Comments paul burman has made
You know what gets my goat about articles like that? Is that they never mention that offsets generated are coming from uncapped sectors of the market; their emissions are unregulated. Therefore, any reductions that you get from them aren’t just magic, they are real and by definition additional to what is being required under the cap and trade. Articles like this make it seem like the emissions reductions through offsets are crap, when in actuality the function of including offsets is to expand the market and give those under regulation more options for purchasing real emissions reductions. The more options that are available, the more likely that there will be cost effective ones available for everyone.
On Key to climate bill, offsets have plenty of critics posted 3 months, 2 weeks ago 7 Responses
Also, articles like these ignore the fact that offsets aren’t free. It is not as if a capped company decides that they don’t want to reduce their emissions that they can then go out and reach into the offset bin and pull out some free offsets. These things cost money! And if demand for offsets goes through the roof you better believe that the price for offsets will go up accordingly. There aren’t an infinite amount of offset projects available.
IMO, the reason that offsets are so cheap right now is because they are doing the obvious things that we should have been regulated to do years ago. Methane projects are a great example. Why the hell does it take offset financing to get these projects off the ground? They are obviously good and have obvious benefits – but it ain’t gonna happen unless there is a requirement or extra cash. CCX (which covers 6% of US emissions) is another example of how efficiency is cost effective today – but once again, nothing happens unless there is an impetus. Offsets that are “cheap” are a result of the fact that no one has been required to do anything… ever… creating obvious opportunities all over the board.
But we will run out of cheap domestic offsets if a cap and trade scheme is implemented, that is just the nature of the beast. I think over the long run, everything will balance out to the point where the cost of offsets will not be much less than the cost of compliance.
But in the short run, why not take the affordable, obvious, low-hanging fruit? These offsets buy us time as the technology evolves and our country catches up with our collective consciousness. If the offsets are real, verifiable, additional, and awesome – there ain’t no reason not to support them 110%.Flaring isn't great, but offsets aren't bad
I agree that flaring isn't the most attractive form of environmentalism, there is clearly energy not utilized that really should be. But is it effective in the fight to stop global warming, yes. I also fundamentally disagree with the statement that the Chicago Climate Exchange sells 'rip-offsets' (ps, I love that term). The CCX is highly regulated and the reductions that companies are making are completely real and not required by any government agency.
The thing with offsets and the CCX is that they provide that additional incentive for companies and projects to green up their act. We may only be talking on the margins here, but if somebody knows that they can get an extra few thousand dollars here or there for taking an positive action, they are more likely to do it. These are basic market signals that offsets are sending -- every time you donate to an offset group or purchase offsets on the CCX you are sending the market a sign that you want the market to produce more of that.
Soon, we will have comprehensive legislation that will either regulate offsetting organizations or make them a footnote. But until we have that, we need to tell the market what we want; global warming solutions now.
Paul Burman
carbonfund.orgOn Bogus offsets merely ease emitter's remorse posted 1 year, 1 month ago 8 Responses