Carbon Neutral Myth? Protesters Take On Offset Companies
by Sami Grover, Carrboro, NC, USA 
on 02.25.07
Having hit the headlines for my purchases of carbon offsets, and my transatlantic romance, this Treehugger is now a little concerned that I’ll come home to find activists chained to my front door. Earlier this week, London Rising Tide, a group of climate change activists, occupied the head offices of the Carbon Neutral Company, one of the leading UK offset providers. The protesters were seeking to highlight what they call the ‘Carbon Neutral Con’. While the group acknowledges that many people purchasing offsets are doing so ‘with the best intentions’, they argue that offsets amount to little more than guilt-relief for high polluting lifestyles. They drew attention to a recent report from Carbon Trade Watch, entitled The Carbon Neutral Myth, which compares carbon offsetting to the practice of the medieval church selling ‘indulgences’ to absolve sinners. Some of the protesters’ objections are technical (for example they question the ‘future selling’ of emissions savings, or the ability of trees to ‘lock up’ CO2), and could therefore be answered by stricter rules and better practice. However, they also claim that the whole concept is flawed, that it encourages fossil fuel use, and that it distracts from the urgent need to find alternatives:
“If we compare the planet to a running bath, full almost to the brim with CO2, to offset CO2 emissions is like saying “I won’t turn off my tap. I’ll pay someone else £10 to pay someone else £2 to turn off their own tap.” (Guess who pockets the change?) The reality is that we need to turn off both, if we’re to have a chance of cutting CO2 emissions by 50% before 2016 (which is the single most important task facing you and me, right here, right now in 2007.)”
The action was set to coincide with the All Party Parliamentary Committee on Climate Change that is being chaired by the Carbon Neutral Company. Rising Tide claim that the Carbon Neutral Company’s involvement is tantamount to privatization of the committee process, and argue that it is nothing but a distraction from the deep systemic changes that are needed to fight climate change.
Sue Welland, a spokesperson for the Carbon Neutral Company, told the BBC that Rising Tide’s accusations were inaccurate and unfounded:
"This group (Rising Tide) has never asked for a meeting with us, so we don't know what they do, and I don't think they know what we do. What we do is help companies measure and reduce their emissions; and where they can't reduce their emissions, we help them offset. So we're a carbon management company, not a carbon offsetting company."
This distinction between carbon management and carbon offsets is an interesting one. If offset companies really can engage with their customers, help them to reduce emissions at source as much as possible, and then offset the rest while they seek even larger reductions, then they are probably providing a valuable service. However, there is no question that they do also help alleviate people’s guilt about polluting, and can therefore act to prolong damaging behaviors. The idea of offsetting a private jet flight, or an unnecessarily inefficient car, seems somewhat absurd to me, but then one person’s ‘necessity’ is someone else’s luxury. I’m sure there are plenty of people who would question my 'need' to fly to see my then girlfriend, now fiance, and I can understand their reasoning (though they obviously haven't met her!). I personally feel that as long as Governments' fail to put an appropriate, and substantial, tax on airline fuel (something I would fully support), along with other restrictions on aviation emissions, and funding into alternatives, then I should at least do my part to take responsibility for my choices - offsetting is a small step in that direction. Maybe I'll get a chance to swap ideas with those opposed when they barricade my front door…
Follow @TreeHugger on Twitter & get our headlines with @TH_rss!
Thirsty for more? Check out these related articles:
- Quickly Calculate The Carbon of Your Flights
- Green Demolitions Recycles Your Junk, Helps You Find New, Energy-Efficient Appliances
- Find Your Dinner at the Farmers' Market: Peas and Prosciutto
- Take it from a Beatle: Cut Your Carbon Footprint by Making Mondays Meat-Free
- Build a Greenhouse without Going Broke
- Green Glossary: Meltwater
The protest has the look and the feel of Luddism. Oddly, though there are no looms to trash this time, it comes from the same continent Mr. Ludd lived upon back in the day.
