Survey of Carbon Offset Services

If we had a time machine and jumped two weeks into the future, you could add OffsetMyLife.com to the list.

We're launching private Beta in a week and public Beta by April 15th, in time for Earth Day.

I'm afraid this carbon offsetting doesn't wash with me. Yes, I see how you can balance carbon emissions against carbon uptake by trees, but it takes tens of years for trees to grow and offset all this carbon. And these trees, like humans and other animals are susceptible to the negative effects of acid rain and other pollution caused by burning fossil fuel. The trees don't offset that.

It's a neat idea to pay for the planting of trees and to raise cash to invest in renewable energy, but does it give people the incentive to cut down on their energy usage? I don't think so. It seems as much a white-wash as hybrid SUVs.

And what trees are these companies planting - and more importantly, where?

Seems that a lot of people rather buy an indulgence than make minor adjustment s to their lifestyle.

Caldini, I can at least answer your last question. For carbonfund and terrapass' tree-planting activities, they aren't just planting trees willy-nilly or in monoculture tree plantations that will be shortly cut down. They are financing tree-planting in certified and protected forests, many of them tropical, or in the "great boreal forests" of Canada... there are independent organizations confirming the protected nature of the places where their tree-planting occurs. And these trees will then hold the carbon from their growth for about a century, which buys us quite a bit of time to solve climate change through other means (no more fossil fuels, sequestration, etc.). Finally, some organic matter (carbon) from the trees will likely be someday naturally buried, removing a tiny amount of carbon from the atmosphere semi-permanently.

But you're right that carbon offsets do not "offset" non-climate-change-related environmental problems. We must deal with our guilt about acid rain and air pollution in other ways!

Carbon offsetting is not the end solution, that much is obvious. But, it's putting money toward good causes that will eventually be part of this solution. It's easy to be cynical about it, but in the meantime it's making an impact.

I'm surprised to see that DriveNeutral.org was not mentioned in the short blurb on offset projects. We have been offering an easy way for drivers to take responsibility for their emissions and to accelerate the market from greenhouse gas reductions for several months now. Most of our participants are already doing what they can to reduce the impact their lifestyles have on the enivironment but there is no car on the market that is emissions free. We help them bridge the gap between their desires to be zero-emissions drivers and the technological realities impending that choice. Visit DriveNeutral.org to learn what makes our high-quality offset approach different and less expensive. And please do not hesistate to Drive CO2 Neutral for a change.
Thanks,
Jason Smith
CEO DriveNeutral

I applaud the efforts, but I just don't see how carbon offsets are really going to offset CO2 emissions. It's like the whole debate with sinks in the CDM (clean development mechanism) of the Kyoto Protocol - an easy way out for emitters to do good, yet still emit. On the other hand if one were to offset and reduce emissions at the same time... (guess I'm one of those cynics Jacob)

A Prius will still create carbon emissions. Electricity, plane travel, cooking and heating all create emissions. While we still need to minimize our impact by using compact flourescent lighting, riding bikes, hanging our laundry to dry etc., offsets allows us to completely balance our ecological footprint. I like them and use carbonfund.

I have been reading freakonomics lately, and they talk about how incentives may backfire. I have the feeling that, if more people start using carbon offset sercices, they may use their buying carbon displacement as a subconcious excuse to "indulge" in a environmentally detrimental activity. Possibly someone will offset 100 tons of caron dioxide, and then buy a hummer or leave their lights on constantly. this could defeat the purpose of the carbon offset.

Carbon Offsets sound great, but we should ponder that Enron was a big fan of the billions it hoped to make in marketing credits. There's extensive criticism of the system, but little of it makes it into the mainstream media.

Here's a provocative article critical of offsets.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/story/0,,1687978,00.html

A launchpad to learn more about the matter is Carbon Trade Watch -- http://www.tni.org/ctw/index.htm

Regrettably the mainstream environmentalists are quite enamored of the concept as well, but this isn't surprising considering their ties to Wall Steet, corporate law firms, and in some cases, the energy companies themselves.

This is a great conversation to have, and everyone is bringing up good points. CO2 offsetting should never be a substitute for reducing emissions. There are only two roles for offsetting: taking care of your emissions until you are able to reduce your footprint, and taking care of your remaining emissions after you have reduced your footprint as much as you can.

