The question is... are carbon offsets OK? Can you throw away your guilt/sins about a jet-setting lifestyle by spending a few extra dollars on carbon offsetting? The answer is, I don't know (refernces: my review of AIT (which was intended to be ab out science but got a bit sidetracked) and BS's defence of Gore.
I find myself concerned about how well/honestly these offsets work. BS says I expect the market for voluntary purchases of emission credits will be driven by quality, and chintzy frauds will find themselves exposed by their competitors which I don't find too convincing. Are there really no duff schemes out there at all, and if so why haven't we heard about them?
But in fact I know next to nothing about this. If you know of a decent review, please point us at it.
Interestingly, Nature has just published on this: see the editorial Kyoto for commuters: Offset schemes are a small but potentially useful addition to the carbon balance sheet. and the piece Climate credits: Why change your lifestyle when you can pay a company to save your greenhouse-gas emissions for you? Quirin Schiermeier investigates whether carbon offsetting can really save the planet.
This latter contains the interesting The projects on offer vary hugely. The first problem is simply calculating the amount of carbon that needs to be offset. For example, the British Carbon Neutral Company calculates a return flight from London to Bangkok, Thailand, at 2.1 tonnes of CO2 per passenger, which it charges around euro dollar30 to offset. Swiss-based myclimate arrives at 3.6 tonnes and euro dollar86 for the same flight, and the German Atmosfair reckons 6.9 tonnes and euro dollar139. Big variations! Also: Another issue is the choice of project. The cost of offsetting one tonne of CO2 currently ranges from euro dollar3 to euro dollar30. This latter is a bit odd. It must mean that the market is very... varied. Not sure of the right word there. Are these things so different in quality? Or are people paying wildly different prices for the same thing? It continues The market's main weakness is a lack of standards and verification procedures which was my concern. And it ends including aviation in EU emissions-trading schemes would make flights 50-80% more expensive - which must be assuming the more expensive projects.
- Log in to post comments
It's clear that offsets markets are in an early stage of development and that there are a bunch of problems, but that's more a reason for participating and increasing the pressure to get things right than for abstaining, I would say.
On the 'sin' aspect of things, I think global warming is precisely the kind of issue where this is least relevant. If we think about obligations to other people, particularly those arising from unequal distribution of income, there's a strong case that we need to make sacrifices that cost actual effort or forgoing things we want, rather than simply signing a cheque from time to time, and that we should seek to benefit actual individuals rather than abstract masses. But our relationship to the global climate is not like this. The planet doesn't care about the state of our souls, and the benefit to people is diffused across the entire future population of the world, so no-one has any individual relationship to our actions.
In relation to global warming, what matters is cost-effectiveness rather than 'warm inner glow', and offset markets are clearly the way to a cost-effective stabilisation of the climate.
As usual, the perfect is the enemy of the good. Offsets are useful currently, whether they would be so if serious reductions in greenhouse gas emissions is another question (there may be serious limits to how much one can generate in offset, IMHO, of course)
I am not an English expert but aren't these offsets properly called indulgences? Indulgences are a great idea and the holy warriors against the global warming judgement day are finally getting at the same level as some more sophisticated churches.
But the Catholic Church will still be ahead of the global warming church. Since 1567, it is illegal to attach any receipt for indulgences in the Catholic Church.
You should also establish an official Inquisition - and rename it much like you renamed the indulgences - and witch hunts. When everything goes fine, you will be a strong competitor to other churches despite their long traditions. Al Gore should become another reincarnation of God, to make the setup even more coherent.
As always the Rabett is on the mark....perfect being the enemy of the good and all that....
I'd just add that I think the markets for voluntary and mandatory purchases of carbon emissions will behave differently, even though I support both. Whoever's requiring the mandatory purchases will have to take steps to make sure they have some effectiveness. The voluntary purchasers have their own internal incentive to buy the most effective product.
But, as William says, some actual data would be helpful for this discussion.
According to the CO2 articles on Wikipedia, our CO2 concentration levels have been going up since 1800 or so. In order to freeze atmospheric CO2 levels, wouldn't we need to reduce our CO2 output to pre-industrial levels? We're already at a level of concentration that is causing grave concerns so how can just slowing down CO2 production stop anything? How long will it take 6.5 billion people to reduce our carbon output to less than what fewer than 1 billion produced 200 years ago? Being carbon neutral is not enough. We need to be carbon negative and I don't see how that is remotely possible.
While searching for something to explain all about this carbon stuff I ran across Carbon Trading published by thecornerstone.org.uk in association with Dag Hammerskold institute. It is a full book (about 400 pp) but is freely available on the net. Author/editor is Larry Lohmann who has done quite a few studies over the years on this subject. The book is a treasure trove of factual histories of what has been done, what results, and who gains. It also has abundant dialogues where a proponent of the schemes defends and a critic attacks, in a q and q format that really gets into the meat of the thing quite well. The language is straight forward, I have not seen any involved graphs or equations, and the author certainly has a point of view (from the demographic bottom looking up) but does not push it much.
I thought you might be interested in this new report that is available online
The Carbon Neutral Myth - Offset Indulgences for your Climate Sins is available online at:
www.tni.org
"Carbon offsets are the modern day indulgences, sold to an increasingly carbon conscious public to absolve their climate sins. Scratch the surface, however, and a disturbing picture emerges, where creative accountancy and elaborate shell games cover up the impossibility of verifying genuine climate change benefits, and where communities in the South often have little choice as offset projects are inflicted on them.
This report argues that offsets place disproportionate emphasis on individual lifestyles and carbon footprints, distracting attention from the wider, systemic changes and collective political action that needs to be taken to tackle climate change. Promoting more effective and empowering approaches involves moving away from the marketing gimmicks, celebrity endorsements, technological quick fixes, and the North/South exploitation that the carbon offsets industry embodies."