Emission offsets — less than their billing
Share your Thoughts
Posted on February 21, 2007
Filed Under Global warming/Climate change, Deep ecology, Greenhouse gas emissions, Ecological hope, Consumer culture, Fossil fuel dependency, Earth spirituality
Fostering Ecological Hope
Today from Margaret Swedish:
As we try to juggle the many proposals being offered to slow the heating of our planet, it is important to know what does not work, as well as what does. I am always immediately suspicious of ideas that promise that we in this consumer culture can contribute our share to reducing emissions while we simply go on about our business, that we can reduce our greenhouse gas emissions without changing our lives too much or being too inconvenienced.
Carbon offsets, for example.
So I found this illuminating article in the Business section of yesterday’s NY Times, Guilt-free pollution. Or is it? This article not only points out the ineffectiveness of some of these so-called emission ‘credits’ — that’s when we salve our consciences for burning fossil fuels for a vacation in Europe, for example, by contributing to a project like planting trees — but that some of these ideas could actually encourage the very behavior we need to suppress — like contributing more for tree-planting to offset our purchase of a SUV.
Of course, part of my problem is an ethical one — that we high-end consumers still resist giving up some of our high-end consumption for the sake of the planet. We want to be carbon neutral without having to stop emitting our disproportionate amount of carbon.
Planting trees and energy efficiency are important things to do in themselves, but the trouble with linking them to offset programmes is that their positive impact is cancelled out by justifying and condoning a negative one, implying that we can consume at current rates guilt free as long as we have the money to salve our consciences, which takes us no further forwards in reducing emissions. If anything, it takes us backwards, as corporations are able to ride on the image boost of appearing greener.
[Corporate Watch Newsletter 26, Can’t see the emissions for the trees]
On the other hand, we have some approaches that work. Californians, for example, have gotten used to high energy prices, energy efficiency policies (for things like mandatory building standards, regulations for utilities and vehicles, and tax breaks for homeowners who can boost energy efficiency in excess of the 15% building standard). These mandatory policies which impact everybody have also given an economic boost to the alternative renewable energy industry, a win-win situation.
In this article from the Washington Post last Saturday, you can read about how California’s former Gov. Brown successfully resisted plans for the construction of an additional nuclear power plant to meet rising energy demand by promoting energy efficiency instead. The state, under the leadership of current Gov. Schwarzenegger, has also refused now to purchase any new energy from dirty coal-fired power plants. If all 50 states chose to do this, that would help stop the notorious mountain-topping mining practice and put a damper on the burning of the dirtiest of all fossil fuels.
Of course, the coal industrty would collapse and the society would have to face up to its responsibility to help with the transition of communities, among the poorest in the nation, that have relied on coal for their meager incomes. And coal companies would have to be held responsible for the gut-wrenching damage they have done to places like the Appalachian Mountains.
But it important to note that while California has made progress by including the cost of pollution in its energy calculations, thereby raising the cost of energy considerably, energy efficiency has also paid off. According to this article:
the average Californian family spends about $800 a year less on energy than it would have without efficiency improvements over the past 20 years.
…While the average American burns 12,000 kilowatt-hours a year of electricity, the average Californian burns less than 7,000 — and that’s counting renewable energy sources.
California has managed to cut its contributions to global warming, too. Carbon dioxide emissions per capita in California have fallen by 30 percent since 1975, while U.S. per capita carbon dioxide emissions have remained essentially level.
That’s considerable progress, considering the direction that most of the rest of the country is going. But the idea is catching on. The State of Maryland, for instance, is considering legislation to set mandatory reductions of carbon emissions, a la California. It doesn’t stipulate how it will be done, but sets a target of reducing emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. It’s called the ‘Global Warming Solutions Act,’ and you can read about it here. I personally don’t think this goes far enough, but it is a step in the right direction.
All of which is by way of saying — before we leap into untested responses to our climate crisis, we must first know what works and doesn’t work. We have too little time to put a lot of time and energy (no pun intended) into efforts that are ineffective. We especially don’t have time to keep trying to figure out how to do this without impacting the lifestyles of those who have most benefitted from burning the fossil fuels that have heated our planet to soon-to-be-unsustainable levels.
Technorati Tags: carbon offsets, carbon emissions, greenhouse gases, global warming, energy efficiency
Comments
10 Responses to “Emission offsets — less than their billing”
Leave a Reply
Dear Margaret,
I read your post with interest and I share some of your concerns but I have to advise you that the situation regarding carbon offsets is a little more complicated than you suggest. I run a carbon offset treeplanting company - Treeflights.com and so I deal on a regular basis with ordinary people who buy offsets.
