"The Carbon Neutral Myth: Offset Indulgences for your Climate Sins" (long PDF), a report from Carbon Trade Watch by Kevin Smith, is a new critique of the idea of carbon neutrality.
The press release says:
Carbon offsets are the modern day indulgences, sold to an increasingly carbon-conscious public to absolve their climate sins. Scratch the surface, however, and a disturbing picture emerges, where creative accountancy and elaborate shell games cover up the impossibility of verifying genuine climate-change benefits, and where communities in the South often have little choice as offset projects are inflicted on them.
The report also deals in more depth with an issue Grist has covered in passing -- the energy-saving CFL bulbs Climate Care paid for in the South African urban township of Guguletu.
The New York Times covered the obvious problem -- that Eskom suffered a blackout and handed out the same type of bulb months after the project was paid for, thus taking credit for reductions that would have happened anyway. (This is a problem because people are using these offsets as permission to emit carbon elsewhere.)
But there are other problems with the Climate Care sponsored giveaway.
- Climate Care considered their job done when the light bulbs were handed out. They have no follow up to make sure the bulbs last the five to 10 years projected. (Anyone who has ever used a CFL knows they don't often last five years.) Some 69 bulbs that burned out within the first few months were not replaced.
- Climate Care paid for the bulbs and pamphlets, but the city had to pay for distribution (done through a local consultancy). Distribution was done by 10 low-paid distributors literally pulled off the streets. That means that the bulbs were distributed unaccompanied by any instruction about proper use. CFLs are actually dangerous in sealed fixtures, and have a low life in areas with high humidity or where they will be turned on and off 16 or more times daily.
- According to Smith, Climate Care also failed to consider the social context of South Africa. By making the first widespread distribution of CFL lamps to poor people, it is possible that they will come to be considered "poor people's" bulbs -- which may provoke resistance later on from the South African middle class. I don't know the South African social context either, so I don't vouch for this last point, but if he is right, it is an interesting consideration.
To date, Climate Care has dismissed these concerns:
Despite these ambiguities, Climate Care's annual report for 2005 considers the project done and dusted. None of these concerns are presented to its clients. Morton also dismisses the criticisms leveled against his company. According to him, "Carbon offsets are a first step towards pricing carbon in our lives as well as making real reductions in the process."
Comments
View as Flat
Biodiversivist Posted 10:52 am
23 Feb 2007
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world
Permalink
atreyger Posted 11:09 am
23 Feb 2007
As we found out, those CFL's were given out as a one time deal by a power company that was faced with a crunch due to its own inadequacy.
Supposing that the power company fixes its faulty substations, etc. then those bulbs will not be given out any more by the power company (which is not interested in being green, just reduced power usage during critical moments when they screw up). Then the bulbs in use will burn out in three or four years, which is when the new bulbs will be used. Of course, Gar will say something like: 'Well you can't measure the actual offset, blah blah blah'. Sorry, I just kind of tend to skim through those statements, cause they're starting to become more and more of a broken record.
Obviously, by providing CFL's we are saving energy, maybe not now, but in the future, as the CFL's are not permanent.
Permalink
Gar Lipow Posted 11:42 am
23 Feb 2007
Also, bulbs that are stored for years will get lost, broken etc. In South Africa, some of the stored bulbs will be exposed to extreme heat which will shorten their lives. So the ESCOM failure does in fact reduce some of the value of the other bulbs (or the Climate Care bulbs reduce some of the value of some of the ESCOM bulbs. )
So no talking points - just facts. If you want see that as "blah blah blah" it say more about you than about the post.
Permalink
atreyger Posted 1:01 pm
23 Feb 2007
With CFLs, you might be right that a proportion would get broken, however, from having purchased and having several of my relatives' households purchase CFLs, many of them break within a few weeks of use: so they either work for a long time, or they break really quickly. Maybe different brands are different, but so far it held true for two or three. So, in other words, the proportion that will break immediately, will get replaced by the ones offered by the carbon offset company or energy company. The net impact of them giving out 100% of bulbs is lower than 100% of those bulbs, but not eliminated, and I would guess probably above 75%, but not at an immediate time frame.
Another aspect is the high heat, which is kind of an unproven argument. First of all, I thought that South Africa was one of the cooler African countries. Second, I'm not sure what the effect of high heat is on the bulbs. And finally, and this has nothing to do with heat, culturally, other countries' people are much more thrifty with their belongings than Americans who live in the throwaway age. Not saying that none will get broken, but I think that you're hanging onto an argument because it sounds good.
