<![CDATA[Grist - Comment Feed for At present, offsets are impossible to verify]]> Grist Comment Feed en Comment #1 by wiscidea http://www.grist.org/article/offsets-carbon-neutrality-and-journalistic-competence/ Mon, 29 Jan 2007 06:31:32 -0800 http://www.grist.org/article/offsets-carbon-neutrality-and-journalistic-competence/1 Where are people planting all of these trees?

This is my basic question regarding carbon offsets and planting trees...

Where are people planting all of these trees?

If they are reforesting an area previously clear-cut, they are simply repairing previous damage. That is, they are restoring historic carbon sinks, not really compensating for new anthropogenic emissions of CO2.

If they are planting trees where there is naturally grassland or some other vegetation, they are not getting the full benefit of carbon sequestration by trees. They are getting the differential -- if there is one -- between trees and grassland. At the same time, they are destroying natural habitat.

If they are planting the tree in a barren landscape, the trees probably won't grow very well. No carbon sequestration. Or it will be released by rapid decay of dead plant material.

Is there really that much bare soil -- that is not naturally desert -- that folks can plant trees or even grassland to offset carbon emissions?

I imagine a time when so many corporations have planted trees and so many individuals have planted trees, that the tree accountants -- neglecting the harvesting or natural death of trees -- will claim there are more trees planted that the Earth could possibly accomodate!

Perhaps people should really be purchasing "kilograms of sequestered carbon". The money would go toward improving the health of various ecosystems and the results would be measured not by number of trees, but be inches of new organic topsoil that accumulates per acre. It could mean planting trees, but could also mean protecting a bog or a wetland or a prairie. I recently learned that bogs might be the best biome for sequestering carbon.

Perhaps someday, a few people will be paid just to rebuild the soil that has been lost to poor agricultural practices. Their income will be proportional to the soil that accumulates. It will sequester carbon and provide agriculture land for future generations.

Forward!

]]> Where are people planting all of these trees?

This is my basic question regarding carbon offsets and planting trees...

Where are people planting all of these trees?

If they are reforesting an area previously clear-cut, they are simply repairing previous damage. That is, they are restoring historic carbon sinks, not really compensating for new anthropogenic emissions of CO2.

If they are planting trees where there is naturally grassland or some other vegetation, they are not getting the full benefit of carbon sequestration by trees. They are getting the differential -- if there is one -- between trees and grassland. At the same time, they are destroying natural habitat.

If they are planting the tree in a barren landscape, the trees probably won't grow very well. No carbon sequestration. Or it will be released by rapid decay of dead plant material.

Is there really that much bare soil -- that is not naturally desert -- that folks can plant trees or even grassland to offset carbon emissions?

I imagine a time when so many corporations have planted trees and so many individuals have planted trees, that the tree accountants -- neglecting the harvesting or natural death of trees -- will claim there are more trees planted that the Earth could possibly accomodate!

Perhaps people should really be purchasing "kilograms of sequestered carbon". The money would go toward improving the health of various ecosystems and the results would be measured not by number of trees, but be inches of new organic topsoil that accumulates per acre. It could mean planting trees, but could also mean protecting a bog or a wetland or a prairie. I recently learned that bogs might be the best biome for sequestering carbon.

Perhaps someday, a few people will be paid just to rebuild the soil that has been lost to poor agricultural practices. Their income will be proportional to the soil that accumulates. It will sequester carbon and provide agriculture land for future generations.

Forward!

]]> Comment #2 by Gar Lipow http://www.grist.org/article/offsets-carbon-neutrality-and-journalistic-competence/ Mon, 29 Jan 2007 08:23:54 -0800 http://www.grist.org/article/offsets-carbon-neutrality-and-journalistic-competence/2 Where are the trees planted?

Well a lot the trees are promised and have not been planted yet. A lot of others are planted in tropical climates - on land that is officially declared degraded. In these cases, there is almost always some sort of existing ground cover that has to be torn out to make way for the trees - grass or shrubs or flowering plants. In most cases the land is stolen from local people who use it make their living. I have a post in queue on this: in Uganda people have been shot at and beaten to keep them off land that they never sold. In Ecquador poor farmers contracted to replace their farms and pasture with tree at what they thought would be a profit. They missed fine print, and ended owing money to the carbon sequestration firm they contracted with instead of being paid. Sort of a cross between owing your soul to the company store and falling for one of those "work at home" scams.

