Buying Carbon Offsets

[Pangloss]

I was wondering if anybody here might have advice for the best place/method for purchasing carbon offsets. I would imagine that this is an area where there's a lot of cheating and swindling going on.

 

Thanks.

[ecoli]

I assume the best place would be through the Chicago climate exchange.

 

http://www.chicagoclimatex.com/

[john5746]

I have some carbon offsets for sale, right next to the ocean front property in Arizona!

[ecoli]

I have some carbon offsets for sale, right next to the ocean front property in Arizona!

I would buy it... I wouldn't trust Lex Luthor as far as I could throw him!

[Sisyphus]

For a mere ten thousand dollars, I will pledge not to set fire to set fire to any oil wells for at least one year. Best deal in town.

[bascule]

Carbon offsets piss me off, and are definitely one of the reasons I dislike Al Gore. Rather than just trying to lower his energy consumption, he pays someone else to do it for him, with little or no guarantee of lowering his carbon footprint. He flies all over the world in a private jet and lives in an enormous, energy hungry mansion. But hey, carbon offsets make it ok, right?

 

In order for carbon offsets to be truly effective, they must lead directly to a carbon reduction somewhere else that wouldn't have happened unless you gave them money. That's rarely the case.

 

In my home town of Boulder, which is a hotbed of climate science research, TerraPass, a carbon offset program for automobiles, has grown quite popular. I see cars with TerraPass all over the place.

 

And it really makes me wonder: what are these people thinking? There's a great way to reduce your carbon footprint: ride a bike. I ride one to work as often as possible (weather permitting). It's better for the environment, healthier, and thanks to our awesome system of bike paths which run underneath our streets and let cyclists avoid traffic lights ends up being faster than driving.

 

Rather than paying someone else to do it for you, I'd highly suggest finding simple and effective ways to reduce your carbon footprint. One of the most effective that I can recommend is: stop driving so much.

[geoguy]

An odd one on BBC last night. Offsets going to India to buy materials for manual pumps to replace diesel pumps in field crop production. 'Poor India'...nobody asked why 2 cents of MY taxes should go to the project when the Indian government finds money to spend BILLIONS on nuclear weapons development.

 

As long as a government has money to but one bullet, they shouldn't receive aid in any form.

[ecoli]

Carbon offsets piss me off, and are definitely one of the reasons I dislike Al Gore. Rather than just trying to lower his energy consumption, he pays someone else to do it for him, with little or no guarantee of lowering his carbon footprint. He flies all over the world in a private jet and lives in an enormous, energy hungry mansion. But hey, carbon offsets make it ok, right?

 

In order for carbon offsets to be truly effective, they must lead directly to a carbon reduction somewhere else that wouldn't have happened unless you gave them money. That's rarely the case.

 

In my home town of Boulder, which is a hotbed of climate science research, TerraPass, a carbon offset program for automobiles, has grown quite popular. I see cars with TerraPass all over the place.

 

And it really makes me wonder: what are these people thinking? There's a great way to reduce your carbon footprint: ride a bike. I ride one to work as often as possible (weather permitting). It's better for the environment, healthier, and thanks to our awesome system of bike paths which run underneath our streets and let cyclists avoid traffic lights ends up being faster than driving.

 

Rather than paying someone else to do it for you, I'd highly suggest finding simple and effective ways to reduce your carbon footprint. One of the most effective that I can recommend is: stop driving so much.

 

 

The point of carbon trading, is that it doesn't matter where CO2 is being produced. A liter of CO2 in the US in the same as a liter of CO2 in a developing nation. World wide, CO2 levels are going down, but developing nations have incentive to find ways of producing less CO2 emissions.

 

I'm not saying this is the best way to do it, but it's easier than getting certain nations (cough... United STates...cough) to decrease their own CO2 emissions.

[bascule]

The point of carbon trading, is that it doesn't matter where CO2 is being produced.

 

In a perfect world, yes. There's been several news reports recently about how some of these programs are something of a swindle:

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/29/weekinreview/revkinsidebarinnwr4820.html

 

Here's some important questions:

 

Can the seller show that the offset — for a methane-capturing well or windmill or tree plantation or the like — would not have happened anyway (a characteristic called “additionality” in the industry)?