Permalink
Whiskerfish Posted 11:46 pm
23 Feb 2007
Gar and atreger, may I remind you that I'm a very, very short crow's flight from Gugulethu township as I write, and I have a reasonable,first-hand, knowledge of what I'm talking about.
Some points:
Failing to replace 69 bulbs out of 'tens of thousands' distributed is really, really no big deal! If Climate Care was being really anal, they should have accounted for a certain percentage failure rate over a certain period of time, but to make this into a stick with which to beat them is really pathetic. Christ, this is a very poor part of Africa, albeit located in a big, well-known city (Cape Town) - NOTHING happens according to plan! The fact that they got as far as they did is amazing!
When ESKOM (not ESCOM, Gar) did their distribution after the Koeberg nuke's generator bust (not substations, atreyger) they opened it to all and sundry - you had to bring in a working tungsten-filament bulb, and they would give you a CFL. The ESKOM distribution drive covered the whole of Cape Town, not just Gugs (as we call it). The fact that some people got CFLs from Climate Care as well as ESKOM makes no difference - there is no other use to which you can place a CFL other than lighting, so at some point in time they are going to be used instead of a tungsten-filament bulb, even by people that are stockpiling their free CFLs (interestingly, tungsten filament bulbs are being stolen by the thousands all over the city right now due to a massive wave of methamphetamine addiction. They are being used to smoke the stuff with - "drug addicts fight global warming" - I can do a story for grist if you like!).
Gar, what sort of 'extreme heat' are we talking about? Supply us with the temperatures at which CFLs die! Cape Town has a Mediterranean climate that approximates to someplace halfway between San Francisco and LA, at a guess.
As far as I know all CFLs distributed in Cape Town were distributed in boxes that had the warnings about sealed enclosures etc. on them. The distributors were, as far as I know, trained. I personally know one of the jobless people that was employed in the ESKOM distribution drive, and his job was to go house-to-house and actually fit the bulbs so that people didn't screw things up (or in the wrong hole, as the case may be). There were, I don't doubt, mistakes in this process, but to assume that bulbs were not properly installed just because distributors were previously-unemployed is complete garbage (repeat warning: This is Third World Africa. Get real, but don't assume too much.) Climate Care should have paid for the distribution of the bulbs and not taken a chunk out of my city rates and taxes, but OK, at least the bulbs got out there.
The point that Climate Care should have distributed the bulbs in rich places is a good one. I think many technologies like solar water heaters have been severely hamstrung because of the wave of foreign do-gooders who patronisingly roll them out in poor areas because that's what tugs the heartstrings of their funders. This has created the impression in some areas that eco-friendly = poor folks' stuff. Foreigners forget that the general aim of the poor, largely black, underclass of South Africa is to live like they perceive generally richer, historically white upper classes live. I have said this again and again at every goddamn conference I go to - shunt these technologies into rich homes and the rest will aspire to follow, but, like I said, the cynic in me realises that most NGOs exist to fund their workers and please their funders, not neccessarily do what's best, so the nonsense continues.
Gar, the NYT superficially covered what you call the 'obvious problem', but they miserably failed to contextualise it and so their story was profoundly misleading. You make out that they did.
atreyger, you are right that the ESKOM distribution drive was a once-off thing. And yes, like I said before, ESKOM has never displayed any interest in helping its customers save power in the long run - it only made this effort because of the unexpected nuke generator failure (due to their own chronic negligence) and I am 100% sure they would not have done the distribution had that not happened. Climate Care would have had not the vaguest inkling that ESKOM was going to do a CFL distribution drive, so to accuse them of duplicating an ESKOM effort is total and utter garbage.
I don't doubt that many forms of carbon offsets are modern-day indulgences. But Gar, you and this Smith character are really thrashing a very dead horse in this case. In fact, it's so dead the Potberg colony of Cape Vultures have already flown in and stripped the carcass, and you guys are whipping fresh air and bones!
Fact: Loads of CFLs were distributed in Cape Town.
Fact: Electricity use went down as a result.
Fact: In South Africa, most electricity is generated by horrible, quite old, coal-fired plants.
So bloody what if 69 piddly bulbs went missing in action! Go and fight a really dodgy offset scheme, would you? You won't have to look far to find one.
Cheers, and a luta continua...
Whiskerfish
Permalink
kmp Posted 5:31 am
24 Feb 2007
Your tagline claims that carbon neutrality is a myth, yet your story goes on to discuss in detail an already much-discussed screw up by a single organization distributing CFLs in South Africa.
While clearly the (apparently coincidental) distribution of free CFLs by a local power supplier is clearly a PR nightmare, I don't really see what all the fuss is about - people still have, and are using CFLs right? Clearly, then, they are consuming less electricity? All good things that we green-minded folk are striving for?
