Carbon offsetting
Dec. 6th, 2006 10:25 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
For those of you interested in such things, a report has recently been published whose purpose is to rate thirty vendors of carbon offsets as a guide to consumers.
However, on the Terrablog, Adam has made a highly critical response to the validity of this report's conclusions, including some general comments about the fact that the report's authors have a vision of how the carbon offset industry 'should' be run; the eight vendors identified as the top providers all concur with this vision. (It looks like there will be an interesting debate in the comments.)
This is especially interesting given the recent flow of debate about the microfinance/microcredit industry, and the conflicting business ideologies there. In microcredit, however, the field is large enough for different people to work in different ways. I suspect that in carbon offsetting the same doesn't apply - after all, either it works effectively or it doesn't.
I should point out that I plan to offset all my future flights, probably with Terrapass, and am planning to offset my energy consumption at home as soon as I've got the disposable income to do it; when I return to the UK I'll switch to a UK company. I've also not waded through the report yet, although I plan to do so as a relief from reading about freedmen at some point today.
However, on the Terrablog, Adam has made a highly critical response to the validity of this report's conclusions, including some general comments about the fact that the report's authors have a vision of how the carbon offset industry 'should' be run; the eight vendors identified as the top providers all concur with this vision. (It looks like there will be an interesting debate in the comments.)
This is especially interesting given the recent flow of debate about the microfinance/microcredit industry, and the conflicting business ideologies there. In microcredit, however, the field is large enough for different people to work in different ways. I suspect that in carbon offsetting the same doesn't apply - after all, either it works effectively or it doesn't.
I should point out that I plan to offset all my future flights, probably with Terrapass, and am planning to offset my energy consumption at home as soon as I've got the disposable income to do it; when I return to the UK I'll switch to a UK company. I've also not waded through the report yet, although I plan to do so as a relief from reading about freedmen at some point today.
no subject
Date: 2006-12-06 04:11 pm (UTC)However, I'm quite pleased to read it, because I was genuinely wondering where the best place for private offset purchase was (and have a strong bias against simple reforestry, chemical disintegration and most bovine byproduct processing mechanisms). Thanks for pointing to it.
The trouble with generating carbon offsets is that there are a zillion ways to do it and it's difficult to assess their relative impacts. The UNFCC, which administers the CDM, spends most of its time arguing about whether to accept new methodologies and almost none of its time validating projects, which annoys the people trying to build and finance the projects (who not philanthropists). I suspect that bypassing this bureacracy is half the reason there is a voluntary credit market in Europe.
I agree with Adam that the report could do with not skimming over validation quite as briskly, and seems to put too much weight on customer education about why they should buy offsets. Surely customer education on climate change is just sales pitch for these companies?
(no subject)
From:no subject
Date: 2006-12-07 12:08 am (UTC)From a quick reading of these things, additionality seems to be a key concern, which is a very hard thing to assess, because you're dealing with a complex, constantly changing system.
Example. You pay for a small-scale renewable energy project in the 3rd World. Great! This has additional development benefits. Great! The people benefitting from this get better off. Great! They buy a car which they wouldn't have been able to afford were it not for your offset. Oops. Well, great that they can afford to buy a car, but unless there's an overall global cap, and where paying for emissions is compulsory, then you cannot guarantee that reductions gained in one place are not going to pop up somewhere else. The only sort of thing I can think of that couldn't have this sort of problem is the better (more permanent) sequestration type projects, where you're clearly taking some CO2e out of the system, and no other part of the system is being touched.
Nonetheless, it is likely that most of these schemes are creating at least some benefit, that not all of your offsets are themselves being offset by the law of unintended consequences. Perhaps for safety's sake one should aim to offset by 150%, income permitting.
Anyway, thanks for this, I think I shall have to give this a serious go.
(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:no subject
Date: 2006-12-07 10:27 am (UTC)(no subject)
From: