The rule of thumb followed by most people will be, "If I have to sacrifice anything, forget it." And that is the rule of thumb we should design our solutions around."

Finally a strike at the root of the issue; there is no reason to sacrifice your cash to solve the carbon problem.  These two simple sentences negate every personal offsetting scheme.

Thank you.

Dumping my Prius and riding a Seattle Metro bus might actually increase my CO2 emissions (Seattle Metro buses get about 38 MPG per passenger on average last time I checked).

   Isn't this only relevant if there are no empty seats?  Most (not all, but most) transit systems have two daily peaks (commuter runs) and then mainly empty buses/trains.  Wouldn't the best thing be to sell your Prius to someone unable to access transit and driving a beater 15,000 miles a year and you take the bus?  By removing your car from the road, you not only don't burn gas, but you also improve the mileage of everyone else (freeflowing traffic wastes far less gas than typical city stop/go, freeway parking lots).

   We decided to keep our second-hand 2002 Saturn (purchased cheap from my bride's father) because we have taken such pains to minimize driving to the point that the net result of our buying a Prius would be to keep the high-efficiency car off the road most of the time while putting the low-efficiency, 24-30 mpg car, on it when we sold it.  Absent an accident that demolishes the car, it's probably the last car we'll ever buy

What is "reasonable" varies a great deal from one person to another. Should we be taking short, cold, or no showers? Should we have zero, one, or two kids? One cat, or two cats? The rule of thumb followed by most people will be, "If I have to sacrifice anything, forget it." And that is the rule of thumb we should design our solutions around.

    Isn't this an argument that there are no absolutes in the climate crisis, and that "reasonable" is purely relative, and that there is no basis for objective reasonableness?  If so, I disagree.  Isn't "reasonable" set by the total gigatons of greenhouse gas we can afford to emit, divided by the number of emitters?  And doesn't that absolute limit decline each year?

  I think there is strong evidence for the position you describe among Americans -- the view that "I'm willing to do anything so long as I don't have to do anything I don't want to do."

  That's pretty much the attitude that will destroy us, in fact.  Because this IS the tragedy of the commons --- people can see a greater personal benefit to the comfort of themselves and their kin because the costs of their excess emissions are offloaded onto the global commons, and no one speaks for the trees, as it were.

  Is it your position that offsets are good because they allow people who would otherwise not do diddly to buy some emissions reductions with cash rather than behavior change?

  Also, could you address the point I tried to make in the other thread that, regardless of how you approach it, all plausible emission reductions that don't require behavior change are already spoken for because of the magnitude of the mismatch (emissions vs. absorption)?

  That is, Hansen et al. seem to be saying that avoiding the worst of the dangerous climate change (worse than we've already committed to) requires us to act NOW to stop the growth in emissions and then start making sharp cuts.  Some work has been done figuring out where we could possibly get all those emissions cuts (the stabilization wedges), and it's a daunting challenge.

  But hasn't that "wedges" work, in essence, "counted" on each of those reductions being pursued while assuming that the other ones were being made too?  Thus, aren't offsets inherently double counting because the roadmap to survival already includes them?  

   That is, shouldn't offsets be reserved for NEW ideas/methods for emissions reductions (or greenhouse gas removal) that aren't already identified on the critical path for survival?  

   The list of offset projects tossed around here includes a bunch of things we know how to do; the only thing lacking is the will.  I think that Socolow includes every one of them (and more) in the wedges menu.

    Why should we not treat the wedges roadmap to a global 80% reduction by 2050 as the "minimum objectively reasonable steps" and reserve offsets for things that are truly additional to those?  Otherwise, aren't we just letting people claim credit for doing what must be done anyway?

   Would you agree that nature does not care about what any one of us might subjectively define as reasonable, or our comfort or convenience.  

    And would you agree that there is a basis for making an objective determination of what is reasonable for global emissions, and, therefore, for continental emissions, for national emissions, and for emissions from any other subdivision you care to name, right down to the individual --- because we are all in this together.

    And would you agree that, in a setting of globally increasing emissions, offsets make no sense because they in fact DELAY the necessary behavior change by encouraging people to think in terms of continuing to emit at levels in excess of the objectively reasonable amounts while "offsetting" those emissions?