After 5 years of providing offsets to individuals and most of the leading socially and environmentally responsible companies and organizations, and thousands of committed people, we know a great deal about who buys offsets. In general, people (and businesses) who don’t care enough to reduce their footprint don’t care enough to buy offsets either. In other words, the people who would even think of buying offsets are the ones who are already conserving.

NativeEnergy’s customers include: Ben & Jerry’s, Stonyfield Farm, Aveda, the (President Bill) Clinton Global Initiative, the Al Gore documentary ‘An Inconvenient Truth’, Clif Bar, Inc., Co-op America, Warner Bros. film ‘Syriana’, Dave Matthews Band, Guster, Jack Johnson, Circle of Life (Julia Butterfly Hill’s organization), Natural Resources Defense Council, Green Mountain Coffee Roasters, the United Nations Environmental Program Global Roundtable, World Wildlife Fund, Timberland, Seventh Generation, StopGlobalWarming.org, and CERES.

How offsets are sold is more of a problem than how they are used. The ecobusinesslinks survey, referred to above, seems to imply that certification and price are the only measures of value, and if there is certification, then only price is relevant. (An excellent article on price and value of offsets, written by Dr. Mark Trexler of Trexler Climate and Energy Services, was recently published in the Environment Forum of the Environmental Law Institute. As ELI is members only, we’ve posted the article at http://www.nativeenergy.com/news.html.)

There are other measures of value besides certification and price. For example, does your purchase help build a new renewable generator, or merely make an already successful one more profitable? If a renewable generator is already up and running, does it need offset revenues to continue running? If you help build a new wind farm that requires your purchase to get built, you help generate truly incremental offsets. And who developed or owns your renewable generator? Would you rather your offset purchase make a major corporation more profitable, or help Native Americans and family farmers build sustainable economies based on clean, renewable energy?

At NativeEnergy, we seek out new Native American and family farmer-owned renewable energy projects under development that truly need extra funding to get financed and built, and we buy their offsets on a long-term basis, up front, directly funding new construction. The amount we pay depends on what the project needs, which is frequently more than the current wholesale rates for renewable credits/offsets from existing projects. For the Rosebud Sioux Tribe wind project, our customers provided about 25% of the cost of the turbine, and actually helped make it possible for the tribe buy and build it.

While this approach increases our costs and our prices, it increases the value for our customers. That’s why we have such high-profile customers, and why they return to us to help build new projects each year. That’s also why certification and price are not all you need to know.

There’s been a plaque at the Rosebud wind turbine since its dedication in 2003 listing the name of every individual and business who, through their collective purchases from NativeEnergy, played a very real and valuable role in bringing into existence the first Native American owned and operated utility-scale wind turbine in the country. It’s something they can be proud of. We know we are.

The folks at NativeEnergy.
www.nativeenergy.com

I don't know anything about The Carbon Fund, but a lot of their stuff seems too negative. Maybe it's like The Human Fund on Seinfeld! WDYT?

My credit union in Santa Fe uses Native Energy, and I think they are awesome!

-Kaleb H.
ABQ, NM

I don't know anything about The Carbon Fund, but a lot of their stuff seems too negative. Maybe it's like The Human Fund on Seinfeld! WDYT?

My credit union in Santa Fe uses Native Energy, and I think they are awesome!

-Kaleb H.
ABQ, NM

That would be the Permaculture Credit Union, a loyal customer of NativeEnergy for several years now. A visit to their web site at http://www.pcuonline.org/ will provide further evidence that - at least with NativeEnergy - those who offset are those who care, and few are buying indulgences.

Tom Stoddard
NativeEnergy, LLC

Its important to note that, when a person or company works with Native Energy, the green tags purchased can be donated to Clean Air-Cool Planet, an independent non-profit organization working with campuses, corporations and communities on climate solutions in the northeast.

Green Tags are bought and sold everyday in the electricity market. Tens of millions of dollars in Green Tags are under contract today. If you sell your Green Tags to someone else, you wouldn't necessarily keep carbon dioxide out of the air. In contrast, donating the green tags makes sure your CO2 emissions reductions are permanent!