This is what I love about activists. Instead of trying to encourage people who are at least looking at making a change, they sneer and screech at anyone who doesn't meet their ideals to the point where people just up and say, "Enough of this noise; it's not worth the grief."
We're planning on posting on this protest over on our own blog, but some half-baked thoughts while I digest this story:
The fact that this protest is misdirected isn't to me the most interesting aspect of this story. Yes, it seems a bit odd that climate change activists feel tiny carbon offsetting companies are the best targets for their attention and energy. But I think there's a really important message to this protest that we carbon offsetting companies would be very foolish to ignore, which in a nutshell is something like this:
Good intentions are not enough. Even good effects are not enough. Carbon offsetting companies have to be sincere in their efforts to incorporate offsets into a broader strategy that includes personal conservation and governmental action.
Perhaps this sounds obvious, but it's really not. When you're running a small company, it's very tempting to focus on the fundamentals. Of course we should all conserve, but is it really TerraPass' job to browbeat our customers about their driving habits?
But the fact is, contrary to strawman stereotype, people who purchase offsets are deeply concerned about their personal impact and looking for ways to reduce it. To the extent that offsetting companies can be a true partner in that effort, we will be successful. Otherwise, we can look forward to more protests.
Adam Stein,
Co-founder, TerraPass
Well I have been sitting on the fence as far as offsetting is concerned. When the concept first arose, my initial response was "great, lets pay someone else to allow me to pollute instead of fixing the problem" keep in mind this was a gut response, I do realize there is more to this than that. As this year has passed, I have seen more and more events and companies use offsets as "green advertising". Lifetime Fitness Triathlon comes to mind. I compete in triathlon and would have much rather seen them reduce the carbon emissions and other wastes from the race than offset it. When it comes to personal offsetting, sometimes there is no other way for you to reduce the environmental impact. Flying across large bodies of water is an example. So in that sense offsetting makes sense. I will be traveling for a family gathering later this year and while everyone else is flying in I will be taking a train. This is doable, and it reduces my impact. Will I be offsetting? doubtful. Financially it is not "doable" for me. So while I would like to see large organizations address their environmental concerns in a more direct fashion, offsetting on a personal level does have it's uses.
I share concerns about the guilt-minimizing of offsets. However, I want to engage another issue - the expense of buying offsets. It is astonishingly inexpensive to offset carbon use, and anyone who can afford a car or to fly can certainly afford offsets.
An example: I'm coordinating a 2-day conference for 325 people, and offsetting all the cross-country flying for 5 presenters, driving for attendees, conference center emissions, food emissions, publications, office time preparing, and everything else we could come up with a cost just under $300.
Offsetting every activity in my own life (I live in Minnesota - heating my 1/3 of my apartment is the biggest single CO2 producing part of my life) costs under $100/year.
That offsetting is a sham - that's a reasonable excuse. Given my experience, not offsetting because it's expensive only makes sense if one is truly living in poverty (federal definition for an individual: $10,210 income per year).
It really looks like the entire carbon trading / offset purchasing scheme has totally collapsed. Carbon credits -- to put it mildly -- are now a buyers market.
In April 2006, the price of carbon indulgences in the European Union Emission Trading Scheme (EU ETS), the largest emission market in the world, was 30 euro per ton of CO2 emissions. However, in May 2006, the price decreased a little bit, more precisely by a factor of pi - below 10 euro per ton of CO2.
In November 2006, when the price was still around 9 euro per ton, it was predicted to fall to 2 euro per ton. This seemingly bold prediction was realized at the beginning of February 2007. However, the price continued to approach the actual market value, namely zero.
Yesterday, the EUA (European Union Allowances) price closed at €0.93 for 2007 Futures. The price correction by a factor of more than 30 in the right direction and in less than one year is a sign that the free market kind of works.
Oh, wait. I just checked: Today, one ton closed at €0.85, a ten-percent decrease per day.