 

Is there a way for the provider to show that the difference in emissions benefits because of the extra infusion of cash provided by selling offsets? There’s what might be called the Brooklyn Bridge effect: Can the business prove that purchased credits are unique and not being sold and resold?

 

How long does it take for the emissions benefits to accrue, and is there any guarantee of permanence? (These issues have been a particular challenge with the oldest type of offsetting projects — planting trees. Although purveyors of such credits contend that such projects often come with secondary benefits, like reforesting the banks of salmon streams, tree planting is among the most dubious of options. Trees can die or burn, liberating stashed carbon as carbon dioxide once again — which has happened in some such projects.)

[Pangloss]

Surely the only way to address those questions is by INCREASING the use of carbon credits? People print their own money, and in theory that makes the cash in my wallet less valuable. Doesn't mean I'm going to stop using it. What it means is that I'm going to complain about it and ask the government to fix it.

 

I think people do get a false impression from carbon credits, and it's much like the situation with rooftop solar panels, ethanol, or buying a hybrid automobile.

 

On the other hand, people are more aware and more interested in stopping global warming today than they've ever been before. All we really need to do is channel that interest in the right directions. And what if between all these half-baked measures, and a million more half-baked measures, we actually accrue enough real-world change to solve the problem?

[Rhino]

This is going to go down in history as one of the biggest scams of the new millennium. You have Al Gore as the Green Evangelist preaching "truths" about the environment basically calling us sinners. Then when he gets caught polluting does he change his environmental destroying ways? No, he throws money at the problem and waves around these 'carbon credits' so he can continue destroying the environment guilt free.

 

You really want to impress me reduce your 'carbon footprint', and throw away your money on 'carbon credits'. The less money you have the fewer things you'll be able to buy and put in land fills, and otherwise pollute the environment.

 

Who is regulating this whole 'carbon credit' business anyway? Who is going to ensure these countries are really following through. If they don't then what would happen?

 

This sounds an awful lot like buying an acre on the moon, or naming your own star.

 

Quick sign up now for your carbon credit card.....

 

A new “carbon footprint” credit card on issue in Europe gives an insight into just where the battle against global warming at the consumer level might be heading.

 

The card would be swiped when making purchases and credits used up according to the carbon footprint of purchases. Once a consumer’s allocation runs out, further credits would have to be purchased with the money going to emission reduction projects.

[ecoli]

Quick sign up now for your carbon credit card.....

 

A new “carbon footprint” credit card on issue in Europe gives an insight into just where the battle against global warming at the consumer level might be heading.

 

The card would be swiped when making purchases and credits used up according to the carbon footprint of purchases. Once a consumer’s allocation runs out, further credits would have to be purchased with the money going to emission reduction projects.

 

 

It would be a good idea, except, there's really no immediate capitalistic advantage to it, and thus no real incentive. You can accuse me of being selfish or un-environmental, but I couldn't picture myself throwing money away like that. Unless, for example, doing things like recycling, or buying a hybrid vehicle went towards your carbon credit.

 

And they're also assuming that throwing money at emission reduction projects is going to do any good.

[JTM³]

This is going to go down in history as one of the biggest scams of the new millennium. You have Al Gore as the Green Evangelist preaching "truths" about the environment basically calling us sinners. Then when he gets caught polluting does he change his environmental destroying ways? No, he throws money at the problem and waves around these 'carbon credits' so he can continue destroying the environment guilt free.

 

You really want to impress me reduce your 'carbon footprint', and throw away your money on 'carbon credits'. The less money you have the fewer things you'll be able to buy and put in land fills, and otherwise pollute the environment.

 

Who is regulating this whole 'carbon credit' business anyway? Who is going to ensure these countries are really following through. If they don't then what would happen?

 

This sounds an awful lot like buying an acre on the moon, or naming your own star.

 

Quick sign up now for your carbon credit card.....

 

A new “carbon footprint” credit card on issue in Europe gives an insight into just where the battle against global warming at the consumer level might be heading.

