are a lot of projects that are almost, but not quite, at the financial break-even point, the place where it makes sense to make the energy-efficient investment, but all that's needed is a little extra cash to push them over the top. That's especially true given that the rapid runup in the price of fossil fuels means that renewables are becoming very cost competitive. Sometimes a small investment is all that's needed to make a financially marginal wind or solar project pencil out.
Which all means that there's a lot of low-hanging fruit -- that is, efficiency & renewables projects that are just on the cusp of making sense on purely financial grounds, where only a few extra dollars can turn them from an idea on the drawing board into reality. So the idea of something like Carbonfund, I suppose, is to find good projects that are just on the verge of beating out business as usual, and providing that extra bit of cash that's needed to make the accounting department give the green light.
Now, over time, the price of a ton of carbon is bound to climb, as the low-hanging fruit gets plucked. But for now, I can believe that there are plenty of opportunities to reduce CO2 emissions at $5.50 per ton.
RealClimate has a great discussion of the program, including some caveats -- especially about reforestation projects, for which carbon storage can apparently be hard to measure and verify.
Now, I know that some people have criticized these sorts of programs as the climate equivalent of buying indulgences -- we sin, we pay a sin tax, and forget about it; but we don't really change our ways. Under this view, a better and more honest step to reducing our own carbon emissions is, well, to reduce our own carbon emissions -- not to pay someone else to do it for us.
There's a valid point there. But I think it's a little misguided. I mean, why spend thousands to reduce my own personal emissions by a little bit when the same investment, pooled together with investments from other people and directed by people who really know what they're doing, would make a much, much bigger difference? This may be a case where effectiveness, rather than purity, is the real sign of personal virtue.
(Tip of the hat to Dave Manelski)
Comments
View as Flat
DianaJardine Posted 12:58 am
31 May 2006
Is there any type of public accounting that could show people something like: "project X was made possible by the X amount of donations. Project X would not have happened otherwise."
In short, is there any way to know that these solar/wind/etc. projects are happening because of the money people give to Carbonfund or Terrapass, and that they would not have happened if it weren't for these funds?
I haven't really checked their sites out much, so forgive me if they address this question themselves.
Diana
Permalink
kmp Posted 1:23 am
31 May 2006
TerraPass has a page on their site that lists all the project portfolio. Presumably none of these would have been completed without money from TerraPass members.
I've often wondered why there is such a price discrepancy. I have TerraPass for my car, and 6 tons of CO2 offset costs about $50 ($8.33/ton). I've also used Native Energy to offset air travel, where 6 tons costs $72 ($12/ton). However, GreenTags from BEF seem to cost about $40-$50/ton (difficult to get a clear conversion). I never knew if this was because BEF is non-profit, and TerraPass and Native Energy are not, but Carbonfund is non-profit, so....
In general I think that all of these carbon offset programs are a good thing. Like so many of the discussions we have about "the perfect problem" it will take a number of efforts on a number of different fronts in order to truly tackle global warming. Reduction of energy use is clearly one, but I consider carbon offsets another useful weapon in the arsenal.
Permalink
Kif Scheuer Posted 3:32 am
31 May 2006
One objection I've heard is that you can only displace so much carbon without changing behavior yourself. At an absolute level that's true, but should we ever get enough carbon offsets in play at the consumer level that there's a shortage we will have a pretty incredible level of support for alternative energy programs going on.
Also by allowing us to fund alternative energy projects directly, if these programs are financially succesful, it sends a message to policy makers that we're willing to impose a tax on ourselves to create change.
Permalink
Lisa Hymas Posted 4:47 am
31 May 2006
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 6:52 am
31 May 2006
(This occurred to me in connexion with a hopefully green-sounding statement on that remarkable website about creating a "tribe" on a Fiji islet, a couple of days ago, for which poor David got slammed, for not Paying Attention to Absolutely Everything, and Remembering It Too.)
For example, take an airline flight from point A to point B. We have an average fuel consumption for that route, and we have an average number of passengers on that flight. So is it just a matter of division, and our offsetting calculation is nearly done?
But actually, the book-keeping for that flight has hardly begun. What about the energy consumed in "recovering" the petroleum, transporting it to a refinery, refining it, transporting it to the airplane? What about the energy consumed in marketing the flight, and selling the ticket to me the passenger? What about if it is an e-ticket, or a paper ticket? What about the energy consumed by all the airline's employees in their travel to and from work? What about the energy consumed in my ground travel to the airport at point A, and my ground travel from the airport at point B? What about the energy consumed in the production and transportation of the food served on-board? What about the energy consumed by the baggage trucks, and the boarding ramps? Is it not fair to add in some part of the energy cost of even the construction of the airplane, the employees' uniforms, the airport?
I understand the moral quibbles about "offsetting," but I myself have no objection to it in principle. Nevertheless, the way it is apparently being done nowadays strikes me as very very silly. And that is not at all good, if we hope to establish it as a conventional part of our way of life.
Permalink
oysteine Posted 8:37 am
10 Aug 2006
Permalink
happykayaker Posted 5:23 am
18 Dec 2006
-Had $39,421 in revenue.
-Spent $12,625 to directly offset carbon emissions.
-Spent $16,242 on education programs, press releases, and developing their website.
In other words:
-32% of their revenue directly mitigates CO2 emissions
-68% of their revenue goes into developing their company and educating the public on carbon neutrality (including developing their website and issuing PR statements about their role in balancing CO2 emissions)
That means that for 2005, 32 cents of every dollar you donate was applied directly to reducing CO2 emissions. The other 68 cents went to PR and education (which means paying for their website, educating the public, issuing press releases about their company, and so on.)
Check it carbonfund.org and other non-profits on guidestar.org.
Is 32% a high enough number? You have to make up your own mind. But when you do, keep in mind that start-ups like this one need capital to build their own internal structure for the first couple of years. And it costs money to print brochures, develop materials, and spread the word. Eventually, I'd HOPE that 32% would AT LEAST double. (Some mature non-profits spend 70%+ of their revenue on "direct services."
Permalink