Gear up your brains and flex those diatribe muscles, carbon offset nerds -- the offset debate is coming to the Capitol, and you're all invited to participate.
Institute of Ecosystem Studies Dr. William Schlesinger is going to be speaking at 6:00 pm this Thursday on Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C., about his recent work on the interaction between forests and climate -- and its implications for how and whether carbon offsets should be allowed. I'm on the board of the American Lands Alliance, the organization sponsoring the event, and we'd like to get some hot questions to fire at Schlesinger -- which is where Gristmill's offset nerd legions come in. If you're an outside-the-Beltway climate nerd, feel free to ask questions in the comments section below. If you're an inside the Beltway climate nerd, you should just come.
Schlesinger, a member of the National Academy of Sciences, is one of the top authorities on this topic -- and he's shown a rare willingness, for a scientist, to venture into the policy and political arena. In 2005, for instance, he endorsed a carbon tax, calling it "potentially the most effective means to improve our energy-use efficiency and reduce carbon dioxide emissions." He also serves on the board of TerraPass, a company that provides offsets to people and corporations that pollute.
American Lands invited Schlesinger because we're very concerned about the impact a massive expansion in biofuels production could have on wildlands, in national forests and elsewhere. If we're cutting down ancient forests to grow woody biomass tree farms, it will be neither climate nor ecosystem friendly. But we're also intrigued by the possibility of allowing polluters to get carbon credits for protecting intact ancient forests. Conceivably, it could radically alter the financial incentives in national forests and elsewhere so that timber companies and others could make more money by helping restore forests than logging them. But, if not carefully managed, there's also potential for abuse. Such a system is largely dependent on having a robust cap-and-trade or cap-and-auction system in place as well; if we adopt a carbon tax, does that mean that forests and other native ecosystems won't benefit from the massive investments in tackling the climate crisis?
I'm also curious about what he has to say about the climate value of protecting temperate and boreal forests in the first place. Tropical forests generally absorb far greater amounts of carbon dioxide than U.S. or Canadian forests; they also generally support more biodiversity. From an economic perspective, it's also cheaper to protect tropical forests: land and labor are both cheaper in most tropical countries, suggesting individuals, companies, and governments can get more eco-bang for their buck by saving tropical forests than conserving ones in our own backyard.
Finally, I want to know what Schlesinger thinks of the recent Lawrence Livermore study that suggested boreal and some temperate forests may actually contribute to global warming by preventing sunlight from reflecting off the snow beneath them and back out into space. Is this for real or is it a junk science gift to the timber industry?
If you're an outside-the-Beltway carbon offset nerd and want to participate, leave your questions for Schlesinger in the comments section; I'll make sure he gets them. If you're in D.C., you should come and throw in your two cents. This event is, in part, a fundraiser, but there's no minimum contribution, so both penniless and stingy offset nerds are welcome. It's on Thursday, September 20 at 255 11th Street SE (close to the Eastern Market metro stop) at 6:00 pm. If you're coming, shoot me an email at glenn dot hurowitz /at ecologyfund dot net.
Kerry-Boxer muddies handling of international offsets
Ask Umbra on climate weapons
Ask Umbra on offsetting work trips
Comments
View as Threaded
naturescene Posted 11:19 am
19 Sep 2007
From a perspective that is concerned with ecosystems and biodiversity, the concept of creating financial incentives for creating, restoring, and even protecting ecosystems is a great one.
From a perspective that is only concerned with climate and carbon, the ability of vegetation to "offset" other emissions is still difficult to measure at best - nonexistent at worst. That's why you have to have institutions in place that protect against abuse.
I think the point about a cap and trade scheme (there can still be trading even if permits are auctioned!) being more more in tune with the issues of incentives for the restoration of ecosystems is an important one, and one that is often overlooked.
I've mentioned this at least twice before (one time was this week) that if it turns out that vegetation is not a good tool in reducing carbon emissions, that does not mean that we should abandon the concept of bringing ecosystem creation/restoration/protection to the market. All it takes is to stop calling them carbon offsets and start calling them something like biodiversity, ecosystem, or habitat credits.
I think that if a policy that caps carbon is enacted, the use of offsets to fill allowance requirements should be limited and should probably not include very difficult to measure projects like planting vegetation. But as long as they remain a completely voluntary mechanism, I don't think there's much of an issue.
As far as a question goes: I would like to know what he thinks about offset projects involving forests vs. projects such as landfill gas capture.
Permalink
Earth Shaman Posted 11:59 am
19 Sep 2007
Earth Shaman
Permalink
wayneluke Posted 12:41 pm
19 Sep 2007
What is the right track?
Permalink
Natasha Chart Posted 12:58 pm
19 Sep 2007
Anyway, I'd be interested in his thoughts on that. I'm in DC and would love to go and ask him myself, but I've got class tomorrow night.