 

The card would be swiped when making purchases and credits used up according to the carbon footprint of purchases. Once a consumer’s allocation runs out, further credits would have to be purchased with the money going to emission reduction projects.

 

It would be a good idea, except, there's really no immediate capitalistic advantage to it, and thus no real incentive. You can accuse me of being selfish or un-environmental, but I couldn't picture myself throwing money away like that. Unless, for example, doing things like recycling, or buying a hybrid vehicle went towards your carbon credit.

 

And they're also assuming that throwing money at emission reduction projects is going to do any good.

 

It's just another attempt IMO by the old Communists (now Greenfreaks) at controlling people.

 

No way would I ever support this being mandated.

 

Come on people, can't anyone see the makings of a police state in this(carbon offset scandal)??

[Pangloss]

This thread has taken quite an amusing turn.

 

[bascule]

This is going to go down in history as one of the biggest scams of the new millennium. You have Al Gore as the Green Evangelist preaching "truths" about the environment basically calling us sinners. Then when he gets caught polluting does he change his environmental destroying ways? No, he throws money at the problem and waves around these 'carbon credits' so he can continue destroying the environment guilt free.

 

Yes, I agree entirely, and furthermore hate Al Gore for it.

 

http://www.snopes.com/politics/bush/house.asp

 

The best way to lower your carbon footprint is to actually DO IT. Stop driving your car; start riding your bike.

[bascule]

Aah, here's the comic I was thinking of that covered this topic:

 

[gcol]

The Roman Catholic Church used the system , but they called an "Indulgence".

 

The principle was, I think, that if you paid the church upfront, any sins you were about to commit would be automatically forgiven. Thus "purchasing an indulgence" was the name of the system.

 

The poor bought their way to saintly salvation, and the poor as usual went to hell.

 

I think the carbon offset trading system could be more truthfully termed "purchasing a global warming indulgence".

 

Two problems with this idea, though.

 

1. I used the word "truthfully". A filthy banned word in politics.

 

2. There are probably not enough old cynics like me to garner much support.

[bascule]

That's a great analogy, gcol

[gcol]

Thank you young man.

 

Can I push my luck by calling it the "Great Carbon Indulgence Scam"? Sounds a neater soundbite.

 

I think I will begin slipping it into casual conversations. If it comes around to you, you can say "I knew the author".

[Pangloss]

That doesn't really debunk offsets, though. It only addresses their shortcomings and people's misunderstandings about what they do.

 

The star-naming analogy is an apt one, I think. There's nothing wrong with setting up a "registry" to store private names for stars. How do people think stars got their names in the first place? Tradition based on private (societal) naming (we just call it "mythology"). So long as people understand that it's not a name that will necessarily be recognized by any international body, it's fine. The problem arises not because a private organization has set up a private star registry, but because of the fact that people don't understand how star naming conventions work amongst astronomical organizations.

 

This also points out one of the common flaws in left-wing reasoning. Some people don't understand and/or abuse a thing, therefore that thing, whatever it is, needs to be stopped. If star-naming scams were a serious problem (i.e. big numbers), or if they adversely impacted a specific minority group, the left would be all over putting a stop to star naming.

 

Same deal here -- some people abuse carbon offsets, therefore the idea of carbon offsets itself needs to be banned/stopped/shunned/ostracized/whatever.

 

On a more positive and supportive note, that's just about the only way to wake people up to the truth about something, so I guess I have to support that. But I can't say that you've convinced me not to buy carbon offsets. Not based on that reasoning, at any rate. I need something more substantive and applicable to the concept itself.

 

Put another way, hybrid vehicles have been a disappointment. They're not going to single-handedly stop global warming. But that doesn't mean we should stop making them. It just points out the fact that the climb we have ahead of us is a little steeper than we realize.

[gcol]

I largely agree with that when wearing my calm and resonable hat. Another phrase came to mind......"The polluter pays". In that context I can see the reason behind carbon indulgencies. But as in so many other things, the reasonableness of the reasonable man is taken as a sign of weakness and exploited.

Try adopting the reasonable approach against fundamentalism and terrorism. Extreme and probably inflamatory examples, I admit, but sometime you have to fight fire with fire. Paint balls against 9mm does not cut it.

