Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Environment

Carbon Offsets: Buying Your Way Out of Responsibility

By Dara Colwell, AlterNet. Posted April 11, 2007.


More and more people are using carbon offsets to rationalize consumption. But will paying extra money to have trees planted in India really negate the pollution from your flight to Europe?
Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

Presidential hopefuls do it, celebrities do it, educated CEOs and even Swedes do it -- it's carbon offsets, the market-based solution to global warming that's currently grabbing column inches and investment bankers' lips. A booming multimillion-dollar market that's expected to more than quadruple within the next three years, the industry has garnered as much criticism as feel-good hype. Its detractors, mainly in Europe, remain unconvinced the system actually works, claiming its impact is unclear at best, and that it creates loopholes that lets polluters do business as usual.

"It's buying your way out of responsibility," says Kevin Smith, a researcher with Carbon Trade Watch, a project of the Transnational Institute, an academic think tank based in Amsterdam, Netherlands. Smith, who also co-authored "The Carbon Neutral Myth," believes that free-market environmentalism is a gimmick that appeals to an increasingly carbon-conscious public. "It's a technological quick fix that's deeply flawed and used more as a means to absolve climate sins rather than tackle the actual issue," he says.

Carbon offset credits is essentially a market that helps consumers or corporations reduce or neutralize the impact of their net carbon dioxide emissions -- from flights, commuting, hefty utility bills or shipping online purchases -- through cost-effective alternatives. The system is based on carbon emissions trading, aimed at governments, industries and corporations that cannot meet emission targets set by the Kyoto Protocol, and in turn, buy or trade credit from those that beat theirs. In both cases, the polluter pays.

Since Kyoto came into force in 2005, the nascent, and potentially highly lucrative, emissions market has steadily increased. In America, which has refused to sign on to the Kyoto Protocol, much growth has been geared instead towards the voluntary offsets market. One such example is the Chicago Climate Exchange, the world's first greenhouse gas reduction trading system, which was established in 2003.

More recently, forerunners in the consumer market such as TerraPass, Native Energy and DriveNeutral have become high-profile, thanks to Al Gore, the Oscars and celebrity spin. Europe also boasts its share of offset companies. Germany's AtmosFair, Oxford-based Climate Care and the Dutch GreenSeat have joined the ranks of the carbon revolution.

Much of the criticism aimed at the voluntary market is what opponents claim is its seductive sales pitch: Just buy back your pollution and click, and the provider takes care of the rest, whether it's buying emission trading credits, planting a tree -- meant to absorb carbon from the atmosphere and by far the most popular, if controversial offset method -- or investing in renewable energy sources.

But there's a huge, immediate glitch: the current offsets market, an industry that has mushroomed only in the last several years, is unregulated and no universal carbon-offset standard exists. As carbon is an intangible commodity, companies can sell what they want, claiming its carbon neutral and "carbon calculators" and costs fluctuate widely, making what consumers are buying unclear.

"It's selling hot air and susceptible to fraud," says Oscar Reyes, Transnational Institute's communications officer, who cautions that all trading schemes are "ineffective as a means to stimulate cuts in carbon emissions."

"There is a lot of scope for 'cowboys' to cash in, and the supposed climate benefits are impossible to measure," says Smith, noting that offsets don't actually remove the tons of carbon dioxide currently in the atmosphere, and trying to guess how it will involves so many variables that working it out is almost impossible.

While Smith believes many people genuinely buy offsets out of concern for climate change, he sees businesses using them in a more cynical and calculating way. "It gives them a sophisticated veneer of environmental sensitivity they don't deserve," he says, referring to British Airways, one of many airlines that now encourage customers to buy carbon offsets for their flights.


Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

See more stories tagged with: global warming, climate change, al gore, carbon offsets, carbon emissions

Dara Colwell is a freelance writer based in Amsterdam.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Environment! Sign up now »

Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Retread- Rethread
Posted by: NoPCZone on Apr 11, 2007 1:34 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Pushing paper for imaginary credits isn't going to fix anything other than to assuage the guilt of Jet setters and faux-green companies. It's re-arranging deck chairs on the Titanic.

Live simply so that others may simply live

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

no pain no gain
Posted by: edith on Apr 11, 2007 3:34 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
what is needed if human action can offset or delay catastrophic effects of climate change, an unknown right now, are higher prices for energy consumption. There are different ways to get there, cap and trade or direct carbon taxes(the solution most efficient in that it links cause and effect in a transparent way).

Sniveling liberals will want to alleviate the impact of the carbon tax on the "poor", thus reencouraging wasteful pracitices among the least educated populace. Wealthier Americans will love carbon credits so the private plane and Hummer keep humming. Tax em all if there is indeed an immediate threat that can be offset by drastic human action. Listen to the howls of the deprived nitwits who can't power their ipods or drive their SUVs with supreme indifference.

However, if there is no immediate threat, or if we are faced with serious consequences of warming regardless of what offset measures are now taken(a situation suggested by recent IPCC reports) then why bother the sacred poor and wasteful, hypocritical rich at all?

