The debate that has all the kids talking! 18

Comments View as Flat

1. 

   Gar Lipow Posted 8:40 am
   20 Feb 2007

   Market competitionThe problem is: even with renewable energy projects, there are multiple sources of funding - so you never know how much would have happened anyway. Also, should a nation that is increasing carbon emissions really be able to sell offsets for increasing them at a slightly lower rate.
   My objection is not so much to many of the projects as financing them via offsets. Renewable energy is a good thing. While some of the plantations are awful, in general tree planting and reforestation are good things. Why insist on this particular form of financing for them, where they are offered as offsets? While some green certificates are offered as offsets, green certificates are also sold all the time simply as a way to encourage renewable energy, without putting an "amount of carbon equivalent" offset number on them. Why can't some of these other companies do the same thing  - offer them as green certificate, where you are donating money that encourages various good things? Why insist on putting highly uncertain numbers on something you can argue for without the doubtful claims?

   Permalink

2. 

   Adam Stein Posted 9:43 am
   20 Feb 2007

   In answer to David's question: yes, sort ofDavid, what you're more likely to see is a push for industry standards. Well, that is what you're seeing. The one being developed by the Center for Resource Solutions, I think, has the most chance for widespread adoption. I say that primarily based on the success of their Green-e standard for renewables.
   Once the standard is in place, you can then expect to see vendors trying to exceed it in various ways. The problem, though, is that it's extremely difficult for laypeople to sort out quality claims. Something of the same problem plagues the term "organic." Only the most sophisticated consumers are really going to get deep into the weeds of carbon issues to learn about arcana such as the maturity matching principle, the differences between offsets and allowances, etc.
   This, of course, saddens me, because TerraPass worries about such arcana, and we'd like everyone to hoist us up on their shoulders and tell us how awesome we are. But so it goes.

   Permalink

3. 

   Janis Mara Posted 10:01 am
   20 Feb 2007

   Push for industry standards
   
   That's a good thing, and I'm glad to hear about it. I think the "organic" analogy is quite apt - I'm in California and the state finally arrived at very strictly worded definitions, I believe.
   The first poster mentioned that the major criticisms focus on the lack of reliable monitoring and the dubious benefits of tree planting. I apologize if this comment has already been made seven thousand times, but to me the whole thing seems like papal indulgences and highly dubious. It just all seems so abstract and impossible that you could pay some money and wipe your sins away.

   Permalink

4. 

   Gar Lipow Posted 12:03 pm
   20 Feb 2007

   tree plantingI actually mentioned renewable energy first. Tree planting was another example, not the largest type of offset, but the kind where some of the worst abuses have occurred. Like I said, there are some really awful things included in offsets, and others worth supporting. But the thing is: when we put precise numbers on them and use them as offsets is when we get into trouble. That is where many of the perverse incentives the creates truly abusive cases comes from. And that is where the incentive comes from to overstate the benefits of things that can be justified without the exaggeration, or to put precise numbers on things whose value we only know approximately.

   Permalink

5. 

   libertyvini Posted 12:20 pm
   20 Feb 2007

   Carbon Offsets As A Fiat CurrencyThe lack of a fair and objective way to assign carbon allowances and account for offsets is one major problem.
   The biggest problem is that like any regulatory program the concept has already been captured by some of the biggest polluters, who will manipulate the playing field to disadvantage competitors.
   The fundamental reason we "need" a multinational government "solution" is that our Coasean method of abrogating individual and property rights and handing them over to big companies is so ingrained there is barely a chance of ever going back. There is no way such a system can be fair, or in the long run, workable.
   Only re-establishing a 100% property-rights solution with full enforcement against trespassing by pollution can restore the environment without harming developing countries.
   
   Vince Daliessio
   
   http://www.libertyguys.org

   Permalink

6. 

   Adam Stein Posted 1:02 pm
   20 Feb 2007

   No dead horse left unbeatenSigh. This is really just about the least interesting debate in the world, but I feel oddly compelled to bring some balance to the perennially unbalanced offset commentary on these pages.
   So just to throw a few alternate viewpoints out there:
   
   
   Tree planting is almost wholly irrelevant to the topic of offsets. Only the popular press, Coldplay fans, and certain bloggers think that this is a major issue. Gar has demoted tree planting projects from "the enemy of mankind" to "not the largest type of offset," which is still wildly misleading.
   Measuring the CO2 reductions from reductions is generally not that hard.
   The reason we want to attach an amount of CO2 to an offset is that the goal of carbon offsets is to reduce CO2. Generally it is considered a positive to try to measure the outcome of program.  Plus, see #2.
   