Permalink
Earth Shaman Posted 1:48 pm
19 Sep 2007
Earth Shaman
Permalink
trock Posted 2:16 pm
19 Sep 2007
Permalink
Delay And Deny Posted 4:15 pm
19 Sep 2007
Astronomy & Geophysics, Volume 48, Issue 1, Page 1.18-1.24, Feb 2007, doi: 10.1111/j.1468-4004.2007.48118.x
Cosmoclimatology: a new theory emerges
This article so far has summarized the evidence for the climatic role of cosmic rays, which underpins cosmoclimatology:
*
Observations of variations of low cloud cover correlated with cosmic-ray variations;
*
Experimental evidence for the microphysical mechanism whereby cosmic rays accelerate the production of cloud condensation nuclei;
*
The Antarctic climate anomaly as a symptom of active forcing of climate by clouds;
*
Quasi-periodic climate variations over thousands of years that match the variations in radionuclide production by cosmic rays;
*
Calculations that remove an apparent difficulty associated with geomagnetic field variations.
Article is free to download from
http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/
John Bailo
Sutext:
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 1:23 am
20 Sep 2007
I am unaware of anyone trying to use the study to support the destruction of old growth forests (although it would not surprise me).
On the positive side, it suggests that existing logging practices in upper latitudes are not exacerbating global warming. It also supports preserving forests in lower latitudes. In addition, it suggests that if you plant trees in 30 year cycles and harvest them before they contrubute to warming, you may still be able to put them to use as carbon sinks if they are used for biomass energy or some other carbon reduction scheme.
In short, the report does not eliminate trees from the solution set for global warming. The only thing it shoots down is allowing existing second growth forests in higher latitudes to return to old growth forests as a carbon absorbing idea. I can live with that, we need lumber.
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world
Permalink
wayneluke Posted 1:52 am
20 Sep 2007
With a carbon tax in place, what safeguards would you recommend so that there are no adverse affects on the poor but also make it so the middle class are not double taxed?
A carbon tax would make fuel and electricity more expensive. As it is now, we pay taxes and fees on our monthly utility bills to subsidize service for the people in California that can't afford the full service. If there is an increase in production costs (carbon tax), that will be offset. If the poor cannot pay it, then it will be charged to other customers. Most people can handle a new tax on their own consumption either by reducing consumption or repriortizing but making them justify additional subsidies to the poor will be a hard sell.
Permalink
Jones Posted 1:59 am
20 Sep 2007
Permalink
iprefertherain Posted 4:17 am
20 Sep 2007
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f3_CYdYDDpk
As long as there are slaughterhouses, there will be battlefields. -Leo Tolstoy
Permalink
trock Posted 6:22 am
20 Sep 2007
Even poor people would be paying a property tax where they live or a sales tax on something they may buy. Let's eliminate most of the taxes that a poor person would pay in other taxes and only have any tax that they would pay be a carbon tax.
Reduce the property taxes for poorer housing at the same time a carbon tax would come into being. Change a sales tax to a fossil fuel sales tax instead. Everytime someone goes to Walmart, there are taxes on some of the products they sell. Put it instead on the stores use of fossil fuel. Reduce the first 500 dollars the employee and employer pays in social security taxes and make that up with carbon taxes on everybody.
We should be careful to not tax industries that compete with foreign companies. But something like a sales tax, what is the thing that having that tax improves for having it? Nothing I can think of. At least if there is a fossil fuel sales tax, fewer fossil fuels might be used.
Even in very poor countries, the first consumption tax that might be imposed on people may be a carbon tax. Income tax still might be the better, because of differences in income. Very poor countries may, may, be better off subsidizing things like solar ovens for cooking, insulation for houses and human powered water wells before fossil fuels are used to reduce poverty.
Permalink
trock Posted 6:50 am
20 Sep 2007
Permalink
wayneluke Posted 7:39 am
20 Sep 2007
If it were otherwise, the republicans would be all over this because they could consolidate funds at the federal level while local and state governments have to beg and plead for funds. All under the guise of lowering taxes for the people.
Permalink
NonprofitWatch Posted 7:42 am
20 Sep 2007
Perhaps too late . . .
In his essay he states that "We need to be the world's technology leader of the 21st century, not a stubborn follower of our old inefficient ways." In this vein and considering the dire situation regarding global warming, does he support Gore and Hansen and McKibben in their opposition to new coal plants?
He states support for IGCC. Would he support opposing new coal plants until such technology is available? Should not those companies that want to use coal which has numerous other eco-problems be the ones which underwrite the research into cleaner use of this dirty energy source as opposed to research for other energy sources such as wind and solar which are more typically thought of as "alternative" and in general are far cleaner and have suffered from lack of subsidies for extraction and research that coal, nuclear, and oil have received from politicians?
The group which he now heads, the Institute of Ecosystem Studies, and its former director did critical work regarding acid rain and were associated with the market based approach to addressing the problem, but clearly this has been inadequate in that forests are still recovering, and the problem is far from solved. Going forward regarding global warming, should we not pursue and ask for far stronger measures in a precautionary effort to try to ensure we won't go over the brink.
Should we perhaps consider both a carbon tax as well as a cap and auction, plus alot more along the big vision dramatic changes that others have called for?
Finally, in his essay he complements Paul Anderson of Duke Energy regarding Anderson's support of a carbon tax. While I probably am supportive of a carbon tax, I would like to ask if Schlesinger has raised money from Anderson or Duke Energy. Reason being, we've gone through a process of pointing out how the denialists are bought by the oil companies. In this vein, I have a concern of whether worthy scientists may associate with weak or moderate or questionable policies in the interests of their sponsors.
bernardo issel - http://www.NonprofitWatch.org -
bernardo (at) NonprofitWatch.org
Permalink