Personally I like Carbon Clear's lifestyle agnostic ethos. I've offset my tiny baby's disposable diapers and plan to start potty training her soon (fingers crossed!) as the only real environmentally sound poo-management option. I have friends who use Eco nappies and cloth nappies, both of which also have associated emissions. I also plan to offset their emissions as a baby gift through Carbon Clear.

Just thought I'd add to the list of CO2 emissions retailers - Carbon Planet, based in Australia, has been quietly retailing CO2 credits to the general public for quite some time. Carbon Planet places the emphasis on personal energy reduction as a primary activity and encourages you to offset the rest.

Some municipal utilities have a green power option, such as Palo Alto Green, which leads the nation in alternative energy signups. Also consider the Cool-it campaign of Acterra, the Loma Prieta chapter of the Sierra Club and 3 Phases Energy.

I use Palo Alto Green to charge my two Toyota RAV4 EV electric cars.

At Treeflights.com we plant trees for any airline passenger who wants to offset the CO2 released by their flight.
Our customers feed back to us that far from encouraging them to fly more, our service helps them to understand that their flight is destructive to our atmosphere and thus sets them on a path to flying less.
This is the change in mind-set that we need to achieve if we are going to get on to of the problem.

At carbon.org.nz we attempt to educate people on how they can alter their lifestyle and reduce their emissions. We also realise that this isn't practicle for many people so also offer them the choice to purchase or sponsor the planting of a tree. By planting native trees we are doing several things, offsetting carbon, reforesting land that was cleared thoughtlessly by setlers and helping reduce errosion. If people feel positive (through their own actions of for paying others to do positive things) then this has a general positive effect on the community.

A business - whether Not-for-Profit or other - offering carbon offsets has a fundamental interest in its customers using its service (that is, making a payment). You rarely see such a firm highlight to its customers how to reduce their energy consumption and carbon emissions. However, buying carbon offsets cannot equate with actually reducing one's domestic, business or travel impact on the environment. Therein lies a clear conundrum.
On the other hand, Ru and Olmec's positive comments above are valid.
It seems clear now that the planting of trees is not a particularly good way of offsetting carbon emissions.
What I would like to hear much more discussion on, then, is the relative merits of the other forms of carbon offsetting, from simply supplying low energy light bulbs to schools and colleges, etc., to capital investment in alternative energy production, whether large scale plants or basic solar schemes for small entities, such as factories, etc.
These expenditures, if the resultant activity can be substantiated as additional to the business-as-usual situation, are surely more positive.

I am interested in feedback from people on this site about what you look for or want to see in a carbon neutral/ carbon offset program. Currently of the sites that are around there seems to be a lot of options. What do people feel are the best parts of the sites and what they want to see offered that currently isn't? It seems that not may options give you knowledge of what and where your money actually ends up or what project your $ went to. There are some exceptions around but none that I could find in the USA. If you could find a site that would focus on reduction in CO2 emissions as well as actually show where your trees were planted, when and in a way that restored natural habitat currently clearcut and left to stagnite would this be of interest?

One topic that has been discussed and I have liked reading about is that when a tree dies the carbon goes back into the atmosphere. That is true, but for the 50-100+ years a tree is growing carbon is removed from the air and stored. Then after the trees life it will slowly rot away releasing carbon over that time. In short, the more trees alive now, the less carbon is in the air now as well as constantly having more removed. Nothing takes carbon off the planet, different things just store it in different forms for different amounts of time.