You have made several attacks on offsets: as I read these, you see them primiarily as a scheme that has no worth, primarily rips off guilty greens, and actually causes more harm than good by convincing people that they are now free to "indulge" in gratuitous energy gluttony since they have paid the Piper, in offsets, as it were.
I find it difficult to align this view with my own reality. I do as much as I can, in my personal life, to limit my carbon footprint; heat my house conservatively, use only green electric power, use a thermostat on a timer, drive as little and as efficiently as possible. But, I drive a car to work - I have few options other than driving a car to work. Hence, I bought a TerraPass. Presumably they have done something of value to the environment with that money; invested in alternative energy, perhaps. But the fact that I own a TerraPass is not suddenly going to make me think that it's Carbon AOK to drive my car to the store a mile away, or to make three trips when one would do, or to move further away from my job and hence increase my commute.
I also fly; not a lot, but often enough. Sometimes for pleasure, sometimes for business. The first I don't want to give up, the second I try to mitigate as I can. But when I do fly, I am always mindful of the environmental effects, and every time I fly, I offset the flights. Usually via Native Energy. Presumbaly that money has gone to wind farms in South Dakota and methane dairy farms in Vermont and Pennsylvania and solar panels at Stonyfield Farms. How are any of these things bad?
It's clear that you don't like the whole idea of offsets but do you have any advice to offer in lieu of offsets? I still am going to take the occasional flight. I still have to drive to work and heat my home. Aside from all of the usual efficicency things, which I am already doing, what advice to you have to offer to people who want to decrease their carbon footprint?
Kaela
Permalink
Greta Posted 2:43 am
25 Feb 2007
I would hate to see the 'offset industry' fueled by greedy capitalist and scammers, but it seems to me that whatever is done (often toward funding alternative energy) is a bonus that would otherwise not be done at all. If not for the carbon neutral programs, I would be sitting around regretting the necessary evils (like commuting to work), whereas now I can offset a bit of regret.
www.NoPunProductions.com ~ AmericaTheGreen.org
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 3:02 am
25 Feb 2007
It makes one feel better about one's sins,so you feel alright about commiting flagrant fuel guzzling over and over, flight after drive after flight.
Indulgencies actually bought one out of hell!
You could buy an Indulgence for murder, then commit the murder with impunity.
Will these offsets buy us out of the hellish effects of global climate disaster? Drought, fire, flood, melting icecaps, more severe storms..
Or buy us out of the hellish effects of war over oil or nuclear proliferation? Doubtful.
Will political action, instead of "sitting around" feeling better about our sins? Doubtful too, we are in a hopeless battle.
But the individual political action has a slightly, almost imaginary, greater chance of curing the disaster. A corrolary of the folk wisdom about lottery tickets comes to mind. Those who don't buy a ticket have almost the same chance of winning as those who do.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
Gar Lipow Posted 5:22 am
25 Feb 2007
We can all do some things in our personal lives, but until trhe social infrastructure changes most of us in rich nations are not going to have the option of reducing our footprint to extent needed to solve to problem. (To anticipate what this always provokes: I'm not saying people can do nothing, or that a few people can't get individually close to carbon neutral; but the overwhelming majority of us cannot, as individuals, cut our footprint as much as needed.)
But I think the most powerful things we can do as individuals is take political action to try and change the social and physical infrastructure.
I know the odds seem poor - but they always do before political victory. My late Father and still living Mother were long term poltiical activists for racial equality in the U.S.. That battle still has not been completely won; but they went from a time when their were seperate restrooms and drinking fountains for people of various colors, and when it was considered radical to support Federal anti-lynching laws to an era when people of different colors at least have formal equality before the law, even if the social and economic oppression are still severe. In 1954, I doubt they expected to see an end to Jim Crow as soon as 1967. But they kept on fighting anyway, and the civil rights movement got new and powerful leaders, and the U.S. decided domestic racial inequality was causing it international problems, and what seem impossible happened.
The future is not predicable. Humans society is a great deal less predictable than climate systems. That is not the bad news; that is the good news. You never know when an unexpected moment of sanity will occur. But if you keep fighting, you make it more likely and help ensure there is a political infrastructure in place to help give it shape
I have a post I'm working on about greening computers. When that is done I think something on why we have every reason to hope will follow.
Permalink
sunflower Posted 6:03 am
25 Feb 2007
Most all people could buy a biomass pellet stove for heat and hot water.
AB Lovins said in Santa Barbara last week that energy efficiency alone can solve our carbon footprint.
(I would never fly for any reason I can think of. I do not think confessionals would absolve that sin.)
