thanks for this, Dave.  It's nice to see some data associated with this stuff for once.

Does anyone have any insight on how to calculate your personal carbon offset if you decide to plant in your yard, whether it be a perennial, native garden, or a tree?

Ok, so I read this, then saw an ad for a Range Rover dealer that is buying carbon offsets for 50,000 miles with every purchase -- and they are from trees.

I'm pretty sure that those show up as purchased by a business.

What's that phrase?  Spleensploshing?  Deanfroshing?  It'll come to me ...

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

Garbage out

That said, it's suprising how little they spend on effeciency.

Remember, "Entropy is the Enemy!"

Is it an organicaly fertilized apple tree?

and I get to eat the apples?!

Sign me up!

Forward!

The first thing that jumped out at me was the same thing GreyFlcn caught: energy efficiency dropped from a better than 50% share of investments prior to 2002 to about 5% in 2006.  That is surprising and disappointing given that arresting the geometric growth of conventional energy use is one of the best and most hopeful means of ever turning around the growth in carbon emissions.  Also, given that quality of investment was rated so highly, one would think energy efficiency and conservation measures would be in ever greater demand given that they tend to be easier to verify and predict than, say, tree planting, especially if they are of the low or no maintenance variety.

Perhaps a $91 million global market seems "big" to some, but if you look at the actual amount of carbon estimated to have been sequestered (over what period of time?--I didn't catch that in my skimming) relative to the amount of emissions, it's next to nothing.  According to page 19 of the report, and estimated 23.7 metric tons of CO2 was accounted for in the global voluntary offset markets of 2006.  When compared to the approximately 8 billion tons of CO2 released in the same year, the offsets amount to about 0.0000003% of the whole.  It's a nice feel good gesture for some, I suppose, but it isn't making a meaningful contribution to solving the problem, and as JMG hints, the green washing involved may actually make it easier for consumers to make choices that detrimental in more ways than just CO2 emissions.

By the way, did anyone notice that the greatest number of businesses buying offsets were developers?  Given the absolute and very long term loss of habitat and carbon sequestering biotic activity of the soil that industry compacts and covers each year and the minuscule amount of credits being purchased globally, it's hard to imagine that the developers' purchases are anything but window dressing for governments and their public's who may not have a good grasp of the true magnitude of the impacts and the offerings involved.

Did anyone notice that the sponsors of the report benefit directly from the carbon offset market?

Forward!

My 2-acre prairie remnant that I constantly go on about, which I feel is somewhat important because it removes at least a little CO2 from the atmosphere and stores it in the soil, is essentially useless as far as carbon offsets are concerned.

A quick search on the internet reveals I'm removing, at most, about 2 tonnes of carbon from the atmosphere per acre per year. So that's a total of 4 tonnes.

Yahoo... all the effort, all the fuel burned, all the days in the hot sun rather than reading a book... hell, the water I pumped out of the ground to keep myself hydrated... is currently worth -- as judged by the free market -- about $16.40 per year. Good thing that is not my primary motivation or I would not bother. I know preservation of biodiversity, setting an example for others, and the pure aesthetic value is worth more than that.

It is quite clear that the current money pouring into carbon offsets and used for restoring ecosystems -- or pretending to by planting grass or trees -- absolutely cannot be paying for actual preservation, restoration, and protection of those ecosystems. There is no way such a small amount of money ($8.20 per acre) can accomplish much as far as saving ecosystem is concerned.

I point this out because so many people have said that it does not matter if the purchase of carbon offsets actually reduced CO2 emissions; they still help preserve natural areas and provide homes for wildlife. Barely, I say, if at all.

I never noticed this before because I never thought about how much people pay to remove a tonne of CO2 from the atmosphere. It really is a drop in the bucket as far as the health of the planet is concerned. I apologize for wasting everyone's time -- and regret wasting my own time -- discussing it. At least I now realize carbon offsets are pointless.

Thank you for posting the detailed report.

Forward!

That's what we put in the air today.

So the entire contribution of the voluntary market (Rune: 24 Million Tons, not just tons) is about nine basis points. Or put differently we just offset 8 hours and 11 minutes.  