What I have to say to you is very simple and is based on my daily experience. The individuals who use our service are not the kind of people who are using offsets as an excuse to carry on polluting. On the contrary they are very concerned about the damage they are doing to the atmosphere and the fossil fuel they are using up. They are voluntarily choosing to pay extra to have a tree planted that will in time absorb a great chunk of CO2 from the air and also in the process re-store a roughly equivalent amount of solar energy to that consumed by their flight.
Our customers receive nothing back from us for their money other than two impressions on their computer screens. Carbon offsets are in their infancy and are far from perfect but when you criticise them you indirectly undermine the altruism of the ordinary humans who are simply trying to give a little back.
Given that we humans made 8 billion individual flights last year of which only a tiny, tiny proportion were offset in any way, wouldn’t it be more appropriate to attack those don’t care and don’t offset?
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.”
Two problems strike me with regard to this “offset” approach:
1) “future value accounting”: that is, today’s carbon emissions are not balanced/compensated for by tree-planting for … how many years?
2) I have read that without clearly explained procedures, it is likely that the public will believe that the “offset” cancels the CO2 emissions; however, what is spewed out, is spewed out.
The Carbon Trade Watch has an interesting “memorandum”–”Inquiry into the Voluntary Carbon Market.” Apparently some good intentions in Europe have not materialized as expected.
Yes, what is spewed out is spewed out. And that is the heart of the matter. Carbon emissions are growing exponentially as consumption and burning of fossil fuels continue to grow exponentially. What is emitted now will remain in the atmosphere for 100 years. So if we stopped all that spewing right now, global warming would continue for decades and peak at a temperature we don’t know yet. However, we DO know that we could be heading towards warming of 3-5 degrees Celsius by 2100, which as many scientists have tried to tell us, will mean a different planet.
So how hot will it get after 2100 if we continue this pace of fossil fuel burning, no matter how many trees we plant? (I am not against planting trees, obviously. Reforestation — as close to letting nature do this on its own as possible — and saving existing forests, is essential. But not as a trade-off, rather as another thing we do to reduce the carbon load.)
So, my point is that, offsets, as Sheila says, can give people the wrong impression that they are reducing their carbon footprint. What is needed is not that people try to offset, and therefore think they are carbon neutral. The point is for each of us, especially in the societies that consume the most, to drastically REDUCE our per capita emissions, while at the same time advocating for mandatory reductions as a matter of policy.
Plant trees, yes — but not as a replacement for reducing our own fossil fuel-based consumption. Carbon ‘neutrality’ won’t solve our global warming problem. We must be decidedly NOT neutral. We must tip the balance in the other direction, by a lot, and quickly.
This means changing our behaviors. This means changing how we live, how we shop, what we buy. We need to stop spewing carbon into our atmosphere as much as, and as soon as, possible.
I agree that good-hearted sincere people should be encouraged to do what they can. I also believe that these are the very people who are most ready and willing to take more effective measures to reduce their carbon footprint, with a little encouragement.
It is not carbon neutral to buy a SUV or fly all over the world or consume goods shipped form thousands of miles away (like Wal-Mart)– no matter what contributions are made to offsets. The carbon is emitted. It contributes to the warming of the planet.
Let’s ask people to step up. Many will. Many are already.
Margaret
There are 2 ways to reduce the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere.
1. Reduce the emissions that put it there.
2. Absorb the stuff that’s already up there.
It is not a question of using either of these strategies but both of them.We have to use every weapon in our armoury against this enormous problem. Emission reduction should absolutely be our primary focus but if we fail to take advantage of the immense absorptive capabilities of trees we will lose this battle.
Trees have evolved over billions of years to to do precisely the job that we require today and to do it efficiently using only natural processes.
I put in another 50 this morning. What did you do?
I’m glad you planted 50 trees this morning. That is fabulous. And as I wrote in my post, plant trees, yes! great. We need trees. We need to save forests. We need to renew damaged forests. My problem is with planting trees, or using other offsets, in exchange for continuing to consume fossil fuels and spew carbon as we do — to plant trees in exchange for not making other essential changes in our consumer behavior.
My point was that we need both, yes. Not one or the other. Not one to make people feel better about the other. That’s why I don’t like the language of offets. I would rather mobilize people to reduce their carbon footprint by reducing fossil fuel-based consumption (towards zero somewhere in the next few decades) and by loving nature — forests, oceans, soils, wetlands, all those precious ‘carbon sinks’ that we have been destroying — to love them enough to work passionately to save, restore, renew them.
I would rather people were supporting your tree-planting efforts to contribute towards restoring the atmosphere, punto, not in exchange for a new SUV, or for driving to work when public transportation is available. That’s how I would sell it now — a commitment to save the planet, pure and simple, something else I do while reducing my carbon footprint.