Unless there is a definite threat understood by the public, a carbon tax is as dead as the ashes in my BBQ grill after the coals have cooled. And carbon credits don't worlk unless "offsets" mean someone can't do something bad that they would do in the absence of the offset. What King Solomon decides that?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: no pain no gain Posted by: richholland
» Lead the Way Posted by: edith
» RE: no pain no gain Posted by: JoshuaLudd
» Retract(able) Roofs Posted by: edith
» RE: etract(able) Roofs Posted by: JoshuaLudd
something strange
Posted by: richholland on Apr 11, 2007 3:42 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
my electricitybill tells me that the fixed costs( turnover tax, envirmental tax, transport, rent for equipment etc. ) is more than 50% of the total if the qovernment is real serious about lower energieusage they should only 20% fixed.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Great idea.
Posted by: Chickensh*tEagle on Apr 11, 2007 6:33 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Carbon credits recognize and legitimize the essential truth that a gallon somebody else saves is another gallon I can burn. Is this a great country, or what? :-)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Al Gore: The Other Oil Candidate
Posted by: rwa on Apr 11, 2007 7:06 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
by Bill Mesler, Special to CorpWatch

Integrity in the Balance
Bill Mesler reports on Gore's broken promises on a toxic Ohio waste incinerator.

For thousands of years, the Kitanemuk Indians made their home in the Elk Hills of central California. Come February 2001, the last of the 100 burial grounds, holy places and other archaeological sites of the Kitanemuks will be obliterated by the oil drilling of Occidental Petroleum Company. Oxy's plans will "destroy forever the evidence that we once existed on this land," according to Dee Dominguez, a Kitanemuk whose great grandfather was a signatory to the 1851 treaty that surrendered the Elk Hills.

Occidental's planned drilling of the Elk Hills doesn't only threaten the memory of the Kitanemuk. Environmentalists say a rare species of fox, lizard and the kangaroo rat would also be threatened by Oxy's plans. A lawsuit has been filed under the Endangered Species Act. But none of that has given pause to Occidental or the politician who helped engineer the sale of the drilling rights to the federally-owned Elk Hills. That politician is Al Gore.

Gore recommended that the Elk Hills be sold as part of his 1995 "Reinventing Government" National Performance Review program. Gore-confidant (and former campaign manager) Tony Cohelo served on the board of directors of the private company hired to assess the sale's environmental consequences. The sale was a windfall for Oxy. Within weeks of the announced purchase Occidental stock rose ten percent.

That was good news for Gore. Despite controversy over Dick Cheney's plans to keep stock options if elected, most Americans don't know that we already have a vice president with oil company stocks. Before the Elk Hills sale, Al Gore controlled between $250,000-$500,000 of Occidental stock (he is executor of a trust that he says goes only to his mother, but will revert to him upon her death). After the sale, Gore began disclosing between $500,000 and $1 million of his significantly more valuable stock.

http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=468

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Earth is lucky
Posted by: gjames on Apr 11, 2007 7:24 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Humans can make a combination of some superficial and some structural changes and thus bring a new focus to ecology in politics, society and business. For this, we will probably luck out and the sun will back off a little - in other words, don't be a doomsday pessimist :P

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Choke on Focus Posted by: edith
Journalistic Ethics
Posted by: Cruella on Apr 11, 2007 7:40 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I found this article interesting and informative but I do think there's an issue of journalistic "ethics" here. Does carbon ofsetting solve all the world's environmental problems? No. Is it better than the current state of affairs? Yes. Sadly people read headlines, not articles, which is why things like "Taking the Pill can increase the risk of breast cancer" make bad headlines because although in paragraph four it says the increased risk is 0.00001%, long before that hundreds of women have come off the pill and unwanted pregnancies soar.

How about thinking about it this way: What's the best way to cut carbon emissions from travel.

1) Don't go
2) Take the train/boat
3) Fly but offset with a top end offsetter
4) Fly but offset with a dodgy offsetter
5) Fly and don't offset

So if you already booked your holiday and you're thinking about offsetting - PLEASE DO!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Carbon Offsets...why not work with orgs to make it work?
Posted by: YBFREE.com on Apr 11, 2007 8:11 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I am glad this article was written because I was just getting ready to engage in carbon offset process, and now I have plenty to think about.

HOWEVER, why is it with progressive movement it's "perfection" or nothing?

This is exactly why things take so long to get done.

I once read somewhere that a movement is differing ideas on the same issue pushing along at once.

So why can't a person start out with carbon offsets and write to governments to change legislation (which takes just as long as tree to grow) at the same time?

These "think tanks" need to take a moment,stop attacking, and start working with the industry and those seeking to do something good!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Mr. Green Goes to Washington By MICHAEL DONNELLY
Posted by: rwa on Apr 11, 2007 8:15 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Father Earth and the Ozone Man

So, now who do you suppose joins Al Gore as chief evangelists of Carbon Off-sets? None other than Maurice "Father Earth" Strong, now headquartered in China. Strong primarily does this though his chairmanship of the Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX), the world's first trader in greenhouse gas credits. Gore is the founder and chairman of another such entity, Generation Investment Management LLP, which has headquarters in both London and Washington, DC.

Perhaps the biggest pachyderm in the living room is that Al Gore buys his carbon off-sets from himself. No wonder he won't sign the pledge. It would lower the bottom line of his own company. His job, like Strong's, is to cash in on climate change, pimp more feel good indulgences to naïve citizens and use the issue for his third run for president, not to use less energy.