Permalink
Gar Lipow Posted 7:25 am
25 Feb 2007
No. The combined footprint of her, and her friend would be cut in half. But half of what? Half of two 25 mpg vehicles? Half of two 45 mpg vehicles? Until you reduce your emissions to the point where everyone in the world can emit the same as you, and CO2 equivalent concentrations will begin to drop, or at least not rise any higher, you have not reduced enough. Whether we could do it all with efficiency depends on hour much you think we need to drop. But I doubt Amory Lovins said we could do it with efficiency alone with existing infrastructure.
You are not going to get the changes we need to make only by individuals doing what they can as individuals. You can get some of them. But some of the changes need to be made by us, not by you and me.
Frederick Douglas was one of the great black statesmen who led the fight in the U.S. against slavery. Yet, you never hear they he avoided wearing cotton shirts, or stayed away from food raised on slave plantations. A former slave, he fought slavery. He never expected that while slavery existed he could live some sort of pure life free of slavery. Nor did he ask others to. He asked people to take part in the great abolitionist cause. But if they would not do that he asked them for money. He never asked them to stop using Southern goods. [There were Utopians who founded colonies or communes that tried to live without any use of slave goods. Would anyone dare to suggest that they did more against slavery than Frederick Douglas.]
I would rather somebody drive to work every day, fly four times a year, and put some real time or money into reducing the number of flights offered, and into increasing the efficiency requirements for cars than live a live of personal purity. We don't need saints. We need fighters, people ready for a scrap.
So Kaela and Greta - you do what want of course. I'm not giving anyone orders. But since you ask, my advice is: stop worrying about personal purity. Do what you reasonably can, and put the money you would otherwise spend on offsets into the political organizations you think most likely to fight for the changes that need to be made in your nation. Don't expect to live a carbon neutral life unless you are very rich or very poor. Put what personal energy you are willing to give over the long term into changing the world to a place where everyone can live a low carbon life.
Permalink
Jason D Scorse Posted 7:37 am
25 Feb 2007
Individual actions WILL NOT solve climate change- your votes every 2 years are more important on this issue than everything you could ever do to reduce your footprint over the course of your entire lifetime.
J.S.
J.S. teaches environmental economics and blogs at http://www.voicesofreason.info.
Permalink
atreyger Posted 8:07 am
25 Feb 2007
Permalink
sunflower Posted 8:23 am
25 Feb 2007
I have confidence in common sense, not in politics.
I have little confidence that capital will be available for infrastructure improvements. The money was burned in a senseless war.
And I agree that I would rather buy mosquito nets for poor Africans rather than buy them swirl light bulbs.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 12:16 am
26 Feb 2007
We gotta keep on going. Fight the power!
The majic happens when we get 10% of US in this battle. That would mean local party meetings here with 500 people attending instead of only 50.
We are going to highlight dropping lake levels, winters with hardly any snow, and increased forest fires as local impacts of global climate change. It's a battle even to get the old party machine to recognize environmental issues.
Grassroots is the only slim chance we have.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
Jangal Khubeh Posted 3:33 pm
26 Feb 2007
Permalink
spaceshaper Posted 10:05 pm
26 Feb 2007
Actually we don't. "Eco-friendly" has become so debased through its use as a marketing term that it is now generally used, as here, to mean rather less eco-destructive than most, but this should not allow us to be seduced into thinking that this is an acceptable standard. Let's redeem the value of the term, at least in this forum, to mean what it was coined to mean: being good for the environment, rather than just being slightly less-worse for the environment.
Some of us to be sure live less eco-hateful lifestyles than average, but that's not a high bar - I think the chances that any one of us reading or contributing to this blog will be able to exert a net-positive environmental impact simply by means of their lifestyle are slim to none. As has been discussed elsewhere on Gristmill, Al Gore's potential for net-positive contribution is to be measured not by lifestyle but by achievement. The reference to Frederick Douglass above is also most apt. If we are to hope as individuals to make a net-positive contribution in any way it will not be be as a result of purchasing carbon offsets, carpooling, or buying and driving a Prius. These are mitigation efforts not without value, and there is no reason not to indulge in them, except of course for the (perhaps very high) opportunity cost, and with the following caveat: if we allow them to assuage our guilt let us feel that this alone is going to be enough, we are likely going to find ourselves in very deep doo-doo indeed.
The true meaning of life is to plant trees, under whose shade you do not expect to sit.
