Gar Lipow offers up his latest critique of carbon offsets, which this time is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of the underlying science of greenhouse gases. The story, for those following along at home, can be summarized thusly:
- Gar feels that carbon offsets are, among other things, the "enemy of the human race."
- I feel that offsets are an interesting policy option with kinks to be worked out. The kinks are not nearly so fundamental or intractable as some would have you believe.
The following discussion gets a bit dense, but it's also highly instructive, so I recommend soldiering through if this is a topic you're interested in.
First, a bit more background. The carbon reductions represented by carbon offsets are always measured from some emissions baseline, which represents the "business as usual" case -- the level of emissions that would have occurred in the absence of the offsets. Depending on the project type, determining the baseline can be more or less difficult. For all offsetting projects, it is critical that the offsets represent emissions reductions that would not have happened otherwise. This property is known as "additionality." High-quality offsets are said to be additional.
In my previous post on this topic, I pointed to one type of offsetting project that is generally regarded as highly additional. Decomposition of garbage in landfills produces methane, a greenhouse gas 23 times as potent as carbon dioxide. It is possible to capture this methane and burn it, removing it from the atmosphere and generating carbon offsets in the process. The offsets are considered highly additional because the economics of landfill methane flaring make these projects unsupportable in the absence of offsets. This is known as the "revenue flow" additionality test. Because offsets represent the only meaningful revenue flow to methane flaring projects, we can be confident that the projects would not have happened in the absence of offsets.
Gar responded recently to my post with a description of one such flaring project in South Africa: the Bisasar Road Landfill. Gar's conjecture in this case is that without the revenue stream from offsets, the landfill might have been shut down entirely. Gar feels that this is baseline from which we should measure the carbon reductions brought about by the offsets. That is, the baseline that Gar recommends is a hypothetical one in which the landfill doesn't exist at all.
This demonstrates a basic misunderstanding. There's a lot to wade through, but I'll jump to the main paragraph:
If you are measuring additionality of the Bisasar energy project, it seems like the chance that it might have shut down without the subsidy from CDM is not such a reach after all. In fact, there is a good argument that shutdown should be the baseline scenario.
The basic misunderstanding is that closing down a landfill does not destroy the greenhouse gases associated with it. The garbage doesn't disappear. Neither do the waste streams from the local population. Closing a landfill does not help reduce greenhouse gases any more than closing a gas station does.
Further, if you click through to the article Gar links to -- an article highly critical of the Bisasar project -- you'll find this statement:
No one is against extracting the methane from the rotting garbage. But Durban officials say they won't go to the trouble of doing so without the $15 million subsidy, because the electricity generated in the process costs so much more per kilowatt hour than Eskom charges for its coal-fired power.
This, in plain English, is why landfill methane flaring projects are additional. They don't pay for themselves. In the absence of offsets, the methane is allowed to escape into the atmosphere, which is bad for the local population and bad for the environment.
It feels a bit odd to be arguing this point at all, because, as I said, landfill methane flaring projects are generally considered to be highly additional. It would be a surprise to discover that they are not, and presumably some primary research would be required to support such a conclusion.
The Bisasar landfill does raise numerous environmental justice issues regarding the siting of garbage dumps in Apartheid-era South Africa. But carbon offsets did not create these dumps, or these issues. Further, carbon offsets can plausibly have a role in addressing such issues by functioning as a subsidy for clean energy development in the developing world.
I will hopefully be posting more often at Grist on topics related to carbon and carbon regulation. Most likely, though, I will not be continuing this running debate about whether offsets are evil, mostly because it's not terribly relevant. Carbon trading is coming to the U.S. in a big way. Between RGGI in the Northeast and the California Global Warming Solutions Act, a large portion of the American economy will soon be operating under a carbon trading regime. The Chicago Climate Exchange, despite being voluntary, is already the second-largest carbon market in the world. As early as 2009, Congress could enact federal carbon legislation that places the entire U.S. economy under a cap-and-trade system.
There are many nuances to carbon market design, many of which I'm still acquainting myself with. I look forward to exploring these topics here.
Comments
View as Flat
Biodiversivist Posted 11:54 am
06 Feb 2007
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world
Permalink
Gar Lipow Posted 1:31 am
07 Feb 2007
Permalink
Sam Wells Posted 3:01 am
07 Feb 2007
The landfill example was similarly silly. Landfills are a very small part of methane releases on a global scale and when the gas is cleaned (requiring energy) and burned, it releases 99% of its carbon in the form of CO2. The fact that methane is 23 times the global warming potential of CO2 is simply bait & switch tactics in the range of noise. Global warming still goes up ... I mean, isn't that a fact? To claim there is a reduction there is seriously delusional.
More combustion of fuels in internal combustion engines and external combustion devices such as boilers and turbines makes more global warming. Period. The concept that some companies and countries can claim reductions in GWP while GHG levels are rising, well, stinks like a landfill.