]]> Where are the trees planted?

Well a lot the trees are promised and have not been planted yet. A lot of others are planted in tropical climates - on land that is officially declared degraded. In these cases, there is almost always some sort of existing ground cover that has to be torn out to make way for the trees - grass or shrubs or flowering plants. In most cases the land is stolen from local people who use it make their living. I have a post in queue on this: in Uganda people have been shot at and beaten to keep them off land that they never sold. In Ecquador poor farmers contracted to replace their farms and pasture with tree at what they thought would be a profit. They missed fine print, and ended owing money to the carbon sequestration firm they contracted with instead of being paid. Sort of a cross between owing your soul to the company store and falling for one of those "work at home" scams.

]]> Comment #3 by Whiskerfish http://www.grist.org/article/offsets-carbon-neutrality-and-journalistic-competence/ Mon, 29 Jan 2007 16:03:01 -0800 http://www.grist.org/article/offsets-carbon-neutrality-and-journalistic-competence/3 Excellent replies!

both

keep it up!

Whiskerfish

]]> Excellent replies!

both

keep it up!

Whiskerfish

]]> Comment #4 by caniscandida http://www.grist.org/article/offsets-carbon-neutrality-and-journalistic-competence/ Mon, 29 Jan 2007 22:28:00 -0800 http://www.grist.org/article/offsets-carbon-neutrality-and-journalistic-competence/4 planting trees?

I second Whiskerfish's words of praise.  When I first heard of carbon offsetting early last year, I had doubts about how it is supposed to work -- mostly about how one fully measures the CO2 emissions associated with any particular act or activity, and then how one best finds some other activity, e.g. tree-planting, which supposedly promotes a reduction in CO2 emissions.

And I had not been learned enough, back then, to ask about the relative value of planting trees in different regions and climates, still less about the serious issue of injustice perpetrated against people in tropical countries.

So, thanks to Gar and WiscIdea -- if that is the right word: there is nothing really to be thankful about, if my suspicion that the good news is not so good is confirmed.

I would add to their comments that it is not only the journalists whose scrutiny is required here.  The celebrity off-setters should be on top of this issue, too.  E.g., my copy of Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth" proudly announces on the last page: "This is the first book produced to offset 100% of the CO2 emissions generated from production activities [?] with renewable energy.  By supporting a new Native American [cool!] wind farm and a new family farm methane energy project through NativeEnergy, this publication is carbon neutral.  For more information, and to offset your own carbon footprint, visit http://www.nativeenergy.com."  That sounds very nice -- and notice that the point of the NativeEnergy project is not directly to contain atmospheric CO2 by planting trees.  Still, Al Gore should be out in front in scrutinizing the different available ways to "carbon-offset."

Same with the Prince of Wales, who flew to the US this week, with a sizeable entourage, to receive an award from an environmentalist organization.  Environmentalists complained that he should have stayed in Britain, and received the award by video-conferencing.  By way of appeasement, he announced that he would cancel a skiing trip in Switzerland (I think; something frivolous; and speaking of Switzerland, one wonders how many attendants at the Davos conferences have bothered to think about off-setting), and would be off-setting the roundtrip between the US and Britain.  He is in an excellent position to examine the issue more deeply.

For no doubt pre-historic, savannah-related reasons, we tend to be pleased by the thought of planting trees.  As Gar grants, even outside of tropical zones, it may accomplish fine things.

E.g., the re-floralization of Israel/Palestine.  That poorly watered region has been a fragile battleground for millennia; and warfare and its aftermath have been all the more destructive in the past few decades.  For many years following the creation of the state of Israel, American Jews (and others, less directly) have been encouraged to donate, that a tree may be planted in Israel.  Presumably those donations went to subsidizing such agricultural projects as the kibbutzim, in the fairly arid Galil in the north, and the frankly desertish Negev in the south (where Ariel Sharon has his ranch).  The purpose had nothing to do with carbon-offsetting, but rather with establishing a functioning Israeli economy.  Whether the new olive-trees and fruit-trees were supposed to replace trees that were recently destroyed, or to replace trees that are believed to have been cultivated there in the distant past, is not clear.