Now, given that information, I challenge anyone to declare that the whole purchasing of "offsets" and "carbon credits" is not a scam, which targets well-intentioned, yet gullible people.
Latest market prices here:
http://euets.com/index.php?page=marketdata&l=1
In many ways, we are all complicit in the 'Cult of the Good Idea' until we raise our voices as to its lunacy.
One user mentioned Luddism. Luddism?! This is completely different scenario, not with occupational hazards on the line, but rather the continued impact of the world's largest producers of C02 conveniently outfitted with a bureaucratic method of _not_ reducing their emissions.
To not question how the "Good Idea" could be the death of us of all (or at least our gradual degeneration) is to ignore the necessity for strong, hard-hitting analysis of climate change- not obfuscation as to the perils and inadequacies of this "gee whiz" system.
Anonymous,
The price of carbon under Kyoto has nothing to do with whether the offsets are a "scam." The low price under Kyoto reflects both the fact that the emissions baselines were set too high, and the fact that the treaty is naturally winding down (it expires in 2012). Setting the baseline too high is unfortunate, but it's an implementation flaw in Kyoto, not a fundamental flaw in the notion of a cap-and-trade system.
Also, you're confusing allowances with offsets. This is a very important distinction. The "indulgences" criticism is pretty bogus under any circumstance, but it's especially bogus as applied to allowances. Allowances are simply a form of carbon tax, and there's nothing "indulgent" about charging people for polluting.
- Adam
The collapse of the European carbon trading scheme is due to overgenerous free allowances, even from nations ( I won't mention Germany) that lecture other countries on their shortcomings. That still doesn't mean 'offsets' are valid. Tree planting type credits are highly unreliable; 'clean development' type credits may or may not slow emissions growth but they certainly don't bring immediate cuts from current levels. We want the atmosphere's GHG load to reduce, starting now, not to grow a bit less than it would otherwise. Travel less, travel slower, use renewable energy, but don't waste money on 'offsets'.
I am trying to find where the money re-distributed from the wealthy, free, industrialised nations to the undeveloped nations actually goes. Does it go to, say, Darfur, to rearm the government troops to control population growth and religious factions? The past forms of re-distribution of wealth were used in a similiar fashion. Those methods both have an effect on reducing the 'Carbon Footprint', Methane rises for a short time of course. Just curious.
The answer to Mr. Anonymous's comment is simple. Since companies have obviously had no trouble adapting, and the few that haven't have no incentive to, is to raise standards. Lower the allowed amount of carbon.
Tree-planing offsets are one of the bigger red herrings in the debate over offsets. It is true that tree-planting projects are unreliable sources of offsets. It is all true that of the 1,661 offsetting projects that are taking place under Kyoto, only 5 are forestry projects. Forestry is just not a meaningful part of the mix.
Blogengeezer, offsetting projects have nothing to do with Darfur. Most money from offsetting projects goes directly to renewable energy production in the developing world.
For a detailed spreadsheet of all the Kyoto projects, look here:
http://www.cd4cdm.org/Publications/CDMpipeline.xls
I just got "tuned in" to the carbon offset discussion a few days ago. What I have noticed so far is very predictable. The Professional Carbon Offsetter is defending carbon offsetting -- it pays the bills. The Professional Conference Convenor is defending carbon offsetting as it helps justify the carbon emitted in bringing people together -- an activity that probably pays the bills. The Professional Carbon Offset Watch group is critical of the Carbon Offset Professionals -- it pays the bills. Due to the complex nature of the way we live (and earn a living), we need specialists -- professionals who generally defend what they do in order to earn income to pay the bills. Unless we change the system (something mentioned briefly in the Professional Carbon Offset Watch Group report), reducing our carbon emissions will only happen in a marginal -- rather than meaningful -- way. The discussion that needs to take place should center around how to change the system.
Oh man. It is protests like this that make me embarrassed to call myself an environmentalist (just like the Greenpeace protest of Apple in NYC). It seems like there is a lot more low hanging fruit they could be working on. People who buy carbon credits are usually already doing other things to lower their impact, but living a zero impact life is nearly impossible these days, so people offset the rest.
