To Market, to Market, to Buy a Carbon Offset

News & Analysis
In the News Gristmill Blog Muckraker Features

Columns
Ask Umbra Victual Reality Weekly Recipes The Bottom Line From A to Green The Grist List

Support nonprofit, independent environmental journalism.
Donate to Grist.

ADVERTISING POLICY

[Advanced]

Read more about: business | carbon offsets | climate | news | all of these topics

Tools: print | email | write to the editor | subscribe | RSS

Groups announce voluntary carbon standard for offset market

Posted at 3:39 PM on 19 Nov 2007

In an attempt to rebut accusations that buying and selling carbon offsets amounts to a whole lotta nothin', a coalition of three groups has announced new voluntary standards for the international offset market. The standard attempts to verify that money spent on carbon offsets goes directly to a project that does indeed help the climate. Says Mark Kenber of London-based nonprofit Climate Group, which helped develop the standard, "We're trying to give the basic assurance that [offset buyers are] getting what they're paying for."

sources: The Wall Street Journal, MarketWatch, Reuters
see also, in Grist: Umbra advises on carbon offsets

ADVERTISING POLICY

< Previous | Next >

Comments: (3 comments)

You are not logged in. Thus, you cannot post a comment. If you have a Gristmill account, log in below. If you don't have a Gristmill account, well, by all means go make one! Meet you back here in five.

offsets are a copout

you can't consume more or the same and become "carbon-neutral". You have to consume less. No two ways about it.

Il faut cultiver notre jardin.

by John former Marine at 4:29 PM on 19 Nov 2007

We have to use what we have.

Carbon-neutral is another one of those phrases we wear on our lapels that mean nothing.
But, the only way to overcome the corporations in America, or any business I guess, in the battle of carbon waste, is to allow the "carbon-neutral" label to be bought, and allow them have a face for the blaring idiot consumers.
The only universal language in this country is money. If, in the meantime, we make it harder and more expensive for businesses to balance through buying offsets, they will voluntarily reduce carbon emissions.
The American businessman is short-sighted and over focused on the green seductress(money). If we can make these offsets a commodity the easiest and cheapest and quickest way to copout and not pay them is to reduce emissions.
Of course, this will only work if our legislators continue to work and our critics dont give up, rather than treat carbon offsets and a problem solved and walk away.
Although its not an answer, it is a step to lead us there. Rather than treating carbon offsets as useless copouts, we should treat them as tools for the cause of human longevity.

Sapere aude!

by Jascheua at 10:32 PM on 19 Nov 2007
[ Parent ]

Jascheua, good point

Jascheua, good point on how mandatory offsets will make emission reductions the cheaper alternative. There just aren't enough qualified projects to make much of a dent in even a year's worth of emissions. So it seems likely that they will become prohibitively expensive rather quickly. Most of the carbon reductions will have to come from the emissions side, yet we will also enjoy the many benefits from rapidly expanding the current state of science and technology in fields like landscape restoration. I just hope it isn't set up to give too much away to compensate for ecological damage like with wetland mitigation.

Land_Man

by LandMan at 5:26 AM on 20 Nov 2007

The comments of Grist users reflect the opinions of those individuals only, and do not necessarily reflect the viewpoints of Grist, its staff, its board members, their psychotherapists, or their aestheticians. Got it?