Permalink
Greta Posted 12:40 am
27 Feb 2007
However, the benefit of such a program, as with carbon offsets, is that it helps to shape peoples' values about environmental stewardship. Yes, perhaps some (okay, maybe many) slower than others. The hope is that today the Smith family recycles at their curb, but tomorrow they implement a widescale recycling effort at their corporation. Or that today Jane Entrepreneur buys carbon credits to offset her commute to work but tomorrow develops ground-breaking alternative fuel technology.
When it comes to the general public, we cannot get derailed by the measure of the result or the span of time between today and tomorrow. (Truth is, it will always be a case of Zeno's Paradox.) We need to just keep pushing forward...encouraging, not discouraging. If the general public were reading this forum, they'd have the perfect excuse to do nothing. (Same argument as "why vote...it doesn't do any good anyway.")
As long as the program itself does not do more harm than good (yes, it is all relative), is it really such a bad thing?
Greta
[DISCLAIMER: I am perpectually disappointed by the lack of character and conscience of the people that I see. Clearly, I was momentarily abducted by aliens.]
www.NoPunProductions.com ~ AmericaTheGreen.org
Permalink
Whiskerfish Posted 6:47 pm
03 Mar 2007
from
http://www.sundaytimes.co.za/PrintEdition/Insight/Article ...
"EXCERPTS from a correction in The New York Times on Wednesday:
A New York Times News Service article about an identity crisis among Afrikaners, who invented the apartheid system that ended about a dozen years ago, misstated the colors of South Africa's old apartheid flag. It is orange, blue and white, not orange and green. The article also referred incompletely to the name of a soccer stadium where an Afrikaner pride song was temporarily banned, and misstated the stadium's location. It is Loftus Versfeld Stadium, not Loftus Stadium, and it is in Pretoria, not Johannesburg.
The article also misstated the location of Mpumalanga, a province that recently decertified an Afrikaans-language school that had refused to teach courses in English. While it is indeed in the eastern side of the country, it does not border the Indian Ocean. And the article misspelled the given name of an Afrikaner legislator who expressed concern that the government is excising Afrikaner history from official textbooks. He is Carel Boshoff, not Corel.
Other than that, it was spot-on."
Whiskerfish
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 9:48 pm
03 Mar 2007
It is not my intention, and certainly not my place, to defend the New York Times. But I get the feeling that they take their mistakes very much to heart. Not long ago I caught them on an error regarding a misidentification of a figure in a medieval image (it was the crucifixion of Saint Andrew, as the Latin incription clearly said, surrounded by persecutorial stylized anti-Semiticly-depicted Jews, but the printed caption said it was the crucifixion of Jesus himself), and the editor who wrote to me was fairly groveling in miserable apology.
As for their SA article, seeing that so many corrigenda were necessary, they must have been biting the hearts from their breasts. We should assume that they are now leaning very heavily on the SA reporter -- if that reporter is still on the staff -- , and on that reporter's editor.
Chickens are our cousins!
So are other sensitive animals!
Enough is enough!
No more factory farms!
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 12:55 am
04 Mar 2007
The reporters are not dumb or lazy. The system restricts the time spent on and length of an article. Few newspaper articles are worked on until the topic has been thoroughly and accurately covered. You get X number of words, and X number of hours. The editor then hoses it up some more and the result is grammatically accurate pap.
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world
Permalink
lesuther Posted 9:33 am
18 Jan 2008
https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=7044369739647721204&postID=8361776005712788724
You can do the numbers and decide for yourself. The bottom line is:
CFL's will not last as long as advertised, and suffer far greater degradation of life when used in a normal use model (up to 85% less on average for a 30 minute use cycle) compared to incandescents (up to 25% less on average for a 30 minute use cycle). See the other post for more information.
The CFL's represent a lot more mercury going directly into the environment than incandescents. Even excluding the mercury that is contained directly in the CFL itself (assuming 100% recycling), the mercury that is released into the rivers, lands, and air from cinnebar refining istelf (.4 ounces for every ounce of purified mercury worldwide) to fill the bulbs combined with the energy use of the CFL is quite a bit greater than the mercury released from the 50% of energy that comes from coal or the small amount that comes form other sources of power. There is no refined mercury in the incandescent bulb. See the other post for more information.
Given the bulb life reduction for MOST household lighting uses, the difference in energy use is not dramatic. In fact, for a lot of uses it will be about break even at best. Again, see the other post for more information.
To limply dismiss those who have done the math on this subject is absurd. I was one who used to be very enthusiastic about CFL's as an obvious way to reduce energy and pollution impacts. But the same type of analysis for the LED lifetime shows them to be more of an answer than the CFL's. It should come as no surprise to anyone that there are a lot of bad trends based on incomplete science out there that slowly turn out to be bad apples.
Permalink