    Ultimately, aren't offsets a bit like trying to argue that your football team, down 49-0 on the scoreboard, is actually winning because, even though the score is against you, you've gained more yards, and the score would be much worse if you hadn't gained those yards?  Or that, even though the other team has a lot more runs, you have a lot more hits?  

    Nature will not be fooled.  We can use as many accounting tricks as we like to convince ourselves of anything we like; meanwhile, what matters is atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations and the net daily increase in them.

Save the world: Reduce greenhouse gas emissions 5% annually.

offsets are a way to marshal voluntary consumer power to push the wedges forward. There is nothing about offsets, conceptually or in practice, that prevents any other kind of emission reduction from happening.

Wedges = things that need to happen

Offsets = one (of many) ways to cause them to happen

Your baroque commentary above aside, what is mysterious about this?

grist.org

good job, biodiversivist!  It looks like some people are finally coming around to the ideas of environmental markets for ecosystem services - offsets being just one example.

It has come down to vague encouragements like offsets or carbon trading schemes...  versus picking specific technologies (like plugin hybrids)for government to incentivize and purchase for it's own use.

Some want to simply raise taxes on carbon to encourage change to no-carbon energy.  No government interference, except raise taxes?  Politically contradictory.  

I think a good compromise is to incentivize devices that eliminate carbon according to how much carbon they cancel out.  No matter what the device, give an incentive for each kwh and/or BTU of carbon emitting energy saved or replaced.

Don't raise taxes, use the corporate welfare  now going to the war and  Halliburton and friends and the big fossil and nuclear industries to pay for it all.

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog

I like baroque music, so I'm not sure if I'm been praised or slammed --- but I know that you didn't respond to my questions, instead simply dismissing them.

I guess we can just conclude that I'm too dense to appreciate the value of offsets that is so plain to you.

I have an idea---let's ask China and India if they're impressed by our choice to use "voluntary consumer power to push the wedges forward" rather than mandatory controls, and if they are motivated thereby to reduce their emissions?

Save the world: Reduce greenhouse gas emissions 5% annually.

you've missed the entire point of this article.  I've said it before and I'll say it again - myopic environmentalism (like yours) will set us back.

There is no "danger" of the voluntary carbon market keeping people from implementing mandatory controls.  No, the only thing they do is allow people to get on the before governments finally tell them they have to.

There are a lot of people talking about offsets (particularly planted tree offsets and protected forest offsets) that appear to be altogether clueless about biodiversity.  It's like there is a generation of environmentalists who know nothing about the environment except that they know global warming is a threat.  

Environmental markets, based around the rights over ecological goods and services, hold huge potential to help us address a number of problems.  The possibilities are slapping us in the face!  Yet you continue to ignore them.  

Conservation trusts are leading the way to this ultimate realization, while the nay-sayers remain behind their keyboards and whine that other people are doing things incorrectly.

No need to wonder about the intent there.  I know that myopia isn't considered a compliment.

I've already admitted to being dense, so it's no shame for me to ask whether this isn't the point of the article:  "I have concluded that carbon offsets are a pretty good idea if properly implemented."  (I asked someone smarter for help, that's how I found it buried up there in the topic paragraph.)

If that's not the point of the article, please advise.  There is probably at least one other person here who missed it too.

Save the world: Reduce greenhouse gas emissions 5% annually.

Not to mention repeatedly and rather flagrantly offering up strawmen.

In what universe is the modest U.S. private offset market preventing mandatory controls on CO2? In what universe do we have to choose between the two?

Nobody, anywhere, ever, has argued that the private, voluntary offset market is any kind of substitute for larger emission reduction programs. In fact, just about every offset proponent, on this site and everywhere else I've looked, proclaims repeatedly that we also need carbon caps, we also need behavioral changes, etc. etc. We need a multi-pronged approach, using every tool available. Nobody, anywhere, ever, has argued that voluntary private offsets are a silver bullet that will solve the climate problem, or substitute for other efforts to do so.

So I ask: who the hell are you arguing with? Why does this one, particular, modest effort to curb emissions elicit such a viscerally negative reaction from you? It's surreal.

grist.org

You found it!  The fact that offsets may be a tool in combating multiple problems (global warming and biodiversity/habitat loss) is what it's all about.