(Historically, the Romans are said to have cut down many trees, during the Jewish War of the late 60s-early 70s CE.  In the 7th century, when Arabs occupied the region, its famous vineyards were destroyed, for religious reasons.)

More recently, peace-minded Jews have come together with Palestinians to try to re-establish the olive groves that have been brutally destroyed by the Israeli occupation of the West Bank, and by the encroachment of illegal Israeli settlements.  With what success, I do not know.

In many regions of the Old World, inhabited and utilized for farms, gardens, orchards, vineyards and pastures for millennia, from the Iberian peninsula to India, climate change has been increasingly taxing water supplies.  The planting of trees, but also of lower, ground-covering plants, might do much to save the soil.

Same with the Sahel region, of northern-tropical Africa, the increasing desertification of which is well-known.  (I do not know if the tree-planting projects in Uganda take place in that kind of environment.)  The local people's constant search for firewood contributes to the phenomenon.

(But I agree with WiscIdea's excellent point, that the irrigation and planting of regions that are naturally deserts, e.g. Imperial Valley, CA, is kind of crazy.)

It would seem that the goal of carbon off-setting, some sort of strict, double-column, molecule-by-molecule accounting, is at best hard to manage, at worst futile.  Very guy-minded, I might add.  As the field of climate-crisis ethics grows, we should include efforts to control the effects of global warming, especially in the world's poorest countries, as reasonable recipients of charitable donations, by way of "off-setting" our own lifestyles.

Whether such efforts are as yet very well organized, is another matter.  

Chickens are our cousins! So are other sensitive animals! Enough is enough! No more factory farms!

]]> planting trees?

I second Whiskerfish's words of praise.  When I first heard of carbon offsetting early last year, I had doubts about how it is supposed to work -- mostly about how one fully measures the CO2 emissions associated with any particular act or activity, and then how one best finds some other activity, e.g. tree-planting, which supposedly promotes a reduction in CO2 emissions.

And I had not been learned enough, back then, to ask about the relative value of planting trees in different regions and climates, still less about the serious issue of injustice perpetrated against people in tropical countries.

So, thanks to Gar and WiscIdea -- if that is the right word: there is nothing really to be thankful about, if my suspicion that the good news is not so good is confirmed.

I would add to their comments that it is not only the journalists whose scrutiny is required here.  The celebrity off-setters should be on top of this issue, too.  E.g., my copy of Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth" proudly announces on the last page: "This is the first book produced to offset 100% of the CO2 emissions generated from production activities [?] with renewable energy.  By supporting a new Native American [cool!] wind farm and a new family farm methane energy project through NativeEnergy, this publication is carbon neutral.  For more information, and to offset your own carbon footprint, visit http://www.nativeenergy.com."  That sounds very nice -- and notice that the point of the NativeEnergy project is not directly to contain atmospheric CO2 by planting trees.  Still, Al Gore should be out in front in scrutinizing the different available ways to "carbon-offset."

Same with the Prince of Wales, who flew to the US this week, with a sizeable entourage, to receive an award from an environmentalist organization.  Environmentalists complained that he should have stayed in Britain, and received the award by video-conferencing.  By way of appeasement, he announced that he would cancel a skiing trip in Switzerland (I think; something frivolous; and speaking of Switzerland, one wonders how many attendants at the Davos conferences have bothered to think about off-setting), and would be off-setting the roundtrip between the US and Britain.  He is in an excellent position to examine the issue more deeply.

For no doubt pre-historic, savannah-related reasons, we tend to be pleased by the thought of planting trees.  As Gar grants, even outside of tropical zones, it may accomplish fine things.