The Carbon Off-sets Shell Game

And just what is a "Carbon Off-set?" Well, it is based primarily on a the theory that trees absorb greenhouse gasses, so companies and individuals that use energy can balance the resulting carbon production by planting trees. There are other such things - Renewable Energy credits and Emissions Trading credits, which Alexander Cockburn rightly dubbed Cancer Bonds, etc. but mostly the indulgence Gore claims is related to tree planting.

Trees do absorb carbon and serve as a carbon sink. They also shade the earth and release moisture that forms clouds that also help cool the planet. However, they also warm the Earth as their dark green color absorbs more sunlight than the sun-reflecting snows many forests shade. Most importantly, the carbon off-set hallelujah choir fails to note that trees eventually die and rot (if they are not cut for lumber) and the carbon stored in them is then released ­ merely postponing the climate change effects of the energy use they supposedly off-set. (Is there any debt that politicians and industrialists won't pass on to future generations?) It takes planting 900 trees in the tropics to off-set the energy use of the average American household - 18,000 for an Al Gore household. A Lawrence Livermore study shows that there is no net global cooling from planting trees in temperate climates due to much slower growth rates and the shading of snow.

full article

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Carbon offsets are laughable.
Posted by: ABetterFuture on Apr 11, 2007 8:50 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
A politically driven economic solution to a poorly defined problem? My goodness, look at the problems we manufactur to address. You'd think there weren't real, immediate problems like...oh...perhaps a war? Or, perhaps two and perhaps one on the horizon?

You might think of carbon offsets as a stupid thing. Though laughable, they are far from stupid. The "carbon traders" and the rest of the environmentalist industry are in it for their own good.

Are you? Could you identify your own good in a line up?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

You missing the point, idiot! It is about maintaining our lifestyle
Posted by: albrechtkrausse on Apr 11, 2007 9:02 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
and ensuring that the 'developing' world does not encroach or threaten the current world order and our lifestyle. It also is to ensure that poor people, and regions, even in Western countries keep 'their place' so that the rich, upper class can maintain their standard of living and not upset the balance. We need to curtail the '3rd World' from gaining better technology, health care, education, and lifestyle lest they gain economic (or even, shudder, military) power. China and India (both yellow or brown people) have already become too powerful and we need some system of environmental rules to keep them in check.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Nuclear Saviors? By JEFFREY ST. CLAIR
Posted by: rwa on Apr 11, 2007 9:38 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Striding into Kyoto in December of 1997 claiming to be a mighty warrior in the battle against global warming was a familiar beast, the nuclear power industry. Some of the industry's biggest lobbyists, men such as James Curtis (a former deputy secretary of energy during the Reagan years), prowled the streets and sushi bars of this ancient city (itself running on juice from an aging nuke) angling for some positive words in the treaty for their troubled enterprise. The big reactor makers, GE, Westinghouse, and Combustion Engineering, were there too, dissing the oil and coal lobby, downplaying the long-term viability of natural gas and generally treating the eco-summit as if it were an international trade show.

On the eve of the Climate Change summit, I was slipped a copy of the nuclear industry's Kyoto briefing book prepared by the Nuclear Energy Institute, a $100 million a year trade organization. The book was written by researchers at Bechtel, the giant construction firm that has built dozens of nuclear plants across the globe. The document touts the latest "advanced light water nuclear reactor" as the most ecologically benign engineering feat since the solar panel and argues that only realistic way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels in the next ten years is to bring on-line at least an additional 50 reactors. "Nuclear energy has been the largest single contributor to reduced air pollution in the world over the past 20 years," the NEI's Kyoto global warming book boasts. "And it promises to play an even greater role in the future, especially in developing countries, like India and China, which need to increase their electricity supplies to accommodate their expanding populations and economies."

The NEI book tactfully avoids the unsavory subject of radioactive waste...

full article

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Jack up the Voltage Posted by: edith
Analysis: Global nuclear boom expected by Ben Lando
Posted by: rwa on Apr 11, 2007 9:50 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
... fossil-fuel prices have skyrocketed and stayed there, and a new mainstream concern over global climate change may lead to the regulation of polluting emissions, which makes nuclear a better competitor.

"I'll be very surprised if the U.S. does not make a decision to build within the next five years," Wang said. "I think the U.S. looks very promising. It's a matter of how big of a build it is."

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission expects applications for around 30 new reactors in the coming decade, including a dozen moving quick to take advantage of new federal financial incentives.

The NRC has created a new licensing process as well, hoping to reduce regulatory costs and time frame.

"Realistically, you're looking at the first wave from 2015 to 2020, when they'll come online," Wang said. "The key is how well you can manage the construction and manage the cost." Labor and materials costs are rising, following the law of supply and demand. If the first nuclear plants to enter the U.S. market make fiscal sense, "you're going to see a lot more," Wang said.

Trish Conrad, media-relations manger for the Nuclear Energy Institute, the U.S. industry's trade group, says the industry is ready.

"Rising energy demand, a concern for the environment and a proven record of operating nuclear power plants safely and efficiently are all contributing to a renewed interest in nuclear power," Conrad said. "The recent approval of early site permits and the announced intentions to seek combined construction and operating licenses are concrete steps toward the development of new nuclear power in this country."

A recent study by the Congressional Research Service, however, found extending federal incentives are vital for new nuclear in the United States, unless its competition is priced out.