The whole idea of purchasing carbon credits seems like a bogus premise to me...lots of people are using this means to fund their pet ideology, forming seemingly charitable organizations whose primary beneficiary is themselves and the people who surround them. It is not efficient to have many organizations purporting to do the same thing and duplicating all their various administrative expenses. Much more reasonable would be some effort to encourage folks to be more careful regarding environmental issues, along with some high-profile figures moving toward more responsible energy usage and leadership in this direction. The vast majority of the American people are smart enough to realize that this idea of "do as I say not as I do" is totally devoid of sincerity and earnestness, and basically is a crock. The "chicken little prophets" are playing on sentimentality, stirring up peoples' emotions, and the hard science tells us that global warming may not even exist. It would be far more productive, and far less divisive, to pursue a sensible energy education policy, steer the dollars toward things that will work to improve the environment instead of improve the standard of living of the self-appointed guardians of the environment, and foster agreement on both sides of the issue for a progressive agenda, bringing under the tent people of good will who would be willing to discuss and decide on, and work to implement things to improve the environment that all of us could agree on. Take drinking water, for example. Where is there an effort underway to get both sides of these issues together so that they can sit down and have discussions about things they can possibly agree on, and then doing what can be done to make improvements in the drinking water situation. One thing is for sure. The problems in this country, whether they be drinking water, clean air, reducing dependence on petroleum, foreign or domestic, cannot be solved by only one half of us, with the other half in stark and active opposition to the first party. Briefly, what we need is leadership toward a progressive agenda where we start to ignore what we cannot agree on and start instead to do what we can ALL agree on to work for in the society, and that not only in the realm of environmentalism. There are many issues in the American experience that could stand to have a little work done on them where every single person involved is walking in lock-step, absolutely agreeing to commit to do what we are all agreeing on to make improvements in the world we live in. Our politics are bankrupt of any heart and soul and we have been so equally divided by the money-and-vote-driven politicians that we cannot do anything, frozen in 50/50 immobility, but time marches on and things get worse. How long will it be before we adopt a progressive agenda and get on with DOING SOMETHING GOOD FOR A CHANGE, rather than these bizarre emotionally-based schemes like selling carbon credits. ( I am available as a political consultant regarding the progressive agenda if anyone out there is interested.)

Hmmmm not sold on the tree planting thing. There must be a small percentage that actually get to 100 years and then how much of the CO2 gets released back into the air. Im aware of other not for profit organisations planting trees for 0.10 cents per tree. Why the huge difference on price to these commercial businesses? I think to offset carbon they should go to projects in efficiency or renewal as these have a direct and immediate effect. Also what about the social and economic part of offsetting? A tree can't help a devastated community in India can it and these are the countries that are most effected by our CO2 releases!

Purchasing carbon credits is like a wife beater giving money to a women’s shelter. Why is it ok for the well to do to use their private jets and big cars? I guess they can just buy their way out of the pollution they create. I hate to see people preach to the rest of us while they are the greatest offenders. People like Ariana Huffington and many of the Hollywood crowd. (Ed Bagely Jr. who practices what he preaches)

This has to be some kind of joke. Arnold Swarznegger, Barbara Boxer, Diane Feinstien and ex-VP Al Gore and others run up enourmous energy bill, drive Hummers, fly privetly owned jets across america and than justify their convienent hypocrosy by buying carbon credits and having groups plant trees for them. Now that is funny.

The entire idea of Global Warming is asinine . When you have 17,000+ ACTUAL scientists (primarily members of the IPCC) standing on the side of truth saying GW is not simply a human problem. Consider the fact that more greenhouse gases are produced by the worlds livestock (18%) then by the combined greenhouse gases produced by every mode of transportation on the planet. Not to mention the number one greenhouse gas happens to be water vapor! One fact that I really find interesting is that the vast majority in the rise of temperature observed in the last 150 years happened prior to the industrial revolution. This all goes to show that this scam concerning global warming is just a distraction for the ignorant. A fabrication by the left. This is all leading up to a way for the government to gain control of yet another part of our lives. What's next? Perhaps a tax on the CO2 we all produce? Anyone want to find out?

---The 1st amendment is a wonderful thing.

The best one in Europe is www.co2logic.com and they have very high validation standards for their offset projects.

I read with interest some of these comments. I run a small safari company in Tanzania and 2 months ago tried to provide a service for my clients to offset their carbon when flying to Tanzania.. Needless to say trying to find the link between the very nice website and trees on the ground was almost impossible.. SO I am in the process of setting up Carbon Tanzania, this will be the first dedicated carbon offset scheme in Tanzania focused on habitat rehabilitation, indigenous planting of rare habitat types in specific areas. ALL trees put into the ground will be 'protected' over five years, providing rural employment along the way. www.carbontanzania.com should be up and running in about a month. Native energy.. great stuff..