E.g., the re-floralization of Israel/Palestine.  That poorly watered region has been a fragile battleground for millennia; and warfare and its aftermath have been all the more destructive in the past few decades.  For many years following the creation of the state of Israel, American Jews (and others, less directly) have been encouraged to donate, that a tree may be planted in Israel.  Presumably those donations went to subsidizing such agricultural projects as the kibbutzim, in the fairly arid Galil in the north, and the frankly desertish Negev in the south (where Ariel Sharon has his ranch).  The purpose had nothing to do with carbon-offsetting, but rather with establishing a functioning Israeli economy.  Whether the new olive-trees and fruit-trees were supposed to replace trees that were recently destroyed, or to replace trees that are believed to have been cultivated there in the distant past, is not clear.

(Historically, the Romans are said to have cut down many trees, during the Jewish War of the late 60s-early 70s CE.  In the 7th century, when Arabs occupied the region, its famous vineyards were destroyed, for religious reasons.)

More recently, peace-minded Jews have come together with Palestinians to try to re-establish the olive groves that have been brutally destroyed by the Israeli occupation of the West Bank, and by the encroachment of illegal Israeli settlements.  With what success, I do not know.

In many regions of the Old World, inhabited and utilized for farms, gardens, orchards, vineyards and pastures for millennia, from the Iberian peninsula to India, climate change has been increasingly taxing water supplies.  The planting of trees, but also of lower, ground-covering plants, might do much to save the soil.

Same with the Sahel region, of northern-tropical Africa, the increasing desertification of which is well-known.  (I do not know if the tree-planting projects in Uganda take place in that kind of environment.)  The local people's constant search for firewood contributes to the phenomenon.

(But I agree with WiscIdea's excellent point, that the irrigation and planting of regions that are naturally deserts, e.g. Imperial Valley, CA, is kind of crazy.)

It would seem that the goal of carbon off-setting, some sort of strict, double-column, molecule-by-molecule accounting, is at best hard to manage, at worst futile.  Very guy-minded, I might add.  As the field of climate-crisis ethics grows, we should include efforts to control the effects of global warming, especially in the world's poorest countries, as reasonable recipients of charitable donations, by way of "off-setting" our own lifestyles.

Whether such efforts are as yet very well organized, is another matter.  

Chickens are our cousins! So are other sensitive animals! Enough is enough! No more factory farms!

]]> Comment #5 by atreyger http://www.grist.org/article/offsets-carbon-neutrality-and-journalistic-competence/ Tue, 30 Jan 2007 04:09:02 -0800 http://www.grist.org/article/offsets-carbon-neutrality-and-journalistic-competence/5 Ok, I read the paper

It does not implicitly test carbon storage. I cannot assume that the authors' quick statement in the last paragraph about important policy implications to be a legitimate defense of the concept. Therefore, Gar's rabid defense of this paper as an end-all is bizarre. This paper did not actually accomplish much except for raising an important and interesting topic regarding the effect of trees on carbon storage vs. raising the albedo. I view this article as a preliminary note or a pilot study (modeling, not experimental), rather than a comprehensive study of the actual effects.

Carbon storage: clearcuts and tree harvesting actually sequester carbon since the wood goes into hopefully long-lasting products (consumerist society notwithstanding).

]]> Ok, I read the paper

It does not implicitly test carbon storage. I cannot assume that the authors' quick statement in the last paragraph about important policy implications to be a legitimate defense of the concept. Therefore, Gar's rabid defense of this paper as an end-all is bizarre. This paper did not actually accomplish much except for raising an important and interesting topic regarding the effect of trees on carbon storage vs. raising the albedo. I view this article as a preliminary note or a pilot study (modeling, not experimental), rather than a comprehensive study of the actual effects.

Carbon storage: clearcuts and tree harvesting actually sequester carbon since the wood goes into hopefully long-lasting products (consumerist society notwithstanding).

]]> Comment #6 by ramsayhuntley http://www.grist.org/article/offsets-carbon-neutrality-and-journalistic-competence/ Tue, 30 Jan 2007 05:43:52 -0800 http://www.grist.org/article/offsets-carbon-neutrality-and-journalistic-competence/6 response from Carbonfund.org

My name is Ramsay and I'm the program coordinator for Carbonfund.org. We wanted to include our input here and we would welcome your feedback.