"Under base case conditions, it seems unlikely that a new nuclear power plant would be constructed in the United States, barring a sustained, long-term increase in natural-gas prices and the creation of a substantial, mandatory greenhouse gas reduction program that would increase coal-fired and natural gas-fired generating costs,"
it said.

upi.com

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

A little study makes the retail carbon offsets look highly questionable.
Posted by: Bart Thesc on Apr 11, 2007 10:05 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Name a star after someone!!!

I did some study into the "carbon offsets" and found that there is an enormous variation in prices for exactly the same trip etc. The methods of calculating the amount of carbon have no agreed upon standards. There are no variations for equipment (An old 707 pollutes drastically more than a plane built last year. '67 Skylark vs last year's Mini-Cooper?). The things that your money will be spent on are vague at best and who knows if they will even actually get done. There are no accounting and assurances readily available that say that your money isn't just going into someone's pocket with a promise that someday they will plant one tree in the rainforest.

Most of these places claim to be affiliated with a registered and regulated future exchange but I don't see the exchange doing any of the expected regulatory actions that you see in most other exchange traded commodities in regard to what people pay for to offset their flight to Dubuque.

Buy carbon offsets for your summer vacation if it makes you feel good but keep in mind that the people who name a star after their Aunt Gertrude at least get a pretty certificate that they can frame and hang on the wall.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Critique without solutions is irresponsible
Posted by: jpittman on Apr 11, 2007 10:36 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As an lifelong environmentalist now also an ecological economist I am personally getting tired of these articles critiquing carbon trading without offering complete analysis or full discussion of "better" alternatives. Simply put, carbon trading is the best option out there and articles such as this make it more difficult to implement what is a scientifically justified best practice.

If indeed we are in a Titanic situation, reshuffling chairs, that is not specific to carbon trading solutions--any other solutions that might be proposed would still be unable to escape the reshuffling you have pointed out. Would it be better just to accept our fate, as you imply?

Moreover, there are no other options being offered by those who critique carbon trading. Case in point, this article makes vague reference to "hundreds of alternatives" then lists a few each in one sentence. However, each and every one of these options (a) is much more complex than presented here, (b) has integral flaws of the same magnitude as carbon trading, and (c) will undoubtedly complement carbon trading and be encouraged by the market price corrections in emerging carbon markets. In fact, many of the problems with carbon markets that are cited (e.g. needing to protect forests planted for carbon sequestration) here would arise regardless of whether it is a market trading solution, tax solution or emissions limit solution that is employed. Furthermore, there is no indication that supporters of carbon market solutions would not see these other options as complementary--though the author tends to imply they are mutually exclusive, with no apparent logic behind that supposition.

The relatively efficiency of carbon markets versus other solutions, simply put, is too complex to analyze in an oversimplified sensational journalistic context. There is extensive scientific research underpinning this solution that is overlooked here. In particular, this article does not even mention that carbon trading systems are "cap-and-trade" systems that gradually reduce the number of permits on the market. Do these other solutions offer a better mechanism to inventory and control the total level of emissions?

So, before we condemn something I encourage people to do a little research to learn specific, scientific reasons why the solution is better than other alternatives. At the very least, it would help to review one of the many bills on the floor of Congress that would establish the standards that voluntary markets are missing--yet there is no mention of that here. Without such thorough research, such a divisive snap-shot critique of an emerging market mechanism creates more problems to implementing a multi-faceted response.

J. Pittman
jpittman@prescott.edu

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I would love to see the efficiency of the markets have an effect on the problem.
Posted by: Bart Thesc on Apr 11, 2007 12:00 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Unfortunately, without any enforceability or standards, the markets don't have any way to properly price risk. The Europeans had enforceability and when standards and proper accounting caught up with them their carbon market crashed.

It's a good idea in theory and I support it, but something a little more concrete is needed for it to work.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

ex-Enron traders gear up for lucrative carbon marketing...
Posted by: thoughtcriminal on Apr 11, 2007 12:07 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There are far more effective ways to move towards the goal of eliminating fossil fuel emissions (yes, that’s what will be needed). Carbon trading is mostly a scam however; it provides to real incentives for companies and individuals to give up the use of fossil fuels, and will be impossible to check with a full-time carbon police corps running all over the planet.

The better choice is to heavily tax the worst fossil fuel, coal, as well as to heavily tax foreign oil imports. Natural gas is the cleanest, highest energy output per CO2 fuel, and shouldn’t be taxed.

At the same time, there should be tax breaks and subsidies for renewable energy - this is a recognition by governments that using renewable, carbon-free energy sources benefits all of society. Additionally, the US agricultural subsidies (some $30 billion per year) should only be given to farmers who are switching to renewable energy and who limit their use of pesticides, herbicides and fossil-fuel fertilizers.

Coal is the enemy of humanity; the US emits billions of tons of coal-sourced CO2 every year, and coal supplies some 80% of the electricity used in the United States. Until this fundamental problem is tackled (and nuclear will not solve the problem; maintiaining existing nuclear plants is expensive enough as it is) there’s no hope of slowing global warming. On a global scale, from Australia to China to India to the US, coal is the #1 climate culprit. Coal-fired electricity needs to be replaced with wind, solar and other innovative technologies - and everyone needs to consume less energy.