   

   Permalink

7. 

   amazingdrx Posted 3:22 pm
   20 Feb 2007

   No DaveIt won't happen.   Because it is all unverifiable and unregulated.  The free market will only reward the most effective advertising campaign.
   It's all about the status of appearing greener than the next guy.  The fella with the trendiest offset brand will get the gal to go on that carbon offset jetset tropical vacation.
   Demand will have nothing to do with actual performance in reducing GHGs.
   
   http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog

   Permalink

8. 

   Kif Scheuer Posted 10:59 pm
   20 Feb 2007

   scope of offset programsJust curious if either Gar or Adam has ready figures about how big the offset industry is at this point and how much it's expected to grow in the next couple of years (barring a worldwide carbon cap being institutionalized). I'm trying to get some perspective about how much total business in offsets we are seeing.

   Permalink

9. 

   Whiskerfish Posted 12:43 am
   21 Feb 2007

   There's more to that storyHi All
   I'm sitting less than a mile from the township referred to in the NYT piece. The article seems to have omitted a salient factlet or two.
   The reason that ESKOM (the ONLY electircal utility in S Africa, another minor inaccuracy in the quoted lines) distributed CFLs en masse was because of a major power crunch that came from them losing a massive bolt (I kid you not) in a generator attached to the Koeberg nuclear power station just outside Cape Town. They were trying to reduce power consumption in these parts while the generator was out of service and also trying to look like they were doing something useful in the crisis.
   The NYT story says " "That meant that the "so-called reductions that Climate Care is selling to its customers arguably would have happened anyway," said Larry Lohmann of the Corner House, a campaign group for environmental and social justice based in Britain, citing evidence from investigators in South Africa."
   ESKOM's CFL distribution drive had nothing to do with reducing GHG emissions (trust me, they don't give a shit about that) and it was not in response to anyone else doing so. The fact that they distributed CF lightbulbs just after someone else did is purely co-incidental and was driven by the loss of their generator due to gross negligence - they would not have done so otherwise. They spend their lives trying to scupper any initiatives that would really save energy. They are a horrible state-owned monopoly (somewhat ironically) driven by classic capitalist greed, and their chief product is coal-generated electricity. They are not going to wean their customers off that anytime soon if they can help it.
   I have no particular love for carbon offset schemes (most of them are bullshit deluxe) but in this case the NYT, and Corner House, got it totally wrong. I'd love to know who their 'investigators in South Africa' are, because they are obviously absolutely no good.
   Cheers
   Whiskerfish

   Permalink

10. 

    Adam Stein Posted 1:19 am
    21 Feb 2007

    They're smallHi Kif,
    I'll assume that by carbon offset market, you're referring to the voluntary carbon market, the segment made up of people and companies who are choosing to purchase offsets from carbon reduction projects. It's quite small. In fact, our eyes bugged out when we saw the numbers in the New York Times article, which claims offsets are a $110m industry. I think this is about an order of magnitude too high. We hear that in Britain, where the market is more established, about $5 million dollars of offsets are sold each year. Numbers are probably comparable for the U.S.
    I have no idea about growth -- wish I did. We expect it to be robust, because it's starting from a small base.
    Note that the carbon market worldwide is a $25 billion industry, but this is not the same thing as the offset industry you hear so much about. The $25 billion figure refers primarily to the system of allowances under Kyoto. Soon that number will grow by a lot when California and the northeastern states start regulating carbon.

    Permalink

11. 

    ltlf653 Posted 1:36 am
    21 Feb 2007

    green certificate and offsetting CO2Just wanted to reply to Gar's comment about green certificates as a way to encourage renewable energy. The relationship between such certificates and offsetting CO2 is often muddled--and some places/companies claim undue credit obtaining them!
    Say a ski area buys green certificates or Renewable Energy Credits (RECs) as produced by a wind farm, thereby effectively making the electricity that the ski area clean. But the wind farm would be generating this clean energy anyways, even if the ski area didn't buy those RECs. The ski area has no claim, therefore, to being the direct cause of reduced CO2 emissions--these RECs don't count as offsets.
    True, the ski area's purchase of RECs may ultimately stimulate increased demand for wind power, but that's too indirect for the ski area to claim that's it's helping to grow renewable energy projects. The ski area would have to purchase REC-based offsets that help build a project that wouldn't have happened anyways. (This is the additionality component that can be a good measure of the quality of offsets--check out the NativeEnergy FAQs for what I think is an excellent explanation.)
    My main point: green certificates or RECs don't necessarily directly encourage or grow renewable energy projects.