This is the biggest scam since snake oil. How do I get started so I can profit from this?

CARBON,CARBON,CARBON! WHAT ABOUT OXYGEN? I READ WITH INCREASING DISMAY SO CALLED EXPERTS QUESTIONING THE BENEFITS OF TREE PLANTING.STICK TO FACTS AND LOGIC PLEASE...GLOBAL COAL, OIL AND NATURAL GAS DEPOSITS ARE VAST(FACT) PRODUCING THEM TOOK MASSIVE QUANTITIES OF TROPICAL FORESTS OVER MANY THOUSANDS OF YEARS(FACT) SINCE THE 1960'S MAN HAS BEEN RELEASING CARBON FROM THESE DEPOSITS AT RECORD LEVELS(FACT)WHILE AT THE SAME TIME CLEARING TROPICAL FORESTS AT AN EQUALLY ALLARMING RATE(FACT)SOME ESTIMATE THE RATE OF CLEARING TO BE A FOOTBALL PITCH EVERY 2 SECONDS! 80% OF GLOBAL OXYGEN SUPPLIES COME FROM THESE TROPICAL FORESTS(FACT) THROUGH EMISSIONS/DEFORESTATION MANKIND HAS CREATED UNIQUE CONDITIONS IN OUR HISTORY ON THIS PLANET(LOGIC) CREATING THE WORST ATMOSPHERE MANKIND HAS EVER HAD TO BREATH(FACT) IN THE UK 1 IN 10 HAVE ASTHMA (FACT) IT COULD SOON BE 1 IN 10 WITHOUT!
IN MY HUMBLE OPINION THE ONLY TRUE CARBON OFFSET IS PLANTING MANAGED TROPICAL FORESTS. A MANAGED ACRE IS FAR MORE EFFECTIVE AT EXTRACTING ATMOSPHERIC CARBON AS A TREE IN A NATURAL FOREST TAKES 75% OF ITS CO2 FROM DECAYING MATTER ON THE FOREST FLOOR(FACT) TREES PER ACRE IS UPTO 10 TIMES MORE IN A MANAGED FOREST AND THE TREES DONT REACH MATURITY SO DONT RELEASE THIER CARBON.
CAN SOMEONE PLEASE EXPLAIN HOW DONATING TO A WIND FARM COMPARES? WIND FARMS ARE OPERATED BY THE ENERGY COMPANIES,WOULD THEY BE BUILT WITHOUT DONATIONS?OFCOURSE! WILL THEY REDUCE 'DIRTY ENEGY'? NO! THEY WILL MEET A FRACTION OF THE GROWING DEMAND.

PT Barnum was right. Ther's a sucker born every minute or in the case of carbon offset purchasers more than one. This is too hilarious for words.
Naldo

A very interesting thread! I wondered if I could offer a slightly different perspective...

We run a very small carbon offset scheme in the UK that is slowly establishing new woodland on land that has previously been intensively farmed arable land. We do not subscribe to any governing body and we are not accredited by any of the bandwagon organisations that are springing up all over the place.

We plant monoculture (native ash) container grown trees for individuals or organisations and are not really that bothered as to their motives.

Many of your writers will already have us down as one of the capitalist cowboys of the 'industry' but worse is to come - we do intend to cut down the trees!!!

At face value we thus fall foul of all the bad points that are more and more frequently being lodged against tree planting schemes. However, for those who have an open mind on these matters I would offer the next tier of information:-

The ash trees we plant provide the very best firewood for use in a woodburning stoves. A carbon neutral fuel with an real offset value as it directly replaces the fossil fuels that would have otherwise be burnt.

The charge for a tree covers the cost of the sapling, plant guard, canes, and the time and materials incurred in the first year of planting. The prospective value of the firewood provides the economic justification for the maintenance of the new woodland, fencing, insurance etc etc.

The ash will actually be coppiced which gives the same tree multiple 'lives' and as it will be harvested by hand, there is minimum disruption to the newly created habitat. Preserving the craft of coppicing for future generations is an added bonus.

As I said our scheme is only very small but we care about each tree and have decided this is the best way we can ensure the lonevity of our new plantation. Are we really so evil after all?