However, this will mean that the multibillions that flow to coal and oil corporations and their bankes and billionaires will dry up - and this is the real reason that climate science and renewable energy science are under attack in the United States; Bush, Cheney, Rice are all ex-oil corporation types; Bush and the Saudis, Cheney and Halliburton, Rive and Chevron - and they don't want to see a reduction in fossil fuel sales, greedy pigs that they are.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Solar Deserts would get the job done sooner
Posted by: channing on Apr 11, 2007 12:53 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Yes, sooner, (planting trees to cover the tracks of increasing fossil emissions must factor the growth-time, plus volume, plus the absence CO2 reductions) With Solar Deserts, no new technology would be required, plus it would nurture a millennium-long industry and the jobs/energy required to even think that far into the future. Benefits would begin immediately in tangible, fossil-energy savings/dependency, greenhouse gas cuts, and nationwide employment/investments. Good, permanent, green industry.

see: trecers.net, research out of Germany demonstrating current solar technology as a solution to Global Energy Demand. The Earth's deserts, fitted with Concentrated Solar Arrays could (theoretically calculated on current technology and efficiencies) produce over 700 times the current world consumption of ALL energy. The EU is looking at the concept as we speak.

Though I appreciate the arguments for "offsets", without universal application, profit will merely shift to the non-participating regions/countries, as well as create new markets for gamblers to game. (this last point is my perception of why it's being pushed so hard) This then would lead to offset/excise premiums on those non-participants, and weighing down world-wide development goals due to the greed/skim system that today doubles the price of oil.

Without considering the enormous potential of wind, properly-conceived solar is, contrary to popular "expertise", humanity's Silver Bullet.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Summarizing most critique of carbon trading.
Posted by: jpittman on Apr 11, 2007 2:43 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Much of the critique of carbon markets, both here and elsewhere, seems to amount to flawed logic. It seems many feel that (a) markets are inherently evil and always flawed beyond repair, thus (b) carbon markets are so flawed and therefore useless. This logic completely disregards the science of economics but also the fact that carbon markets are a hybrid approach that is structured by a government regulation on the total cap of emissions that is reduced over time.

Of course, I certainly do agree there are some problems with carbon trading that need to be worked out. In particular, the Carbon Market Watch points out potential for such markets to perpetuate social inequities between developing and less-developed nations. These are legitimate concerns that need to be addressed within the trading system rules, though.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Carbon Trading is Just Hypocracy
Posted by: dayahka on Apr 11, 2007 4:06 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The logic of carbon trading has a long history--it's known as self-deception, other-deception, delusionary, and so on: I'll skip lunch tomorrow so I can have that Chocolate Mousse tonight; I'll take the wife some roses so I can flirt with that tart tonight; I'll sin all I want now, then pay my way ino heaven; I'll take what isn't mine and get a good lawyer.

So, on that much we agree. But the underlying premise, that carbon is at the root of climate change is utterly false. You can trade all you want, you can strengthen the trading rules, you can use the market or government or the church or whatever and that still isn't going to change the climate one way or another. Climate changes, always has, always will, and is as much primarily due to anthropogenic carbon emissions as rain is caused by the tears of god.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

No balance, few facts
Posted by: adamstein on Apr 11, 2007 4:29 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'm Adam Stein, co-founder of TerraPass, one of the offset retailers mentioned in this story. I'm not particularly surprised to see a lack of balance in an article entitled, "Carbon Offsets: Buying Your Way Out of Responsibility," but some readers may nevertheless be interested in getting a more factual look at the industry.

I do first have a question for the author of this piece: why is the Transnational Institute considered a credible source for commentary on the carbon offset industry? Their views are extreme, and more importantly, they seem to consist exclusively of substanceless sound bites. "It's buying your way out of responsibility." "It's a technological quick fix that's deeply flawed and used more as a means to absolve climate sins rather than tackle the actual issue." "It's selling hot air and susceptible to fraud." "There is a lot of scope for 'cowboys' to cash in, and the supposed climate benefits are impossible to measure." "It gives them a sophisticated veneer of environmental sensitivity they don't deserve."

Transnational is certainly entitled to its opinions, however baseless they may be, but do they really seem like the considered views of an "academic think tank"? Is there any actual analysis or research to back up these statements, beyond anecdotal stories of Dutch tree planting projects in Uganda? Why are these statements passed along uncritically by journalists? Why not talk to some of the dozens of environmental NGOs who actually have something positive to say about offsets?

OK, on to more substantive matters. Let's take a look at some of the claims:

It's a technological quick fix that's deeply flawed and used more as a means to absolve climate sins rather than tackle the actual issue

Offsets are a general funding mechanism that can be linked to any sort of climate change solution you prefer. The CDM alone has funded several hundred wind energy and biomass energy projects. The CDM pipeline now encompasses 3 billion tons of CO2 reductions. Since when is renewable energy a "quick fix"? How is 3 billion tons in carbon reductions not addressing the actual issue?

But there's a huge, immediate glitch: the current offsets market, an industry that has mushroomed only in the last several years, is unregulated and no universal carbon-offset standard exists. As carbon is an intangible commodity, companies can sell what they want, claiming its carbon neutral and "carbon calculators" and costs fluctuate widely, making what consumers are buying unclear.