One of the key points that Gar has raised is renewable power, and wind in particular, would be profitable without selling green tags. We disagree with this. If this were the case, you'd expect renewable energy (and wind power especially since it's the most cost-effective clean technology) to be "business as usual", there would be a ceiling on electricity emissions, and a gradual reduction over time. We are very clearly not there yet. Wind energy, for instance, accounts for just 2% of the electric generation capacity added during the last decade, with most being coal and gas. And much of that was to meet state mandated Renewable Portfolio Standards. So, the portion of new capacity that is directly supported by the voluntary market is 1% or less - hardly business as usual.

Further, as the World Resources Institute notes in its "Corporate Guide to Green Power Markets":
The revenue from certificates typically covers at least the incremental cost of renewable power generation over conventional power generation. The sale of RECs to marketers or directly to customers provides the additional cash flow required for the renewable energy project to be financially viable over its lifetime.

By covering the incremental cost of the technology, RECs help consumers support the projects, technologies, locations and business plans that are most efficiently increasing renewable energy and reducing CO2 emissions and the premium needed "to be financially viable." For instance, wind costs less than solar, wind RECs in Kansas cost less than wind RECs in Seattle, big projects cost less than small.

Additionally, Gar says "(t)here is no way of ever knowing the actual emissions reduction compared to not subsidizing." We also disagree with this. Thanks to the EPA's eGrid program, the emissions factor for each grid is well known (to find out yours, visit EPA's eGrid program and plug in your zip code). When a zero-emissions generation source is used, it offsets the typical grid production which is what otherwise would be used. This is well understood, documented and accepted and is a main tenet of the Green-e program. This can all be certified and audited by a third party, and we would always recommend that you demand that third party certification.

Carbon offsets, just like green power offered to millions of people by their utilities, empower individuals and businesses to be part of transforming the market (and world) to clean technologies. We're excited to provide people the same opportunity to make a difference as Starbucks, the State of Pennsylvania, IBM, Whole Foods, US Air Force and thousands of other organizations are doing.


]]> response from Carbonfund.org

My name is Ramsay and I'm the program coordinator for Carbonfund.org. We wanted to include our input here and we would welcome your feedback.

One of the key points that Gar has raised is renewable power, and wind in particular, would be profitable without selling green tags. We disagree with this. If this were the case, you'd expect renewable energy (and wind power especially since it's the most cost-effective clean technology) to be "business as usual", there would be a ceiling on electricity emissions, and a gradual reduction over time. We are very clearly not there yet. Wind energy, for instance, accounts for just 2% of the electric generation capacity added during the last decade, with most being coal and gas. And much of that was to meet state mandated Renewable Portfolio Standards. So, the portion of new capacity that is directly supported by the voluntary market is 1% or less - hardly business as usual.

Further, as the World Resources Institute notes in its "Corporate Guide to Green Power Markets":
The revenue from certificates typically covers at least the incremental cost of renewable power generation over conventional power generation. The sale of RECs to marketers or directly to customers provides the additional cash flow required for the renewable energy project to be financially viable over its lifetime.

By covering the incremental cost of the technology, RECs help consumers support the projects, technologies, locations and business plans that are most efficiently increasing renewable energy and reducing CO2 emissions and the premium needed "to be financially viable." For instance, wind costs less than solar, wind RECs in Kansas cost less than wind RECs in Seattle, big projects cost less than small.

Additionally, Gar says "(t)here is no way of ever knowing the actual emissions reduction compared to not subsidizing." We also disagree with this. Thanks to the EPA's eGrid program, the emissions factor for each grid is well known (to find out yours, visit EPA's eGrid program and plug in your zip code). When a zero-emissions generation source is used, it offsets the typical grid production which is what otherwise would be used. This is well understood, documented and accepted and is a main tenet of the Green-e program. This can all be certified and audited by a third party, and we would always recommend that you demand that third party certification.

Carbon offsets, just like green power offered to millions of people by their utilities, empower individuals and businesses to be part of transforming the market (and world) to clean technologies. We're excited to provide people the same opportunity to make a difference as Starbucks, the State of Pennsylvania, IBM, Whole Foods, US Air Force and thousands of other organizations are doing.