For more info please visit us at http://www.carbonneutralfuel.co.uk/carbon_offset.html

Global warming is a religion. You can give money to the funds out there and it looks like they are doing something new and different, but they are not. 99% of the things the carbon offset companies do were going to be accomplished anyway. The people giving their money to the carbon gods are getting that ol time religious good feeling. Instead of making a bunch of carbon gods rich off your donations, give it to a real purposefull charity or a real religion.

I am trying to form a carbon offset fund that is not for profit. The money raised would only go to renewable projects and education projects on Long Island. I am writing here and many other places to get other people's input as to how to keep this as honest and up and up as possible. Personally, when I first heard about these funds, I thought the same as many of you skeptics out there. How the heck was I going to know where my money was really going! I want a fund to be as transparent as possible. Plus, I want to live in the place where the money is being used. I want the renewables to be happening in my own neighborhood! I want to go to a local business and have them ask the customer if they are interested in contributing to such a fund that will result in more renewable energy being placed in our community and education programs for our local schools. With a real sharp eye on proving to our public where our money went, and how specifically it was used and what the results were!
I am looking for some advice. From others who run funds or others who have purchased offsets for themselves. For anyone who might have an opinion on how they might like to see such a fund develop.
Thanks.

I've been reading books on GW lately--the gist of them is that we are going to have to make real cuts (and in North America, very, very deep cuts)--not mere "intensity reductions" but absolute cuts--and do so quickly and with a will. Even the IPCC reports are grossly optimistic about how much warming is "safe" and how close we are to triggering the feedback loops that will take the power to slow or stop global warming out of our hands. This is unsurprising since the member countries include the USA, Australia, Canada, China, Russia, and Saudi Arabia, all of which have had a hand in editing the science and the political statement, whittling away anything the least bit uncertain or controversial.

The silver lining in the climate change cloud is that most if not all of these changes are things we should be doing anyway, for other reasons: frugality is never a bad idea unless you are an economist; the rainforests would be worth preserving even if the temperature were not to rise; and even if CO2 doesn't destroy us through warming, it still forms carbolic acid in water, which acidifies the oceans and threatens any living organism that forms shells or bones, including much of the zooplancton at the base of the food web.

I'm buying offsets because there is no practical way to reduce my carbon emissions (which are about one third to half of "normal" levels). Even if my supplier has badly overestimated the amount of carbon they can offset, the credits are so cheap and I have purchased many more than I strictly need to offset my emissions, so I am reasonably confident I am not wasting my money.

I want the CHEAPEST carbon reduction I can get with a reasonable assurance that it is real. I would love to find a Canadian seller that has charitable status so I could leverage my money further with tax deductions, but until I do, I have donated to Carbonfund.org, which is a US non-profit and gives you some choice of different means of carbon offsetting.

This relevant article just came out today: http://www.triplepundit.com/pages/askpablo-land-use-changes-002571.php

Give your money to someone who really needs a hand. Support one of your local charities of your choice whose operating expenses are very low.

Carbon offsets. . .come on! I have a 1/2 a bridge in Oakland that I'll sell real cheap. Interested?

Q

I found this website that has some relevant information regarding a possible new way of trading carbon credits.

http://www.r2dot.org/article.pl?sid=07/10/26/1156228

Every credible eco-expert I know is strongly against all tree-planting 'off-setting schemes' - there is little evidence to suggest they work, indeed there's a great deal of evidence to suggest they do more harm than good.

There's no easy answer to tackling climate change and the idea that you can 'buy your way out of the problem by throwing cash at any off-setting scheme' is frankly a complete and utter shambles. Reducing climate change really isn't rocket science; quite simply we are using 3 times as much energy and materials as we should and everyone needs to cut down, most of all those in the Western world, because the carbon footprint of most people in the Developing World is practically zero - it's not the poverty stricken of the world who are to blame for climate change.

Anyone who truly cares about climate change should use common sense and do everything they can to cut down their carbon footprint - i.e. turn goods off and not leave them on standby when not in use, reduce the amount of goods and energy they consume, try wherever possible to use public transport or travel by foot or bicycle, buy goods that last and can be repaired, rather than any