Critics of carbon offsets have a tendency to raise a lot of issues that sound really scary even though there's little behind them. This is a perfect example. Kyoto, of course, is heavily regulated, so this statement isn't true on its face. Assuming the author is referring more specifically to the retail offset market, it bears pointing out that most industries are unregulated and lack universal standards, a fact which is rarely held up as a "huge glitch." More importantly, it bears pointing out that the offset industry is moving with remarkable rapidity to establish a retail standard. Why was this fact not mentioned in the article?

Further, the claim that "companies can sell what they want" is simply false. Credible companies will tell you exactly what you are buying -- the amount of carbon, the source, and purchase date. Pricing differences are readily explained by differences in the quality and the source of offsets. Solar costs more than wind. Etc.

The bigger point here is that all of these assertions are being put forth in the article to give the appearance of large-scale impropriety, but no actual instances of impropriety are mentioned. Why do you suppose that is?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

No balance, few facts, continued
Posted by: adamstein on Apr 11, 2007 4:30 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
But one of the most important points for environmentalists is the north/south exploitation that the offsets industry embodies.

This is one of the more ludicrous assertions made by critics of offsets. The CDM, as noted, stands for Clean Development Mechanism. It is, unsurprisingly, a mechanism for funding clean energy projects in the developing world. It is, in other words, a type of foreign aid specifically targeted at providing renewable energy in the places most likely to rely on dirty types of energy such as coal. It takes a particularly curdled viewpoint to view such foreign aid as "exploitation."

Critics like to hunt for anecdotal horror stories regarding these development projects. There are two problems with these horror stories.

The first is that they mostly involve tree-planting projects, which are an insignificant source of carbon offsets globally (critics never mention this fact). Of the 1,783 projects currently in the CDM pipeline, precisely 7 involve forestry: 0.4%.

The second is that many of the criticisms are unjustified attempts to blame offsets for environmental problems that are occurring anyway. I don't know very much about sponge iron plants in India, but I do know that even in the absence of the CDM, those plants would be in operation. It simply isn't credible to suggest that these issues are in any way caused by offsets.

What can people do? Smith launches rapid fire into a list:

Here we come to the heart of the matter. Smith has his preferred list of solutions. That list is wholly inadequate to the task of addressing global warming, but no matter. Rather than embracing the reality that ending our dependence on fossil fuels is going to require progress on multiple fronts at once, entities like the Transnational Institute would rather attack solutions that aren't their preferred policies. It's frankly sad and more than a little ironic that such groups love to attack offsets as a "distraction." Distraction, indeed.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Planting trees is a good idea, BUT: Posted by: thoughtcriminal
The Dissenting View
Posted by: johndoraemi on Apr 11, 2007 4:54 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Has Al Gore's CO2 Theory Fizzled Out? (part one)

A Crimes of the StateInvestigation
http://crimesofthestate.blogspot.com/

If you track the popular Internet videos, you may have come across a British TV production called The Great Global Warming Swindle (Search Google Video). I do not wish to defend the propaganda, the personalities, or the several straw man arguments that appear in this lengthy program.

All I want to focus on is the science.
This is a study of some global warming dissenters in the climate field.
Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth is also explored, in particular Gore's central claim, the theory of manmade global warming as a result of increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere: "The relationship is very complicated, but there is one relationship that is far more powerful than all the others, and it is this: when there is more carbon dioxide, the temperature gets warmer." --Al Gore, An Inconvenient Truth

This quote is presented in The Great Global Warming Swindle at around 20 minutes in, and then it is mercilessly shredded by the climate scientists.
According to Al Gore's theory, increased levels of carbon dioxide CAUSE an increase in global temperature. But, interestingly enough, Al Gore does not prove this in his film. Far from it. The very real possibility that increases in temperature cause an increase in carbon dioxide levels (and not vice-versa) is never addressed. Al Gore has short-changed humanity in this most glaring omission: establishing causation.

So, which is it?
Does a rise in carbon dioxide cause a rise in the temperature?
OR, does a rise in the temperature cause a rise in carbon dioxide?
This is no small question. The entire global economy is being reengineered on the assumption that the first scenario is true. But is it really?
What About 800 Years of Lag?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Continues Posted by: johndoraemi
» Continues Posted by: johndoraemi
» RE: The Dissenting View Posted by: jpittman
Has Al Gore's CO2 Theory Fizzled Out? (part two)
Posted by: johndoraemi on Apr 11, 2007 5:06 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
A Crimes of the State Investigation
http://crimesofthestate.blogspot.com/


In part one I explored some of the countervailing evidence which casts doubt on the current carbon dioxide hysteria. For instance, the CO2 level changes lag behind the temperature changes in the historical ice-core record, sometimes by 800 years.

Recently, the global temperature fell from the 1940s through 1976, even though the CO2 levels (and other "greenhouse gases") were increasing during that same time period. This is an indication that CO2 is not driving the temperature changes (as is commonly believed). If it has any impact at all, it certainly cannot be considered the main driving force.

Changes in the sun's output seem to correlate to the data better. This news has not been met well by some readers.

I also have a correction to the first article. The last paragraph should have read: "Professor Ball states that CO2 is only 0.54 percent of the atmosphere..." These articles are sourced to the British TV documentary The Great Global Warming Swindle (on Google Video). I do not endorse the politics and opinions expressed in this show, especially at the end. It is, however, a source for numerous dissenting voices on this topic.

