While I like the idea of accounting for all costs when buying a product, I'm beginning to think that paying some third-party company for carbon offsets isn't the best use of my money.

Instead, I would rather put that money toward environmentally friendly projects that I will directly use: CFLs, green energy, efficient appliances, and perhaps a future solar or wind installation for the house. By investing in these things each time I buy something new or go on a trip, I'm not only helping to offset my carbon dioxide production, but I'm also saving more money on energy and living more lightly on the land.

Why should I send money to someone else so that they can reap the rewards of my investment? If I want to help others live a greener lifestyle, I'll donate money directly to a charity that is doing something I support. Heck, I can donate some of the money I'm saving on my bills by making my house more energy efficient.

Mark,

Thanks for this post. Carbon offsets are obviously a source of debate and it is important to keep the conversation rolling.

It is clear that there needs to be a universal rating system in the voluntary market; however, the major issue in my mind is that carbon offsets are an intangible commodity. You never see them, own them, or feel them. Consumers are generally incentive driven and look for some sort of immediate gratification from their spending. When consumers pay out-of-pocket for an intangible commodity, it is in our nature to feel scammed or ripped off.

In response to your comment

"it just seems impossible that the carbon problem will be solved at $2 per laptop;"

We need to realize that funding future clean energy projects via carbon offsets is not THE solution; however, it is a means TO a solution. It is a means to build awareness of the impacts we leave behind through our daily activities as well as understand the various initiatives to curb those impacts.

Clean Air, Cool Planet released an interesting guide to consumer level offsets. There are, in fact, various levels of offset quality and credibility and it is a great resource to start understanding them. http://www.cleanair-coolplanet.org/

Before we discredit the entire carbon offset market, I think it is important that we take the time to understand it and distinguish the companies that are in it for more than just the $$$.

Carbon offsets are certainly under attack from both sides of the political spectrum. Rush Limbaugh has openly mocked them, and leftist blogs have condemned them as "indulgences." What we really need to do is to take them for what they really are - a PART of a solution.

I have a favorite quote made by FDR: "It is common sense to take a method and try it. If it fails, admit it frankly and try another. But above all, try something."

Find me an environmentalist. Any environmentalist, really. I would prefer one who drives a car run on biodiesel, buys only organic food, recycles, and uses phosphate-free laundry detergent. Now, I guarantee you said individual still has a carbon footprint. In fact, it's still going to be a carbon footprint that is obscenely large compared most people in the developing world (including China, on a per capita basis).

Even if we make all of the sacrifices we feel possible without completely rejecting society, there's no way to go to zero. What we CAN do is offset the rest of our footprint. Carbon offsets are effective - their simplicity and "cheapness" is testament to what an inefficient society we live in - a society where the smallest investment in efficiency or forest restoration can have dramatic climate benefits.

There is so much anger, however, from those who were "Green before it was trendy." Imagine the person in the previous scenario - someone who has taken tremendous pains to minimize their impact on the earth and are feeling pretty good about themselves. Then one day they're driving down the road in their veggie-car and see a hummer with a bumper sticker that says "Look at me, I care about the earth because I paid 100 bucks to wash away my carbon sins." Suddenly the anger wells up and this anger is used to lash out on offsets.

I think the anger comes from losing the moral high ground - it just isn't fair that one can strain themselves for the planet and the other has to simply write a check.

I have a message for everyone - 2007 is the beginning of a green revolution, but are we really ready for what it's going to look like? Most Americans say they're concerned about the environment, but wouldn't label themselves as environmentalists. This is no time for those of us who feel we've been doing our part being green to be pious. I, in fact, feel the need to celebrate when I see a hummer with an offset sticker. It means that person has made a choice to do something about their impact. Green-thinking is going mainstream and backlashing against those who aren't as green as we are is a terrible way to grow a revolution.

We need to welcome any and every solution. From corporations to Joe-Six Pack: Carbon Offsetter. Imagine the green community when NASCAR fans decide to offset their pick up trucks. If you find the concept of an offset sticker next to a rebel flag in the deep south disturbing, then you should ask yourself if you want a solution or if you want the moral high ground.

Offsets do, in fact, make a difference. Clearly some providers are better than others, however, no one can argue that doing something is better than nothing. We have to make a start somewhere and encourage positive action when we see it. Carbon offsets are a good step in the fight against climate change, though they clearly aren't the end-all solution. As for me, I'll take every victory the earth can eek out. I'd rather see 50 million carbon offsetters than a 100,000 bio-diesel cars.

I’d like to second Adriaan’s points and add a few more details. Carbon offsets can definitely play a key role in helping us reduce net greenhouse gas emissions.

To do that, obviously, they need to meet some strict standards (click on the link to "offset criteria"). For example, indirect reductions from energy generation don’t qualify. Real offsets also need to exceed business-as-usual (reductions need to be greater than would have happened anyway). Other important conditions are that the approach avoids leakage (it makes sure the pollution doesn’t just move elsewhere) and deals with issues of permanence (for example, trees can burn or get cut down, which is why many valid offset programs have nothing to do with planting trees).

Certainly not all so-called offsets meet these criteria, but we can’t ignore the ones that do. (For a list of some of these, visit the "More About Offsets" page above and click on “more about the selected projects”.)

As you’ve correctly pointed out, though, you need to know how much to offset. That’s really hard for a consumer who is trying to offset emissions from manufacturing! Fortunately, you can have a lot more confidence in what to do about emissions from other personal choices. For example, at fightglobalwarming.com you can calculate emissions from much of your daily lifestyle – driving, home energy, and air travel. There are simple steps you can take to reduce those emissions. And then through a valid offset program you can cut your net emissions even further.

Offsets aren’t the only answer, of course, but we need them in our toolbox as we tackle climate change.

Lisa A. Moore, Ph.D.
Climate and Air Program
Environmental Defense

There is a sizeable group of people who view consumption itself as a moral issue. Imagine, however, that our world's resources were replenished nightly, and our pollution was magically nullified upon emission. In that scenario, consumption and waste are not bad at all, they are simply a means of going about your life.

Now, of course the world is not anything like that, and consumption and waste do have actual effects. But, carbon offsets allow consumption and waste to effectively have no moral meaning for an individual: witness Al Gore's hugely consumptive and wasteful lifestyle that he offsets. This is true because--and this is the entire point--someone elsewhere has cut back on their consumption in order to balance your own (in an exchange-type offset system).

If that system works as advertised, then this allows "real people", the type who without some serious peer-pressure would never consider cutting back if it inconveniences them, to achieve much of the ends that more conservation-minded greens are after. Very much unlike reformation-era Indulgences, carbon offsets actually do something for those people who don't really have any guilt in the first place.

I use carbon offsets as a step I can take right now to reduce my impact. Then, as I move forward I can chose to make purchases (or not) that move me towards conservation and away from consumption. But for now, I'm stuck with my gas-guzzler, my mandatory commute, and my inefficient heating and cooling.

So, though I am certainly a green, I can't always make my lifestyle match with my philiosophy, and that's where carbon offsets come in. Carbon offsets don't buy me peace of mind, they buy me time.

What a disappointing post. Critics of carbon offsets seem to know that they don't have to say anything substantive on the topic -- they just have to raise enough questions and insinuations to make the whole idea seem somehow seedy. Unfortunately, as this post demonstrates, it's generally an effective strategy. Let's take a look at the issues raised:

the schemes are not regulated

This is true. Of course, this is true of almost all businesses and non-profits, other than in the most trivial sense that we all operate within a legal framework. So what is the point here? Does the author have any knowledge of the standards process underway in the industry? Is the author aware of any of the accountability mechanisms employed by reputable vendors?

the price and method of offsetting varies wildly from one offsetter to another

This is a feature of the industry, not a problem. Solar photovoltaic installations are more expensive than wind turbines. Dairy farm methane digesters have a different cost basis than landfill methane flaring projects. There isn't one single solution to global warming, and neither should their be one single price or method for offsetting projects. Again, what is the point of this criticism, other than baseless insinuation that something seedy underlies the pricing variations?

the model is at best a marketing ploy, at worst a system to extract loot off of consumer guilt

Why don't you tell us how you really feel? Call us crazy, but we think offsets are neither a marketing ploy nor a system for loot extraction, but rather an economic tool for funding carbon dioxide reductions. You do realize that the end result is a reduction in carbon dioxide reductions?

And critics really need to reconcile themselves with this notion of "guilt." Is guilt good or bad? I can never tell. It seems to be good when it leads to actions the critic likes, and bad when it leads to actions the critic doesn't approve of. Car guilt is good. Offset guilt is bad. Or something like that.

particularly damaging are the for-profit intermediaries such as Terrapass who openly proclaim they're in it for a buck

Mark, you sort of give up the game with this one. TerraPass, of course, has never proclaimed any such thing. This statement is flatly false, and you should know that it is flatly false, given how much of my own time I devoted to answering your questions about TerraPass.

having guilt converted into a fiduciary instrument is just plain wrong, and having consumers foot the bill for every infrastructure crisis that comes along isn't right either

And making baseless accusations on topics that you don't properly understand is also just plain wrong. Carbon offsets are not a fiduciary instrument based on guilt. I don't think the 196 countries that signed on to the Kyoto Accord believed they were setting up a guilt-based economy. Neither are consumers footing the bill for an infrastructure crisis. If they are, we're doomed, because the voluntary carbon market is pretty inconsequential compared to the $20 trillion in energy infrastructure investment that will be spent globally in the next three decades.

Rather, the voluntary market is an additional tool available to consumers who want to mitigate their impact. You, of course, are free not to participate. That's the great thing about a voluntary system. In the meantime, please get your basic facts straight.