There are certainly things to be said for making sure we measure and monitor offsets better, but in no way do these concerns make a case for dropping offsets and voluntary environmental markets from the toolbox.

DR, I noted before that I give monthly to Carbonfund.org, so I hardly think I can be characterized as having some kind of viscerally negative reaction to offsets.  I think Big Cat said it best--think of it as a charitable contribution to a good cause (providing some low cost capital to do some good things).

I didn't write about offsets--you did.  You wrote a blast about how the indulgences critique drives you crazy, and I said--while noting that I contribute to an offset organization monthly--it didn't seem like that much of a stretch to me.  

Biod wrote a piece saying he's concluded that offsets are a good idea, or at least good offsets are a good idea.  I expressed a number of concerns that I have about them, even as I am participating in an offset program.

What is the problem with questioning the value of offsets, exactly?  Is skepticism about them a problem?  Why does skepticism about offsets generate such a viscerally negative reaction from you?

Unlike Biod, I haven't reached a conclusion about offsets; therefore, my continued participation in an offset plan, even while I consider the matter further.  I do note that the animosity that greets anyone who questions the value of offsets does not create confidence in them.  

Save the world: Reduce greenhouse gas emissions 5% annually.

My original post was simply an observation that most arguments from offset proponents I've run across are thoughtful and balanced, while most of the anti-offset arguments I've read are moralistic and illogical. The post prompted a torrent of anti-offset arguments, each more moralistic and illogical than the last, even from people (like yourself) who demonstrate their intelligence and insight on other matters on this site every day. I don't understand it. And yes, things I don't understand frustrate me. It's a failing.

However, everyone will be thrilled to hear that I think I've cracked the problem -- discovered the source of the strangely strong emotion that surrounds this ultimately not-all-that-consequential issue. Post to follow, providing Hott Weekend Fun for all.

grist.org

everyone is getting a little tired and cranky over this debate.  So far, I think biodiversivist has given the best explanation (at Grist anyway) of why offsets can be very beneficial and why we should spend our efforts making them better rather than bashing them.

Biod, I think my summaries summed it up (for me):

 Ultimately, aren't offsets a bit like trying to argue that your football team, down 49-0 on the scoreboard, is actually winning because, even though the score is against you, you've gained more yards, and the score would be much worse if you hadn't gained those yards?  Or that, even though the other team has a lot more runs, you have a lot more hits?  

    Nature will not be fooled.  We can use as many accounting tricks as we like to convince ourselves of anything we like; meanwhile, what matters is atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations and the net daily increase in them.

    As you say, what matters is results --- my repeating of the phrase "behavior change" is a sign of my belief that obtaining those results (reducing emissions radically) IS behavior change, even if it's not uncomfortable.  That is, I don't think that suffering is mandatory, or that people who currently emit a lot of greenhouse gases need to be made to suffer for it.  What we need is for them to stop emitting so much; if it will happen faster because they are more comfortable, then I'm for that.  If it will happen faster with them being less comfortable, then I'm for that, or for some combination.

While I am leery of some of Lovins's particular prescriptions, I do think he has a very solid basis for saying that, given our wasteful practices and habits, there are an  awful lot of lunches out there that are not only free, but you can be paid to eat them.  That is, we can cut emissions, reduce waste, and live better, not worse.

Save the world: Reduce greenhouse gas emissions 5% annually.

JMG, I agree that significant behavior changes are necessary to achieve anything close to the sort of carbon emissions reductions called for by climatologists who are estimating the minimum shift necessary to avoid catastrophic climate destabilization in the foreseeable future.  And, like you, I see many of the "market solutions" being tossed around as but one of several factors that are doing more to forestall the necessary behavior changes than to promote them.  On the other hand, I agree with those who have pointed at that it does little good the demand change and throw up one's hands when it is not immediately forthcoming.

Looking back on it, we got into the mess when a series of technological innovations prompted a series of changes in both behavior and belief.  I mean, suburbia, two car garages, washing machines and refrigerators, and the 9 to 5 grind didn't just happen because people decided that is how they wanted to live, it happened because stuff was invented and marketed with some ideas about how people could live and people took the bait.