]]> Comment #7 by Gar Lipow http://www.grist.org/article/offsets-carbon-neutrality-and-journalistic-competence/ Sun, 04 Feb 2007 03:03:44 -0800 http://www.grist.org/article/offsets-carbon-neutrality-and-journalistic-competence/7 uncertainty

But the question is not emissions with renewables compared to emissions without them. It is a question of how much additional renewables the subsidy buys.

Even though they are peanuts compared to what they should be, we have substantial subsidies available for renewables in the U.S. Wind producers get at least 1.5 cents for each kWh they produce in subsidies (which, given subsidies to fossil fuels is low).  PV varies: but various Federal and State direct subsidies and tax breaks can be worth as much as 18 cents per kWh. In addition, many states have standards that require a percentage of their power to come from renewables.

To claim that there is not overlap, that every dollar of green certificates buys an additional dollars worth of green power is like an engineer claiming that the Ford's newest automobile engine is completely free of friction.

Again, my objection to green certificates is not that the subsidies are worthless: the incentive they provide may be worthwhile in some cases. It is the claim that we know with a fair degree of accuracy how many emissions they save.

Also new sources tend to represent growth in electricity supply, not replacements for fueling existing plants. This is not a problem, except when it is claimed to offset existing plants.

]]> uncertainty

But the question is not emissions with renewables compared to emissions without them. It is a question of how much additional renewables the subsidy buys.

Even though they are peanuts compared to what they should be, we have substantial subsidies available for renewables in the U.S. Wind producers get at least 1.5 cents for each kWh they produce in subsidies (which, given subsidies to fossil fuels is low).  PV varies: but various Federal and State direct subsidies and tax breaks can be worth as much as 18 cents per kWh. In addition, many states have standards that require a percentage of their power to come from renewables.

To claim that there is not overlap, that every dollar of green certificates buys an additional dollars worth of green power is like an engineer claiming that the Ford's newest automobile engine is completely free of friction.

Again, my objection to green certificates is not that the subsidies are worthless: the incentive they provide may be worthwhile in some cases. It is the claim that we know with a fair degree of accuracy how many emissions they save.

Also new sources tend to represent growth in electricity supply, not replacements for fueling existing plants. This is not a problem, except when it is claimed to offset existing plants.

]]> Comment #8 by amazingdrx http://www.grist.org/article/offsets-carbon-neutrality-and-journalistic-competence/ Sun, 04 Feb 2007 04:22:19 -0800 http://www.grist.org/article/offsets-carbon-neutrality-and-journalistic-competence/8 Ramsay

Could   carbon offset funds limit  their purchase to solar renewable energy credits (SREC) and renewable energy credits (REC). These are normally sold by those generating actual kwh of renewable electricity and bought by utilities that generate GHG pollution.

I think this might deal with Gar's sound critique of problematic tree planting schemes and possible fraud in the case of some in this field (not your organization, I understand it is above board).

It would make for easier monitering and very low overhead for the carbon offset organization.  Also I believe  funding salaries and expenses ought to be done with donations rather than coming out of the funds generated by selling offsets to the public.

If your organization offered to acomplish these reforms I believe your organization would benefit  and show the way to others.

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog

]]> Ramsay

Could   carbon offset funds limit  their purchase to solar renewable energy credits (SREC) and renewable energy credits (REC). These are normally sold by those generating actual kwh of renewable electricity and bought by utilities that generate GHG pollution.

I think this might deal with Gar's sound critique of problematic tree planting schemes and possible fraud in the case of some in this field (not your organization, I understand it is above board).

It would make for easier monitering and very low overhead for the carbon offset organization.  Also I believe  funding salaries and expenses ought to be done with donations rather than coming out of the funds generated by selling offsets to the public.

If your organization offered to acomplish these reforms I believe your organization would benefit  and show the way to others.