My character has already been attacked on a "progressive" website for posting this information. I have been accused of having an "agenda" and that I "hate Al Gore", and therefore I was just looking for some way to discredit him (as if I have nothing better to do).

Questions remain however, some of the most pivotal questions of our time concerning man's impact on weather:

Does a rise in carbon dioxide cause a rise in the temperature?

OR, does a rise in the temperature cause a rise in carbon dioxide?


If Al Gore had taken a few minutes to prove his case in An Inconvenient Truth we wouldn't be having this discussion. But Al Gore did not. His data does not show which parameter is influencing which and why. The science is not presented conclusively (or honestly), and therefore Al Gore is to blame by leaving this issue unresolved.

He has posited a theory. It is our right and duty to examine that theory and to scrutinize its flaws.


Earth's Oceans and CO2

It probably would have been easier for readers to comprehend my part one of this series if I had included the role of the oceans in the CO2 equation.

The oceans are described as being reservoirs of CO2 gas, and their role depends upon the water's temperature. In hot waters CO2 is emitted (raising CO2 levels in the atmosphere), and in cold waters CO2 is absorbed (lowering CO2 levels in the atmosphere).

"If you heat the surface of the ocean it tends to emit carbon dioxide. Similarly if you cool the ocean surface the ocean can dissolve more carbon dioxide." --Carl Wunsch, Professor of Oceanography, MIT

This process can take centuries and even millenia to occur. The oceans respond very slowly to changes in atmospheric temperature.

"People say, 'Oh I see the ocean doing this last year, that means that something changed in the atmosphere last year.' And this is not necessarily true at all. In fact it's actually quite unlikely because it can take hundreds to thousands of years for the deep ocean to respond to forces and changes that are taking place at the surface." --Carl Wunsch, Professor of Oceanography, MIT

The oceans then provide the mechanism for the theory that rising temperatures cause a rise in carbon dioxide levels (not vice-versa).

Continues...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Continued Posted by: johndoraemi
What Carl Wunsch, MIT Professor, actually said:
Posted by: thoughtcriminal on Apr 11, 2007 5:23 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
http://puddle.mit.edu/~cwunsch/

Carl Wunsch 11 March 2007

"I believe that climate change is real, a major threat, and almost surely has a major human-induced component. But I have tried to stay out of the `climate wars' because all nuance tends to be lost, and the distinction between what we know firmly, as scientists, and what we suspect is happening, is so difficult to maintain in the presence of rhetorical excess. In the long run, our credibility as scientists rests on being very careful of, and protective of, our authority and expertise.

The science of climate change remains incomplete. Some elements are so firmly based on well-understood principles, or for which the observational record is so clear, that most scientists would agree that they are almost surely true (adding CO2 to the atmosphere is dangerous; sea level will continue to rise,...). Other elements remain more uncertain, but we as scientists in our roles as informed citizens believe society should be deeply concerned about their possibility: failure of US midwestern precipitation in 100 years in a mega-drought; melting of a large part of the Greenland ice sheet, among many other examples.

I am on record in a number of places complaining about the over-dramatization and unwarranted extrapolation of scientific facts. Thus the notion that the Gulf Stream would or could "shut off" or that with global warming Britain would go into a "new ice age" are either scientifically impossible or so unlikely as to threaten our credibility as a scientific discipline if we proclaim their reality [i.e. see this previous RC post]. They also are huge distractions from more immediate and realistic threats. I've paid more attention to the extreme claims in the literature warning of coming catastrophe, both because I regard the scientists there as more serious, and because I am very sympathetic to the goals of my colleagues who sometimes seem, however, to be confusing their specific scientific knowledge with their worries about the future.

When approached by WAGTV, on behalf of Channel 4, known to me as one of the main UK independent broadcasters, I was led to believe that I would be given an opportunity to explain why I, like some others, find the statements at both extremes of the global change debate distasteful. I am, after all a teacher, and this seemed like a good opportunity to explain why, for example, I thought more attention should be paid to sea level rise, which is ongoing and unstoppable and carries a real threat of acceleration, than to the unsupportable claims that the ocean circulation was undergoing shutdown (Nature, December 2005).

I wanted to explain why observing the ocean was so difficult, and why it is so tricky to predict with any degree of confidence such important climate elements as its heat and carbon storage and transports in 10 or 100 years. I am distrustful of prediction scenarios for details of the ocean circulation that rely on extremely complicated coupled models that run out for decades to thousands of years. The science is not sufficiently mature to say which of the many complex elements of such forecasts are skillful. Nonetheless, and contrary to the impression given in the film, I firmly believe there is a great deal to be learned from models. With effort, all of this is explicable in terms the public can understand...."
(click link at top for the rest)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The real problem with carbon trading:
Posted by: thoughtcriminal on Apr 11, 2007 5:59 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Here's the issue - someone has to buy those carbon offsets, right? What if, instead of buying a carbon offset for your polluting coal power plant, you instead invest in a wind and solar electricity generation system (with a storage system for using energy at night, and when the wind isn't blowing)? That would go against the interests of carbon traders, wouldn't it?

You could argue that by building renewable energy system, you'd actually be generating carbon credits that you could sell to others - but what if renewable became so widespread that noone wanted to buy those credits? What if their was a glut of credits?