I am pointing this out because I think that gives us some clues as to what it is going to take to stimulate the next big shift in behavior and expectations about how we live in an era of massive population gains, overburdened and declining resources, and destabilization of natural systems that humans learned to regard as more or less stable during the short span of the industrial growth era.  In the near term, there is a lot of long hanging fruit to be plucked in the form of energy efficiency--enough to arrive at actual energy conservation--if we would only focus on that instead of looking for new ways to quickly pillage land, water, and fossil fuels to supplement our dangerous fossil fuel habits.  But even with big gains in energy efficiency, we still need to make large shifts in the behavior of billions of people to decelerate man's contribution to global warming as well as to head off a host of other environmental crises now underway.  Thus, while we are evaluating techno-fixes in which to invest as a result of carbon taxes, caps and trades, and the rising market to appeal to do-gooders, I think it would be very helpful to ask whether the technologies will promote or hinder the types of lifestyle and infrastructure shifts, as well as the beliefs and expectations, necessary to continue the pattern of carbon emissions reductions that will be required in a couple of decades, by which time the long hanging fruit of big efficiency gains will hopefully be in the bag.  If the answer is no, and the technology motivates people to continue living a high consumption and disposable lifestyle, it should be recognized as more a part of the problem than the solution to this puzzle.

I don't whether to be sad or angry reading down this thread. One thing I do know is that it is downright embarrassing to Grist, considering its honorable record in giving responsible answers to honest questions. We have BioD making a lengthy but vague case for offsets based largely on the idea that he should be paid to commit to do nothing with his land (which he is doing nothing with anyway), and that it's justifiable because of the carbon that just might be sequestered on that land over time as he continues to do nothing with it. JMG writes a thoughtful and carefully considered response which provokes emotional ad hominems from DR and others basically telling him if he hasn't anything good to say about offsets he'd better shut the f*** up. I'd like to point out that it's up to those selling the idea of carbon offsets as an effective climate intervention to justify that effectiveness, and BioD's post once again does anything but.

Fact is, BioD's  conservation easement proposal could be a poster child for what's wrong with the theory. No additionality: his neighbors are also doing nothing with their parcels, presumably for free (am I alone in finding the dismissive reference to the "rednecks" and "Joe Sixpacks" objectionable?). No evidence of net carbon benefit: even setting aside the fact that temperate-climate tree programs have  been widely shown to be the most dodgy of carbon sequestration projects,  clearing for residential construction normally takes only a small part of a rural lot and the carbon sequestration loss represented by that small clearing is quite likely to be balanced out for carbon purposes by the higher albedo of the doublewide's roof (yes, we already get the point that these hicks are so much less environmentally aware than we are). No reality check: I don't know of any conservation easement manager being prepared to take on a parcel of less than a hundred acres or so - small isolated parcels offer next to no value in habitat preservation and the management costs per unit benefit are way too high. No true cost accounting: round our way the difference in value between a residential lot and one that's unavailable for development runs into the tens of thousands; how many weekend flights to Cancun will it take to bribe BioD to take his few acres off the strip mall roster? And last but not least: no mention of the opportunity cost, or as Rune puts it, the marginal utility of investment. Every little helps? Not when it's using resources that could have a bigger impact elsewhere.

But ultimately, it's not the job of sceptics like myself to demonstrate that offsets suck. We're still waiting for the case to be made that they work. This thread doesn't help that case one bit.

The true meaning of life is to plant trees, under whose shade you do not expect to sit.

David Roberts:

However, everyone will be thrilled to hear that I think I've cracked the problem -- discovered the source of the strangely strong emotion that surrounds this ultimately not-all-that-consequential issue. Post to follow, providing Hott Weekend Fun for all.

I hope when you discover the source of the strangely strong emotion, that  you include your own strangely strong emotions. You have managed to attack JMG who favors voluntary offsets. Also Romm who not only favors voluntary offsets, but last I hear prefers Cap and Trade to Carbon Taxes, got torn into by a number of people. I'm not sure if you were one or not. So apparently you can enrage offset supporters not only for opposing them, but not supporting them strongly enough or being to stringent in your standards for them. Apparently carbon offsets need  unconditional love or something.