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog

]]> Comment #9 by sunflower http://www.grist.org/article/offsets-carbon-neutrality-and-journalistic-competence/ Sun, 04 Feb 2007 04:35:57 -0800 http://www.grist.org/article/offsets-carbon-neutrality-and-journalistic-competence/9 High-carbon solar

Solar energy is not carbon neutral, and may be low-carbon or high-carbon depending on technology and application.  Growing trees for energy displacement of fossil fuels has lower fossil-carbon intensity.

]]> High-carbon solar

Solar energy is not carbon neutral, and may be low-carbon or high-carbon depending on technology and application.  Growing trees for energy displacement of fossil fuels has lower fossil-carbon intensity.

]]> Comment #10 by rbayon http://www.grist.org/article/offsets-carbon-neutrality-and-journalistic-competence/ Sun, 04 Feb 2007 14:22:25 -0800 http://www.grist.org/article/offsets-carbon-neutrality-and-journalistic-competence/10 Let's talk real cases

I am intrigued by this discussion. What worries me is that too much abstraction, too much theory may lead us into a series of bad decisions based on seemingly unassailable logic. Or to put it more colloquially: the perfect can often be the enemy of the good. I believe markets can provide a useful tool in our approach to global climate change; a tool that is in many ways much more powerful than taxes or some of the other arrows in our quiver. But if we are looking for perfection, we will be looking for it as the world literally burns. The real benefit of carbon trading is that it begins to put a price on the emission of greenhouse gases. And once these things have a price, our economic system treats them differently. Managers get rewarded for reducing emissions. Sure, we can use taxes to set a price on carbon as well, but this is a much less elegant and a much more inflexible mechanism. Just think about the politics of changing a tax regime and then tell me how easy it is to change.

So 'nuf said. Let me throw a concrete case, a story I wrote about a woman I met in Uganda that was making money trading carbon. You can read it here:

http://ecosystemmarketplace.com/pages/article.people.prof ...

After reading this story, I would love to hear Gar and others poke holes in the process. And, though it won't happen, I would very much like to see how we might explain his reservations to Beatrice.

It is all very well and good to remain on the level of theory. But we live in a real world, a real world, with real people: poor people, rich people, and everything in between. We need real attempts at a solution, not perfectionist rhetoric.  If we are to solve this huge global problem, we need to try innovative, inventive, and useful approaches that aim at modifying the economic system in the right way. Yes, let's look at taxes, but let's not throw the carbon trading baby out with the bath water. Otherwise, you can be sure this will prove to be a truly intractable problem.

]]> Let's talk real cases

I am intrigued by this discussion. What worries me is that too much abstraction, too much theory may lead us into a series of bad decisions based on seemingly unassailable logic. Or to put it more colloquially: the perfect can often be the enemy of the good. I believe markets can provide a useful tool in our approach to global climate change; a tool that is in many ways much more powerful than taxes or some of the other arrows in our quiver. But if we are looking for perfection, we will be looking for it as the world literally burns. The real benefit of carbon trading is that it begins to put a price on the emission of greenhouse gases. And once these things have a price, our economic system treats them differently. Managers get rewarded for reducing emissions. Sure, we can use taxes to set a price on carbon as well, but this is a much less elegant and a much more inflexible mechanism. Just think about the politics of changing a tax regime and then tell me how easy it is to change.

So 'nuf said. Let me throw a concrete case, a story I wrote about a woman I met in Uganda that was making money trading carbon. You can read it here:

http://ecosystemmarketplace.com/pages/article.people.prof ...

After reading this story, I would love to hear Gar and others poke holes in the process. And, though it won't happen, I would very much like to see how we might explain his reservations to Beatrice.

It is all very well and good to remain on the level of theory. But we live in a real world, a real world, with real people: poor people, rich people, and everything in between. We need real attempts at a solution, not perfectionist rhetoric.  If we are to solve this huge global problem, we need to try innovative, inventive, and useful approaches that aim at modifying the economic system in the right way. Yes, let's look at taxes, but let's not throw the carbon trading baby out with the bath water. Otherwise, you can be sure this will prove to be a truly intractable problem.