    Permalink

12. 

    Greta Posted 7:32 am
    21 Feb 2007

    Treehuggers and treethuggers...Last year, I decided to "GoZero" with the Conservation Fund, because they planted trees as a means to 'offset', which appealed to me.  Made the transaction online and received a thank you email.  Several days later, I received in the postal mail a thank you letter...or should I say a 'spank you'.
    What?!!  I just paid them to plant trees and they're already cutting them down to send me a stupid piece of paper in a paper envelope, delivered by carbon-generating postal vehicle(s).  ...Did I mention that I made my transaction electronically.  Sheesh.
    Needless to say, I have taken my carbon-offsetting ways elsewhere.  Took reader Toolsmith's recommendation, and this quarter gave to SELF...no, the organization, not myself.

    Permalink

13. 

    atreyger Posted 7:43 am
    21 Feb 2007

    GretaBuy more wood furniture and books and keep all those letters and junk mail in a dry spot, without recycling them, and you will help support carbon sequestration through forest plantations.
    Those shut-ins with decades of newspapers around their house were carbon offsetters all along. Who knew?

    Permalink

14. 

    Gar Lipow Posted 9:02 am
    21 Feb 2007

    Eskom>ESKOM's CFL distribution drive had nothing to do with reducing GHG emissions (trust me, they don't give a shit about that) and it was not in response to anyone else doing so.
    True Whiskerfish, but misses the whole point of the article. Nobody said anything about why ESKOM handed out lightbulbs. The point is that an offset fund handed out the lighbulbs, claimed an offset, and then a major utility handed out the same type of lighbulbs to the same people. So it was a mistaken claim of additionality, and remains a mistaken claim of additionality regardless of why it was mistaken.
    Incidentally, it is a good example of how hard offets are to measure. You would think that giving a CFL would be pretty much 100% addition - until an accident (probably caused by neglect) causes an evil utility to give away CFLs to those same people.
    And Adam - the reference to "tree plantations as the enemy of" was a deliberate comparison to coal. That is living on land converted to a tree plantation can end up much like living on land a coal company destroys.  Quote where I ever said that tree plantations were the most common type of offset or back off.
    
    

    Permalink

15. 

    Adam Stein Posted 1:01 am
    22 Feb 2007

    Perverse incentivesThe story about ESKOM raises an interesting point. It is true that the motivations of the utility have nothing to do with the additionality claims being made on behalf of the CFL project. But let's take a look at what actually happened here:
    
    
    A well-meaning NGO sold offsets in order to finance the distribution of energy-efficient lightbulbs in South Africa. Poor communities got better lighting, and greenhouse gas emissions were reduced.
    A non-well-meaning utility distributed energy-efficient lightbulbs in South Africa. Poor communities got better lighting, and greenhouse gas emissions were reduced.
    
    
    Normally this isn't be an outcome that environmentalists would complain about.
    Now, I'll be the last person to argue that additionality doesn't matter if the projects have a feel-good aspect. Additionality does matter, particularly if countries are using the offsets to meet their caps.
    But I must say that it does cause a certain amount of dissonance when I see offset critics gloating over this sort of "failed" offset project. I tend to see potential in such stories, rather than disaster.

    Permalink

16. 

    Gar Lipow Posted 2:41 am
    22 Feb 2007

    A critique is not gloating

    Permalink

17. 

    Adam Stein Posted 3:36 am
    22 Feb 2007

    Just an observationI was just making an observation, and the observation seems to hold up. Sure, a critique is not necessarily gloating, but it's also hard deny that a lot of gloating does often tinge these critiques. And it's also pretty clear why: some environmentalists are very hung up on the indulgence issue, and so they take a certain delight when these projects don't work out as planned. Sometimes you can practically hear them rubbing their hands together: "Ha! Idiots thought they could pay off their Hummers by spreading lightbulbs around South Africa!"
    This doesn't really affect the merits of any of the arguments, but it does underscore the pointlessly ideological edge that these debates take.

    Permalink

18. 

    Gar Lipow Posted 5:44 am
    22 Feb 2007

    "hard to deny"A inconvenient fact undermines your argument, so you name call anyone who points it out. A great way of diverting attention away from facts to personalities. Not exactly the first time you have done this. I could go on with "the you are a _ " "I am not a __" . But you know any name you decide to call me does not change that this is an example of additionality not being easy to prove.

    Permalink