Myself? I'd rather make my own investments in clean energy (like buying solar panels) than just give the money away.
The one thing I'd like to bring attention to is this excerpt:
"However, there is no question that they do also help alleviate people’s guilt about polluting, and can therefore act to prolong damaging behaviors."
Guilt is hardly the pinnacle of empowerment. Personally, I tend to find guilt debilitating. As a member of Drive Neutral, I hardly feel "off the hook" for my role in climate change. Never has it occurred to me that I would not turn off lights, drive my car, or any other carbon generating activity as a result of my membership. Quite the opposite; I feel more informed on the issue and all the more dedicated to make greater strides in reducing my carbon footprint.
The guilt card has done nothing but damage the environmental movement. It has alienated many from taking on critical issues because they are coated in such sin laden mentality. Yes: we need a lot more in addition to carbon offsets to combat climate change. However, if protest is the chosen vehicle of action, I'd recommend these folks consider the Exxon Mobil headquarters and the anti-global warming advertisements they've helped finance like Carbon is Life.
The overall idea here is that we need to reduce co2 and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. People are tuned into that and want to help in any way possible. This is a good thing. People are rising up who have never risen up before and for the first time are putting the preservation of the planet before their wallet. It's extraordinary, and wonderful. It needs to be encouraged. How do we encourage it? How do we have a transparent system that allows individuals or organisations, who want to reduce their emissions, to know exactly how their cash is contributing to the reduction of greenhouse gases. How do we make people aware, when they are inspired with a new found environmental ethic, how to, for example, choose renewable electricity companies to power their homes and make other lifestyle changes that will cumulatively have an impact on global warming. How do we praise and encourage companies who genuinely want to be part of a sustainable economy for it's own sake, and demonise the green washing bandwagon of companies who are into it for the marketing potential only? Until these carbon trading systems and branding schemes are regulated and open and until praise is heaped upon those who deserve it we will remain in the situation where those of us with the best of intentions are faced with this quagmire of a system that only serves as a barrier to a movement that should be being encouraged. The answer is quite clear i think, individual carbon trading allowances, set at a realistic level (unlike the mis calculated european emissions trading scheme). This would allow hippies everywhere to sell credits to high consuming international traveling individuals, thereby lining environmentalists pockets with cash, and taking it from the rich, planet destroying, carbon creating business elite. We could call it the "Robin Hood Tax" and use the money to replant Sherwood forest!?....or something.....
What you can't reduce, you offset.
Offsetting is the RETIREMENT of carbon.
A offset company will sell you a carbon credit which can never be sold again.
Change takes decades, you can have all the concerts, movies, and political champions you can handle, but the truth remains, we have a climate crisis, politicians protecting their economies, and a confused public that want to take action, but feel unsure or lazy.
The general public will not rush out tommorrow to purchase the latest hybrid car, nor will they lash out and purchase the latest solar panels, and they won't reduce as much as they should. why? because life is habitual, safe, easy, and besides we all wait until everyone else knows what to do before we act. On top of this going green and staying green eventually involves a solid investment for the new hybrid car or solar panels, etc, and the return isn't as fast as what people would usually expect.
Offsetting allows people to act now, in an affordable & powerful way, that in effect empowers the exact people we need on the task. These people or organisations usually have the singular focus which is the successful reduction of CO2 emmissions to in turn generate a credit for sale. This keeps them hungry, rewarded and established in an industry that will only evolve futher and futher.
Offset companies facilitate the sale of the credit to the consumer and are meant to provide a iron glad insurance that all is legit. The Offset provider should always have a third party audit done on the behalf of it's customers, to ensure a sense of transparency. At present like any emerging market "cowboy" companies rush in with fastly co-ordinated products and base marketing ploys.