Far more useful might be a tax break for people maintaining natural areas. The property north of me is zoned  agricultural and, I'm pretty sure, is valued $10 (yes, ten) per acre for property tax purposes. My propery is zoned residential and is valued far higher than that for tax purposes -- I'm excluding the value of the house, just talking about land here -- even though 80% of it is being restored to native vegetation and, as far as vegetation is concerned, looks similar to or better than the agricultural land.

I understand paying higher taxes for the portion that the house sits on and contains my driveway, well, gardens, and mowed lawn; we need schools and government services. But how about treating the part left natural just like ag land for tax purposes? I think such policies would encourage a lot of small land holders to behave more responsibly and plant/maintain native vegetation instead of mowed estates.  Perhaps the lost revenue would be compensated for by ecosystem services -- cleaner water, cleaner air, stabilizing soil, higher water tables, more pollinators, preservation of endangered species, et cetera -- that reduce government expenditures. Indeed, the grass I'm establishing will probably filter runoff from the nearby road and improve -- I admit, only slightly -- the quality of the trout stream several miles away. But what if everyone was encouraged to do so?

Voluntary land stewardship is not working out so well.

Just an idea. I'm not even sure I agree with myself on this one.

Forward!

"Reading and understanding the posts you critique will make your comments more defensible. I am presently doing nothing with the land, but what I will do with it in the future is unknown. The point was that carbon offset payments would tip the balance for many landowners to preserve their land rather than sell it for development, which is a repeat of what I said in the OP, and sorry, I'm not repeating it again."

It's OK, I got it the first time.

"You could argue that the trees would have grown anyway. But what we really have here is a probability game. If forest used to be there, odds are relatively good that another one will be there someday if the land is protected from development. What are the odds of the land being sold and developed if it is not put in a trust?"

What indeed are those odds? The U.S. is a huge country with a pretty low density of population. Most of it will never be built on. A few off-grid acres out in the boonies is likely to turn into a strip mall exactly when?

"Once again, as I said in the OP, they are all waiting for power to come down the road and when it does they all plan to get the chainsaws out and start building. So, wrong about the additionality. They are already actively removing trees to maintain mountain views, roads and flat spots for their dream homes."

Documentation please on the carbon sequestration loss associated with that clearing: trees versus other vegetation. Or are they paving their entire lots? And just for clarification, are they dream homes or double-wides as per your original post?

" Look around you at all the land that once had trees on it. In case you have not noticed, people and trees don't usually mix."

Difference in perspective. In my area (central North Carolina) trees and people mix very well. We have about two orders of magnitude more tree coverage, after several decades of brisk suburban development, than when it was all tobacco fields.

"I seriously doubt that I am alone in finding your entire comment dismissive and objectionable."
OK, I can handle that.

[clearing for residential construction normally takes only a small part of a rural lot and the carbon sequestration loss represented by that small clearing is quite likely to be balanced out for carbon purposes by the higher albedo of the doublewide's roof.]  
Biod - "Have you some calculations to share that would help validate the above sentence or are you are making this all up as you go?"

Down our way there's almost never more than half an acre cleared for housebuilding on a typical five acre rural lot. Many homeowners (especially those who have never lived through a hurricane here) want to clear much less. I know this because I am professionally involved in this process on a daily basis. The albedo part is purely speculative because I don't know the roof material your dream home/doublewide will be using. But hey, I know very little about your lot and its neighborhood, and neither would the proposed offset purchasers. If you want their money it's your job to demonstrate your sequestration proposal works, not mine to show it doesn't.

[I don't know of any conservation easement manager being prepared to take on a parcel of less than a hundred acres or so - small isolated parcels offer next to no value in habitat preservation and the management costs per unit benefit are way too high]  
Biod - "My property isn't isolated. It is bordered on one side by a large contiguous state forest and on another side by Boy Scout easement forest. It extends intact habitat and that is why I bought it. Some conservation managers are willing to take on smaller parcels if they meet that criteria, the one I've been talking to in particular, which is irrelevant because I was using my property for illustrative purposes."