/sammie
Onward through the fog
Permalink
Adam Stein Posted 12:52 pm
07 Feb 2007
Have you heard of any plans to merge the Biasar landfill with other landfills? If such a merging were to take place, do you know whether the economics of methane flaring would actually change? More importantly, do you have reason to think that most or even many or even a few other landfills are in a similar hypothetical position -- because obviously a blanket criticism of the concept of additionality can't rest on a single project.
The answer to all of these questions is "no." The article you linked to contained a crystal-clear explanation of why the Biasar project is additional. Just because it's possible to imagine scenarios in which additionality is violated doesn't make those scenarios plausible. These arguments have to be rooted in the real world.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 3:00 pm
07 Feb 2007
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
birdboy Posted 6:12 am
08 Feb 2007
"I'm going to do what I want to do, even though it will cause unnecessary emissions (today) and harm the environment, but I'll feel good about it and keep doing it, because I gave money to some folks who told me that they will, at some time in the future, help to reduce emissions which they say would have occurred otherwise, in an amount which they say will equal my emissions today."
There is no responsibility on my part to ensure that the promised good behavior is equal to my bad behavior, or that it is even attempted. My responsibity ends when my check clears. The potential for abuse of this promise is enormous. Even if it is done and is equal, it is done later- my bad is done now. Yet I feel justified in producing emissions based on my faith that they can and will accomplish the 'offset'. Not now, not here, but later, elsewhere. The lesson is that we don't have to change our behavior as long as we can afford to pay someone else to 'offset' it's effect.
Crime committed by me now, is erased by good deeds promised later, by someone else.
Shouldn't our priorities be ordered thusly?
change our own behavior (Ghandi said it best)
try to influence the behavior of those around us
try to change the system (government and corporations)
Offsets are contrary our first priority. They do not represent a change for the better, but a personal resistance to change. While they may be the result of an awakened consciousness in upper class America, they are in effect an excuse for continuing bad behavior. Offsets are an indication of the same disease that got us into this mess- the tendency of our society to resist change and to pass on responsibility for our actions to other people and other generations. I am reminded of Pilate washing his hands, and sealing his fate.
a liberal in redsville
Permalink
Adam Stein Posted 12:15 am
09 Feb 2007
We have a long-running series of conservation tips on the TerraPass web site. The commentary on them is quite active and earnest -- people really are hungry for ways to lessen their own impact.
Permalink
Adam Stein Posted 12:24 am
09 Feb 2007
Permalink
sunflower Posted 1:06 am
09 Feb 2007
By feeling less guilty I can be more judgmental of others, more demanding of politicians, and remain hyper critical of business investors.
Will carbon offsets eliminate 80% of global emissions? Once the low-hanging fruit is consumed will offsets function at all? Perhaps, if and only if carbon offsets were mandated (carbon taxes) and so expensive that the payer actually chooses to not use carbon in the first place.
Permalink
Adam Stein Posted 2:35 am
09 Feb 2007
"Will carbon offsets eliminate 80% of global emissions?"
Obviously not. Will any one thing? Wind energy? Nope. More fuel-efficient cars? Nope. Solar? Nope. Carbon taxes? Nope. There is no silver bullet solution to climate change, and we shouldn't be looking for one.
If offsets consume all the low-hanging fruit, their price naturally rises, making them more expensive relative to not using carbon in the first place. That's an intended feature of carbon markets, not a flaw, and it would be a sign that the system is working. You seem to feel that high carbon prices are an end in themselves, which is not true. Carbon reductions are the end, and there's absolutely nothing wrong with taking care of the low-hanging fruit first and then tackling progressively more difficult reductions.
Permalink
atreyger Posted 2:56 am
09 Feb 2007
Another thing, which was stated by birdboy, is that carbon emissions are 'bad' or a 'crime'. They are not, that's not even an issue. It is absolutely impossible to not emit carbon, i.e. flatulence or exhalations or smoke from a fire. It is an issue of how much carbon we emit, which is an issue that the 'carbon offsetters' are working on, unlike the preachy types who go around telling people not to drive or fly. Obviously those people are right, but they will never achieve that goal, since the majority of the population will not pay those costs (and the inability to commute is a huge cost). Anyway, this was somewhat unfocused, but I am still jetlagged and sleep deprived.
P.S. To the preachy types: try not to fly when your family lives all over the world and there is a tragedy. I reduce my carbon footprint as much as I can, but there are limits from ethical (proffesional requirements) and moral (family, etc.) perspectives outside of environmental ones.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 3:20 am
09 Feb 2007
But it is better to use conservation,solar, and biomass and waste to biogas in fuel cells as a backup. And produce biofuel from algae growing solar collectors that recycle the cO2 from the fuel cells.
Carbon offsets are actually deffering these real solutions. By encouraging power companies to keep on using fossil and nuclear power. And gas guzzling internal combustion transportation energy.
Carbon offsets are a part of the problem, not any kind of solution. They promote quietism on the part of the public. Buy an offset and don't complain about the status quo energy policy.