Legislation would help drown the cowboys, but I actually believe legislation needs to take place in the credit generation industry and not so much for the offset providers. I'm already starting to get tired of the "we plant a tree for you gag".
As a global community we can not afford to lose offsetting as a legitimate aid in the fight aginst global warming.
If every social and environmental problem could be solved profitably then this forum would probably not exist.
Leaving aside trees; Carbon Credits are simply a mechanisum that allows emissions reducing technologies to compete on a more even finacial playing field. For example Carbon Credits allocated for renewables help renewable electricity generators compete with those burning coal.
By investing in Carbon Credits you will help the development and increase penetration of the particular technology. Investing in Bio-fuels credits should ultimalty drive greater investment into bio-fuels and increase teh volume of production.
The question over which credit is best probably relates more to your impact. If you are a high fuel user it would be wise to purchase bio-fuel credits. THe more credits purchased the more bio-fuels that will be produced, ultimatly making it more attractive for retails to supply it at the pump.
Which is a better credit, which is better for the environment?.1 tonne reduced through Renewable energy for $50USD vs one from energy efficecny for $10.00 vs $100 equivilent per tonne to install your own solar. All 3 will reduce one tonne, 2 through the replacement of energy with renewable sources and 1 through stoping that energy from being used all together. Considering Bang for your buck if you are considering the more expensive options then maybe you shold consider 5 or even 10 of the energy efficency credits.
"The cleanest for of energy is that not prodcued'
The difficulty I have with the activists is that with carbon credits (but really, with all of their gripes) the ball needs to get rolling. Yes, there are loopholes and cheaters and guilt-assuaging going on, but there really are people who are committed to making a positive change.
There are people who are doing their best to reduce their carbon footprint and, after all of that, they choose to purchase offsets.
Instead of screaming into the darkness, how about getting the activists "poilicing" the supposedly high quality offsets? Why don't they contribute by making sure that the offsets available have value?
Hmm?
There seems to be an assumption by some of the posters above that carbon offset schemes purchase carbon credits from the emissions trading scheme on behalf of the contributor, and those credits are then removed from the scheme for all time. But that's not the case. The majority of these schemes simply use your money to fund certain projects which they calculate will result in reduced emissions. Most of these calculations are bogus, because many of the projects would have happened anyway and therefore don't result in *any* cut in CO2 emissions.
These are not charities, they're businesses: they make a profit, which goes in a bank (who invest it in oil companies), and pay tax to the government (to pursue policies like massive expansion of air travel and roads).
Even if you find a scheme which does purchase ETS credits, you need to be sure that it also *destroys* those credits so that they cannot be re-sold at some later date, rather than just storing them up. There are only two organisations that I'm aware of that do this:
Carbon Retirement (a business), and Sandbag (a campaigning organisation which recognises that, given that the market is flooded with an oversupply of free permits at present, recognises that in the short term campaigning for tough reductions in the numbers of permits handed out may be a more effective strategy than entering the market)
My gut feeling is you get (or rather the planet gets) more for your money by making a donation to an environmental charity involved in front-line work to protect rainforests than you do giving it to a business to plant new trees (which are then unmanaged and probably die within 10 years...) or part-fund projects which would have happened anyway.
Excuse me for being irreverent here, but these protesters are ridiculous because they are harming the very progress they claim to advocate.
carbon offsets are not perfect, but they are actual. It has taken some time for the capacity building to take place and investments to work out for reliable offsets to reach consumers.
But before people like Adam Stein and the fellows at terrapass or the CarbonNeutral Company began popularizing the notion of carbon neutrality, there was no such thing as fighting climate change. Reducing emissions was an option only open to elitist ideologs who could afford to live in a tree, or survive without transportation.
I would like to know how many trees these protesters have planted, or how many acres of open space they have protected with conservation easements, or how much renewable energy capacity they have built and connected to the power grid. They probably have nothing to show for their efforts, except a couple pictures on the internet holding signs. Get real! Get a Job! Work for change, don't sabotage the movement.