I was unaware of the contiguous parcels because you did not refer to them. They will doubtless make a difference to management costs. Few rural lots that I know of are so lucky. If this is to be a model proposal you need to mention a few caveats.

[No true cost accounting: round our way the difference in value between a residential lot and one that's unavailable for development runs into the tens of thousands; how many weekend flights to Cancun will it take to bribe BioD to take his few acres off the strip mall roster?]
BioD - "Not sure I follow you here. I think you meant to say, "To bribe BioD to put his few acres on the strip mall roster." If I put this land into an easement, I can't be bribed. It's permanent."

I meant exactly what I wrote, but let me elaborate. I read your post as asking for offset money to encourage you to place the easement on the property. If this is not a mistaken reading please provide, for the benefits of potential offset purchasers, documentation on the price you'd expect and quantification of the actual carbon benefit that expenditure would provide. My question was not rhetorical: just how many Cancun flight offsets at current market price would it take to meet your price, and how much carbon sequestration would the easement purchased actually ensure? Bearing in mind that the value of temperate forest projects has been severely called into question by commentators better informed than I, to what extent would those sequestrations actually balance out the emissions of the flight?

[And last but not least: no mention of the opportunity cost, or as Rune puts it, the marginal utility of investment. Every little helps? Not when it's using resources that could have a bigger impact elsewhere.]
BioD - "Exactly what resources have I used preserving this forest that would have had bigger impact elsewhere? An acre of douglas fir forest would keep 16 times more carbon out of the atmosphere annually over a 50 year period than using that same acre to grow soy-based biodiesel. Unlike your statements, I have the math and the sources to back that one up."

Gosh we're really talking past each other here. I'm really not concerned about your hypothetical soybeans. I was actually thinking of the opportunity cost of the money, not of the land. To what better uses could the offset purchaser put the offset money for the purposes of carbon mitigation? I suspect there are many, but without specific cost/benefit numbers from you, the proposed offset seller, how could they decide?

"All investments vary. In theory, all but the best investment can have bigger impact elsewhere, but only by being that best investment.

Sure only the best investments are the best investments (hey, I think Justice Thomas just said something like that). But without better information from you how do I know that this isn't the worst investment I could make?

I'm surprised to hear you say that every little bit does not help. I had you pegged as the every little bit helps type.
Well I can't think how you had me "pegged" that way. To the point of tedium, my Grist posts have been full of impatience for such feel-good baby steps as Priuses and offsets. Is it possible you have your neighboring lot owners, for whom you apparently feel such contempt, wrongly pegged also?

Personally, I think we need vast sweeping changes

Yes!

like viable carbon offsets."

Mmm, not so much. Really, is this actually an example of a viable offset or a "vast sweeping change"?  No wonder there's skeptics about. All I see in this is a vague, somewhat emotional claim that doing something, anything is better than doing nothing. Especially if someone can make a buck out of it. Not good enough.

The true meaning of life is to plant trees, under whose shade you do not expect to sit.

just put it much more succinctly than I could on another thread.

So long as we continue to avoid decision-making guidelines that can translate a diverse mix of expected outcomes at various points in time and to present values denominated by a common unit of measure, we will continue to resort to overgeneralization, emotional appeals,ideological edicts, and other logical shortcomings that are neither persuasive nor effective.

I think this thread exemplifies to a T the overgeneralizations, emotional appeals and ideological edicts on both sides of the debate. What we need is reliable numbers.

The true meaning of life is to plant trees, under whose shade you do not expect to sit.

BioDiversivist, so far you've told me that your micro-reforestation proposal would be better than planting soybeans for biodiesel and that driving Priuses is better than growing corn for ethanol. Both of these comps are under dispute as to whether they offer any carbon mitigation at all, and many critics show negative carbon effects. Lower bars there may be, but I'm having a hard time thinking of any that have the remotest environmental credibility.

And once again, it's not about you and your land and the various things you might or might not do with it. It's about the offset purchaser and their money and the various ways they may put it to use which have nothing to do with you, such as donate to a Habitat program to upgrade environmental performance of affordable housing, invest in a capital-poor but performance-rich renewable-energy company, etc. etc.

The true meaning of life is to plant trees, under whose shade you do not expect to sit.