]]> Comment #11 by Engineer http://www.grist.org/article/offsets-carbon-neutrality-and-journalistic-competence/ Mon, 05 Feb 2007 03:05:54 -0800 http://www.grist.org/article/offsets-carbon-neutrality-and-journalistic-competence/11 REC's and a Good Faith effort...

we have substantial subsidies available for renewables in the U.S. Wind producers get at least 1.5 cents for each kWh they produce in subsidies...

I touched on this in another thread, private utilities get these credits through the Production Tax Credit (PTC) locked in for 20 years if the PTC is currently in effect when the project begins commercial operation.

Public utilties receive credits through the Renewable Energy Production Incentive (REPI), supposedly equivalent to the PTC, however, it is reliant on annual funding from Congress and as such to date has provided only about 60% of the eligible amount to operating projects.  Changes made under the 2005 Energy Policy Act (EPACT) will wind up reducing this to about 50%.

So, all subsidies are not created (or at least implemented) equal.  The REC income helps offset the fact that REPI is not fully funded.

It is a question of how much additional renewables the subsidy buys...

many states have standards that require a percentage of their power to come from renewables.

To claim that there is not overlap, that every dollar of green certificates buys an additional dollars worth of green power...

It is the claim that we know with a fair degree of accuracy how many emissions they save...

If you check out the Green-E certification process (no affiliation, I've just read through their information previously when researching REC's), their intent is to not issue REC's to projects constructed in response to a mandate.

Our utility has partcipated in REC sales (not through Green-E) for energy purchased from a wind project not sold through our voluntary green power program.  There is a substantial amount of paperwork involved, including a 'Generator Attestation' form filled with statements such as "to the best of my knowledge, the renewable attributes were not sold, marketed or otherwise claimed by a third party", "the renewable attributes were not used to meet any federal, state or local renewable energy requirement, portfolio standard or other mandate".

At the very least, there is a good faith effort being made to make sure REC's are incremental to RPS mandates and only counted once.

We are also required to submit annual fuel disclosure information to the state for all energy purchased/sold by our utility.  So, at a minimum, the emissions reductions can be calculated from the overall average mix, if they cannot be specifically linked to a reduced purchase or reduced run time from a specific generating unit.

Common sense is an oxymoron...

]]> REC's and a Good Faith effort...

we have substantial subsidies available for renewables in the U.S. Wind producers get at least 1.5 cents for each kWh they produce in subsidies...

I touched on this in another thread, private utilities get these credits through the Production Tax Credit (PTC) locked in for 20 years if the PTC is currently in effect when the project begins commercial operation.

Public utilties receive credits through the Renewable Energy Production Incentive (REPI), supposedly equivalent to the PTC, however, it is reliant on annual funding from Congress and as such to date has provided only about 60% of the eligible amount to operating projects.  Changes made under the 2005 Energy Policy Act (EPACT) will wind up reducing this to about 50%.

So, all subsidies are not created (or at least implemented) equal.  The REC income helps offset the fact that REPI is not fully funded.

It is a question of how much additional renewables the subsidy buys...

many states have standards that require a percentage of their power to come from renewables.

To claim that there is not overlap, that every dollar of green certificates buys an additional dollars worth of green power...

It is the claim that we know with a fair degree of accuracy how many emissions they save...

If you check out the Green-E certification process (no affiliation, I've just read through their information previously when researching REC's), their intent is to not issue REC's to projects constructed in response to a mandate.

Our utility has partcipated in REC sales (not through Green-E) for energy purchased from a wind project not sold through our voluntary green power program.  There is a substantial amount of paperwork involved, including a 'Generator Attestation' form filled with statements such as "to the best of my knowledge, the renewable attributes were not sold, marketed or otherwise claimed by a third party", "the renewable attributes were not used to meet any federal, state or local renewable energy requirement, portfolio standard or other mandate".

At the very least, there is a good faith effort being made to make sure REC's are incremental to RPS mandates and only counted once.

We are also required to submit annual fuel disclosure information to the state for all energy purchased/sold by our utility.  So, at a minimum, the emissions reductions can be calculated from the overall average mix, if they cannot be specifically linked to a reduced purchase or reduced run time from a specific generating unit.

Common sense is an oxymoron...

]]>