 

Using sharp words against sharp practice is surely legitimate. I really do think that carbon indulgencies is the sharp end of a big stick with which we may all be shafted.

[bascule]

This also points out one of the common flaws in left-wing reasoning.

 

Conversely, the "left-wing" (well, not really) is trying to point out a problem in "right-wing reasoning" (a group which includes that famous right-winger Al Gore):

 

Why should you change your lifestyle when you can throw money at the problem?

 

I mean, really, this isn't a left-wing/right-wing issue. It's more an issue of people who are adapting their lifestyle to fit the facts versus poseurs.

[gcol]

STOP PRESS!

 

Hell and damnation, I just googled carbon indulgence........I have been beaten to it, and even caught a glimpse of a (tongue in cheek?) article stating Al Gore was thinking of copyrighting the phrase.

 

It is being twisted and subverted already. But I suppose this illustrates the best way to blunt the effect of your enemy's weapon is to steal it and turn it against him.

 

Are there black ops feverishly scouring cyberspace for fledgling phrases and soundbites to twist?

[Pangloss]

Conversely, the "left-wing" (well, not really) is trying to point out a problem in "right-wing reasoning" (a group which includes that famous right-winger Al Gore):

 

Why should you change your lifestyle when you can throw money at the problem?

 

I mean, really, this isn't a left-wing/right-wing issue. It's more an issue of people who are adapting their lifestyle to fit the facts versus poseurs.

 

Sure, I agree with all that. I even agree that it shouldn't be a left-versus-right issue. But there's no question that both sides are spinning this subject madly. That's a bit like saying that whether we withdraw from Iraq shouldn't be a left-versus-right issue. (shrug)

[KLB]

If done as part of a well structured cap and trade system, carbon credits could be a highly effective means of reducing the most carbon emissions for the least amount of money. Some may recall that many years ago a similar cap and trade system was set up for pollution associated with acid rain. Over the years this cap and trade system has been very effective at reducing the total emissions of pollution associated with acid rain. The EPA has published a report on how to set up an effective cap and trade system at: http://www.epa.gov/airmarkets/cap-trade/index.html

 

The idea is very simple in that the total amount of a specific pollutant that is released is capped at a specific level that over time is continually reduced until the desired level is reach. If polluters (e.g. a factory) wants to exceed their pollution allowance, they must purchase pollution allowances from another company that is not using all of their pollution allowances. This allows money to flow to those places that can most cost effectively reduce their emissions, while allowing those who can not cost effectively reduce their own emissions to instead pay someone else to reduce their emissions. In the end you have the greatest amount of reduction in emissions for the least amount of money.

 

Now I don't know about Al Gore's carbon footprint nor his personal energy conservation measures, however I would like to point out a couple of things:

 

1) As a former Vice President of the United States he has different security requirements from the average citizen. From a security and safety standpoint (for both him and everyone else) it may not make sense for him to make routine use of commercial airlines. In this case purchasing carbon offsets would be totally appropriate.

 

2) Al Gore's primary occupation is public speaking, as such extensive travel is a necessary part of his occupation. We should not begrudge someone the ability to make a living. In this case we should simply expect Al Gore to reduce his travel related carbon footprint as much as is practical (given the concerns expressed above) and to offset his footprint with carbon credits (e.g. cap and trade as explained above).

 

I would hope that even if he does live in a "mansion," that it considerations have been taken to make it as energy efficient as possible (e.g. it had better not be using inefficient lighting) and that the energy it does use comes from non-fossil fuel sources as much as is possible given geographic limitations (e.g. he can buy electricity from renewable sources). Whatever carbon footprint is remaining after all direct means of mitigation have been exhausted should then be offset with carbon credits.

 

Reducing one's carbon footprint isn't about taking a vowel of poverty or denying oneself the fruits of their lifetime's work. It is about taking measures to reduce one's impact as much as is possible and to offset the remaining impacts by helping someone else also reduce their impact.

 

The objective is to reduce the total amount of CO2 being released into the atmosphere by all of society. If through buying carbon credits someone else is able to say put solar panels on their home and thus reduce their CO2 emissions the end result is that less CO2 is being released and the objective is reached.