Direct tax credits ought to be substituted for carbon offsets. With the money for those tax credits provided by cuts in corporate welfare to multinational energy companies.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
sunflower Posted 3:21 am
09 Feb 2007
I hope for ethics, science, education, enlighten self interest. I've expended decades and lots of capital searching for solutions to global warming via subliminal mechanisms and covert rather than overt actions. Now that public conscience has occurred (the patient is awake) the last thing I want is for people to think that all we need to do is offsets so we can go back to sleep. I am not opposed to offsets because they empower people to become involved, a bridge to the future, and hopefully blaze a trail towards mandatory carbon taxes thereby creating a robust business environment for low-carbon energy and efficiency.
Of course that is not enough. We all need heavy funding of university r&d, regulations capping emissions (shutting down coal power), and significant reduction of discretionary flying.
I will never support mechanisms that support discretionary consumption of fossil carbon. Burning fossil carbon is a crime against humanity (and a sin against creation).
Demand fossil carbon destruction.
Permalink
Adam Stein Posted 3:46 am
09 Feb 2007
If only. It would also be nice if eliminating corporate welfare could be used to finance an energy revolution in the United States, but unfortunately the actual amounts involved in corporate giveaways, annoying though they may be, are fairly insignificant in comparison the energy problem. It's not enough for solutions to be well-meaning. They also have to be up to the task.
"Carbon offsets are actually deffering these real solutions."
Carbon offsets are funding these real solutions. Offsets fund things such as wind farms, methane digesters, conservation, etc.
"By encouraging power companies to keep on using fossil and nuclear power."
Not sure what offsets have to do with either of these things. Power companies don't seem to need any encouragement on either of these fronts.
"They promote quietism on the part of the public. Buy an offset and don't complain about the status quo energy policy."
I hear people make this accusation all the time, but I never hear them offer any reason why it should be true. Who are these people who are choosing between buying offsets or complaining?
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 4:14 am
09 Feb 2007
Good news on wind.
Actually corporate welfare, including the costs of oil wars, are way more than enough to come up with the 10% of the cost needed from the public sector. The private sector will put in the other 90%.
Power companies buy credits, like renewable energy credits, to keep on polluting. Just as consumers buy greentags for the same reason.
Green status symbols are good Adam. Status symbols like plugin cars and solar panels. That have an actual built in green reality.
We want money going into renewables to be free from "free" marketeer scamming. It's terminally problematic. Too hard to verify and regulate. Or in fact understand how carbon offsets work!
It's like saying ethanol is renwable. What does that mean? It has been debated over and over again here.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
birdboy Posted 5:17 am
09 Feb 2007
Only when carbon emissions are made elsewhere. Sorry, but claiming the offset will occur at the same time as the emission sounds like an accounting trick to me. It implies precise control over the 'non-emission' which is scary if you could do it.
Another thing, which was stated by birdboy, is that carbon emissions are 'bad' or a 'crime'. They are not, that's not even an issue. It is absolutely impossible to not emit carbon, i.e. flatulence or exhalations or smoke from a fire.
If you are aware of global warming then it is a crime against the environment to emit more carbon than you must. You could skip the trip to the superbowl and stay home, but if you choose to go and pay for offsets, the crime is not erased, only the guilt. We're all guilty- but not all of us can afford the 'cure'.
...unlike the preachy types who go around telling people not to drive or fly. Obviously those people are right, but they will never achieve that goal, since the majority of the population will not pay those costs."
This is exactly the kind of defeatism used to justify resistance to change. No public transportation- people won't use it. No real cost to developers- politicians won't allow it. No change will happen- may as well buy an offset and forget it.
I'd love to see a breakdown of purchased offsets- how many 'offset' necessary emissions, how many 'offset' voluntary emissions? How many people 'offset' their daily commute for the year? How many 'offset' their family vacation to Europe? If you can afford to pay a little more and erase the guilt, why wouldn't you go ahead and emit unecessary carbon?
If a guy cleans out his savings to fly to his mother's funeral, can he buy offsets to relieve his guilt?
I understand that they represent (to the purchaser) an attempt to do a good thing- but they are still a symbol of our reluctance to accept the drastic changes that will be required to 'stop the train.'
a liberal in redsville
Permalink
Adam Stein Posted 5:37 am
09 Feb 2007
"Power companies buy credits, like renewable energy credits, to keep on polluting. Just as consumers buy greentags for the same reason."
To suggest that the motivations of a utility company that buys RECs and the motivations of, say, an environmentalist who buys offsets for his home energy use is the same is, well, kinda odd. The former is meeting government-mandated RPC requirements. The latter is laying out personal funds out of concern for his or her own impact on the environment. It might seem clever to say these are two sides of the same coin, but they really just don't have anything to do with one another.
Beyond that, it simply isn't true to say that RECs allow power companies to "keep polluting." That would be true if, say, the power companies could just pay a fine to the government to avoid their renewable requirements. But the RECs they buy correspond to actual kilotwatt-hours of clean energy production. Additionality isn't even an issue here -- utility companies have to make sure there's enough kilowatt-hours on the grid to satisfy the government requirements.
Finally, criticizing offsets because they're complicated doesn't really seem all that fair. Tax policy is complex too. Ethanol is complex. Energy policy is complex. These issues are complex because the underlying problems are complex. It's not possible to sidestep that complexity.
Permalink