No it's not enough. We desperately need a national cap and an international treaty on carbon.

But its a start. And it can be part of the solution.

Wiscadea, don't get discouraged on the price. Price will rise and we'll get around supporting everything that helps climate change. In the meantime keep on fighting the good fight, as your primary motivation is the best thing we've all got going for us.

Tom Arnold Chief Environmental Officer TerraPass

"Rune: 24 Million Tons, not just tons"

My bad.  I read "mtons" as metric tons and didn't make the connection to the number of dollars involved while quickly skimming the report.  Thanks for the catch.

Adjust decimal point accordingly and raise new questions about the accuracy of the report.  The voluntary, no-clear-standards, pick up game of carbon offsets is already knocking off 0.3% of global emissions in real time?  I have trouble believing that.  I suspect that credit is being given the for the entire time series of projected carbon sequestration for projects as they are funded (at least in some cases), rather than recognizing the carbon offsetting as it actually occurs over a span of decades.  No time to dig back into the report at this moment, but I am very interested in anyone else's findings regarding that matter.

To put it in perspective, $91m is the annual sales volume of a medium size shopping mall. Or three Wholefoods groceries.

Too soon to tell yet if the voluntary offset market is going to get enough consumer acceptance to make a difference. And the answer to Rune's question about carbon reduction metrics - which speaks to how quickly the reductions are projected to have an impact in what is a very time-sensitive situation - should probably have an impact on that acceptance.

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

And the answer to Rune's question about carbon reduction metrics - which speaks to how quickly the reductions are projected to have an impact in what is a very time-sensitive situation - should probably have an impact on that acceptance.

I hope it is obvious that all concerned should be keenly interested in when a given offset project will actually deliver carbon reductions, but I do not see in the above quote an answer to my question about whether the projects tallied by the report tend to use a cash basis of accounting or whether they accrue offsets for a given project over the years, more or less in line with when and how much carbon is actually pulled out of the atmosphere (or prevented from entering to begin with).  Again, does anyone have some input on that?

I'll try to look into it myself, later, but right now I need to go climb into an attic and replace a bunch of leaky light cans that cannot be insulated (thus reducing the effect of the surrounding R-32 insulation to about R-8) with some sealed ones that can be insulated over while my crew helps finish off sealing and insulating the space before the sun makes it too hot to work up there.  It won't show up on anyones carbon offset tally, but it will make the home more energy efficient and comfortable for as long as it stands, which I think is a better use of money in which one can have confidence as well as reap personal benefits, as opposed to paying someone else to do something they will probably never know about in hopes that it does some good, somewhere, some day.

And about that unknown pay off in the future, does anyone know if these carbon offsetters who sell tree planting as offset projects, does anyone know if they tend to assume that most or all of the trees will survive when they tally up the offsets (whenever they recognize those)?  I know that in habitat restoration or replacement projects, the agencies typically require that several times more trees be planted than were removed by the project requiring the work because they know many of the seedlings won't make it past the monitoring period and others will die not so long after that activity ends.  Makes sense to me that the same sort of rules should apply to carbon offset projects in which the outcomes are uncertain.

Rube: sorry for the clumsy phrasing - I was not attempting an answer to your question but rather repeating it. When indeed is delivery on the claimed carbon reduction to occur? This is one of the many grey areas of many offset schemes, unlike your attic insulation project which will undoubtedly have prompt results.

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

Hey, all:

Well, I have decided I am goin' into th' greenwash--ooops--offset market meself.  

And I bet I can come up with some great self-generated data to support the value of the offsets and the benefits of MY offsets.  I am going to buy some slick magazine and TV ads to appeal to the ignorant, pretentious, fashion-is-everything crowd.  Who cares that in a couple of months they will be forgotten about, just like the exercise equipment under the bed--just as long as I get my money.

This is just an extension of the ignorant consumerism that got us into the situation we are in.  

David
Sustainability For Life

Messages done with sustainable energy, with Wind and Sun!

I just noticed that I mistyped your name on my last post. I am mortified!

I will preview my posts
I will preview my posts
I will preview my posts
I will .....

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