What did I do this morning? I’m not sure that is a helpful approach. Sounds more like a challenge — I plant trees, so there! I have drastically reduced my carbon footprint over the years by driving a car that gets 40 mpg, by walking and using mass transportation when I can, by drastically reducing the amount of paper I use in my work (close to 90%), by buying locally as much as possible, by flying hardly ever, and unless absolutely necessary, by replacing incandescent light bulbs, by purchasing energy efficient products, by turning off my computer and power strips when not in use… Well, I could go on.
I am also deeply engaged in a project to raise consciousness about our ecological challenges (global warming being only one of them), writing a book on the subject, and more.
You see how many of us are making our important contributions.
I love trees.
Margaret
Isn’t it wonderful that trees have evolved to do that job of absorption of CO2? How efficiently they have worked–till recently. When activities on the planet cause excessive amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere, I wonder if we are unfairly expecting these trees to due more than their fair share. I have no idea how much CO2 a tree, 10 trees, a forest can absorb; and I have no idea how soon after planting, the tree can compensate for the daily GHG output of an average US person. It seems we need some sort of comparative framework to speak meaningfully of two disparate actions. If we don’t change our lifestyle, can we ever expect trees to save us?
[…] had a bit of a discussion on this blog over the past few days on the issue of offsets — that’s where we allow ourselves to […]
Margaret I share so many of your views that I hope we can come to some kind of convergence. There is so much argument about what is the right way forward.Too much.
I continually interact with people who buy offsets and based on my experience with my customers I can assure you that these people are not using offsets as a diversion from change or as an alternative to reducing their emissions. On the contrary they are voluntarily choosing to pay extra to try and (in an imperfect way) make amends for some of the damage that they are causing. This altruism is something that should be encouraged not undermined. A better target would be the 99.99% of fliers who take no responsibility for their emissions.
Many people who critise offsets take the view, as you do, that the offset somehow makes the emission OK. The offset is seen as legitimsing the destructive activity. Many of the large offset groups use rhetoric like ‘carbon neutral flights’ which give people the false impression that their emissions have been ‘neutralised’ so its fine therefore to fly off around the world as no harm is done.Offsets like this are unhelpful.
I started Treeflights because I didnt like the way these companies were doing it. I wanted to find a way that would help people to take more responsibility for the damage they were causing but to do it in an honest and transparent manner that wouldn’t encourage people to fly more.
The key question is ‘how do we get people to fly less?’ If someone comes to me and says ‘Stop flying’ it actually makes me want to fly more! My approach is less stick and more carrot. When someone forks out £10 to have a tree planted they are acknowledging in a very direct but gentle way that what their travel is destructive and so sets them on a path to flying less.
It’s good to hear what you are doing.I only have respect for your contribution. Can you say the same to me?
Dear Ru — I have nothing but respect for what you are trying to do. And we are headed in the same direction. I think what I’m trying to say is that I believe it would be more effective in the long run to de-link the activity of spewing carbon from the efforts to create, or re-create, more carbon sinks. It already has us stuck, as you point out, in needless argument.
It is true that many people respond to being told what not to do by doing more of it — it is an adolescent response, but there it is. But there is another approach that works with all kinds of good-hearted folks — the growing awareness of the trouble we are in with not just global warming but also ecological overshoot (living beyond the means of the Earth to support us) works very well in getting people to examine their lives.
One of the reasons why the Central America solidarity movement was so effective here in the US (my work of 25 years) was not just the campaign to stop US aid to repressive governments, but the fact that hundreds of thousands of US citizens traveled to the region, to war zones and refugee camps, or gave safe haven to refugees in their home communities. That personal experience made them change in profound ways — even to changing jobs, becoming downwardly mobile, what many called ‘conversion.’
The same thing is happening now, only this time in relationship to our Earth, the natural community around us. Everywhere, the Earth is in distress. Everywhere, people are seeing their lakes, rivers, wetlands, forests, shores, mountains being depleted and ruined. Favorite species are going extinct. And on and on.
I think part of the important value of tree-planting, like organic farming, or even a backyard vegetable garden, is that it puts peoples’ hands back into the soil. There is a reverence that comes from that, the renewal of a primal relationship from which we became separated over the centuries.
Did you read the article by Ken Caldeira that I linked to the other day? If not, here it is: http://select.nytimes.com/search/restricted/article?res=F10812FB3B540C758DDDA80894DF404482. If they make you pay to view it, let me know. I’ll cut-and-paste it for you. I’d be curious about what you think.
Margaret