Thus, unless someonce can explain otherwise, it seems that in the long run that carbon traders, just like oil and coal traders, will be put out of business by renewables and energy efficiency - so they are likely to also be a force that resists transition to a renewable economy. Right?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» BLOOD AND GORE Posted by: mdruss42
» RE: BLOOD AND GORE Posted by: jpittman
Another deck chair arrangement for the Titanic.
Posted by: monkeywrench on Apr 11, 2007 9:08 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Misguided environmentalists and (of course) "free market" manipulators are claiming that the same laissez-faire economic "market forces" that got us into this mess are going to be our salvation? Just how dumb do they think we are?

Buying and selling "pollution credits" is like moving the contents of an onboard porta potty from one end of a spaceship to the other. Make no mistake about it: we ARE on a spaceship called Earth, a finite, closed system where simply moving pollution, especially carbon dioxide and methane, from one place to another (usually somewhere in the Third World) makes no difference whatsoever.

It does have a couple of advantages, though: very little real action will be taken to reduce actual pollution, thanks to the "feel-good" nature of this virtual flim-flam, and once again, money-grubbers will make enormous profits by inserting themselves into these phony transactions; in effect, buying and selling the sizzle while the steak rots. Meanwhile, the Earth gets hotter, the air and water become more foul, and weather chaos threatens to make food production a losing bet, while rising sea level hastens the need for the mass migration of millions – a migration that will make our problems with our southern border look like a walk in the park.

Ah, capitalism; gotta love it! What else could find a way to make a buck even from the destruction of a whole planet?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

We're only about renewable energy and efficiency
Posted by: adamstein on Apr 12, 2007 12:55 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
TerraPass only funds renewable energy and efficiency projects. Tree-planting is well-known to be a flawed and limited way to address climate change, which is why reputable offset firms generally avoid these projects. It is also why, of the 1,738 projects in the CDM pipeline, only 6 involve trees. Carbon offsets are all about renewable energy.

In answer to #4, if we go out of business because global warming is solved, we'll pop some champagne corks and move on. You seem to be missing the fact that our primary concern is forestalling the effects of climate change. Most small businesses are lucky to stay alive for ten years. It will take longer than that to transition the globe to a clean energy infrastructure, and I'll consider myself a lucky person if I can play a role in hastening the process.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

think about this
Posted by: myself on Apr 13, 2007 10:46 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
what if all global warming is caused by waste heat and nothing else

what if the government knew this and the only answer was to spread chem trails to cut down the solar gain to cool off that particular area

politically the best area to cool down would be north america---so that north americans would not believe in global warming

it is simple really---just plug into the weather super computer and ask where to cool and thereby move the jet stream..and thencut down the sunlight to the area that the super computer tells you so

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

what happened to the super computers
Posted by: myself on Apr 13, 2007 11:06 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
a weather super computer could take small differences in temperature and affect the jet stream..hola,,if the government knew this what would they do?

simple just cool the shaded areas via chemtrails and watch the dam jetstream meander unto where you want

do you want a cold spring where people do not believe in global warming and whereby yo buy futures in citrus


simply ask the super computer
what areas to shade
a side effect is all the fuel oil they buy for heating

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

So what are we supposed to do?
Posted by: johnvogelin on Apr 13, 2007 11:16 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
A lot of us are in a quandry-we walk/bike whenever we can, we live in town, we combine errands, we reduce our impact as much as possible. However, we may still need cars, airplanes, etc. to see friends or family or do errands that are extremely difficult without transportation. So do we say, well we are doing everything we can and shrug our shoulders, or should we try to offset the effects we are having on the earth? While carbon offset credits may not be perfect, if done to further minimize your impact, where's the problem? If you buy them to offset your Hummer you use to run 2 blocks over, okay, then you're buying you're way out of your responsibility. But, if you're already reducing your usage, why not offset what little usage you have? Also-let's examine individually the different groups offsetting carbon pollution-some have good programs, some don't. Take a look at Adam Steins comments-Terra Pass carbon offset credits go to renewable, clean energy and to retiring carbon credits on the Chicago Climate Exchange, not to planting trees. Terra Pass is also certified by the Center for Resource Solutions. While, carbon offset credits may not save the world, they'll do more than just reducing usage, when both are used. It's not rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic, but trying to patch the Titanic with what materials are at hand-it may or may not work, but it's better than just letting the ship sink.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Carbon Offsets, The new collection plate
Posted by: OhioPatriot on Apr 15, 2007 9:20 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
For years I have been waiting for the other shoe to drop on Global Warming Claims.

I mean, Why would people go through all the effort to perpetuate a myth, simulate science, admonish opposing scientists, and try to hoodwink the whole world into this hysteria without something being the payoff.

Now the card has been exposed, We can pay for our sins with our WAMCO carbon credit card.

For those of you have a problem with religion (LOOK Closely)

First you perpetuate the myth till people feel there must be some truth to the claims..

Next you banish the nonbelievers as fools and sinners.

Then you warn of the impending doom if change is not met (Armagedden).

Then you pull out the old collection plate and say (gloryhalleliuja) just pay a little now and your salvation is intact.

THE WAMCO CARBON CREDIT CARD
(Affordable redemption from global warming)

Roger, Houston: I think we have discovered a new religion.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]