Adam,

I think you are rehashing what we covered over at the Terrapass site. You signed off on the discussion after giving me your understanding of the issue. I thanked you, you thanked me. Based on the information you gave, I came to these conclusions.

Terrapass is doing carbon offsetting to turn a profit. You repeatedly state this, you are a for profit corporation, you have investors, etc. I know you have a mission-centric model, you have explained that, but you did not convince me that that is any different from any other business model.

I think I'm raising questions here that Terrapass has never thought of. After looking into it as best I could, exchanging guilt for money is what voluntary carbon offsetting is all about. IAnd do think that the medicine is worse than the cure.

m

The problem is that your conclusions are absurdly tendentious and many cases flatly wrong. You say that TerraPass "openly proclaims they're in it for a buck." This is a smear. I co-founded TerraPass, and certainly I never proclaimed I was in anything "for a buck," for the simple reason that this isn't true. There are a lot of good ways to make a buck. Selling offsets isn't one of them.

You say that "Terrapass is doing carbon offsetting to turn a profit." This is a backwards and misguided notion of how business works. TerraPass is selling carbon offsets in order to reduce carbon emissions foremost, and secondarily to educate individuals about climate change. We attempt to turn a profit so that we can continue to pursue this mission -- otherwise our organization will cease to exist. Saying that we're in this for a buck is like saying non-profits are in this to grab grant money. It's biased, misinformed, and lazy.

Hi Adam,

Thanks for posting. You have to realize that when you assume a leadership role you're going to get critics from all angles.

I agree that "for a buck" sounds pretty dramatic. I'll change it to 'for profit'

m

Carbon Offsets may be effective in mitigating global carbon emissions but do nothing to mitigate the effects of localized emissions which polute cities and foul the air. I live in LA, where even if every poluting car was off set by a tree planted in Brazil, we'd still have smog filled air and aching lungs. And while I appreciate a capitalist solution to problems, there needs to be a local element to carbon offsets in order to ensure that real improvements are made in the environments of the most poluting cities rather than simply preserving or expanding forests in far off lands.

Criticism doesn't bother us. We criticize ourselves all the time, and we we fully understand that there are a lot of legitimate debates regarding carbon offsets.

But you have to realize that when you make false or poorly reasoned accusations, you are going to get called on them. You have a large audience here at Treehugger, and it behooves you to inform yourself about the topics you are writing on.

People reading this thread might be interested by my recent post about offsets:

http://www.treehugger.com/files/2007/03/carbon_offsets_i.php

Hi Adam,

Hey, I'm game to respond to this if you are.

Carbon offsets sell people a intangible product based on feeling. There is no reason to buy them, it's only because I feel that I should is why I do. I call that feeling 'guilt'. It might be something else, but - and this is key - COs are generally sold in connection with another product. Setting up this juxtaposition suggests people buy for guilt-related reasons. Now Dell has changed this, you can now buy offsets for any reason.

How does one sell such a product? Well, I would argue it's through marketing. Look at bottled water, thats mostly a marketing thing, equating bottled water with health. Or diamonds, equating diamonds with love. You connect the emotion to the thing. And COs have to do that to have value. Once you are there, it's pretty easy to turn it into a cash machine. Again, diamonds, bottled water. You don't have to, but you could.

Ok, the profit thing. I'll give you that you might not be there to 'turn a buck', in fact, I'm sure you work very hard and are conscientous about the whole thing. But Terrapass cant be there to spend profit and do carbon offsetting, you have to be there to make profit and do carbon offsets. There's no other way, long term. Now maybe you can cap your profit, etc. but you do not do that. I mentioned before that this is damaging, as is not revealing your cut or overhead ratio, because the fact is
people care about these things, because people buy COs on nothing except feelings. There is literally no logic to buying COs in my opinion. None!

Mark,

>>There is literally no logic to buying COs in my opinion. None!

Are you calling all people that buy offsets illogical??
Because a lot of people are buying them...and some have thought through the issues pretty carefully.

And if TerraPass were not-for-profit, would it make any more sense? You've paid considerable attention to the fact that they are for-profit. Where would salaries come from if they were not? They would still have overhead costs--and they'd be more dependent on unpredictable outside sources of money.

Mark,
You are obviously not a person who purchases carbon credits, so let me enlighten you:

As I said above, I purchase carbon credits (from Terrapass, coincidentally, I'm not affiliated with them in any way except for being a customer) because it is a means for me to reduce my impact on the environment, and is in fact the most cost-effective way to do so in my current situation.

I don't buy them because of guilt, but rather because I am seeking to do my part to help improve the state of this world. It's an optimistic attempt to improve things, not simply to assuage some vague guilt I may feel because of my lifestyle.

Are you calling all people that buy offsets illogical??

>>I'm not saying these people are illogical in general, but I am saying the decisions to buy offsets is an emotional one, and not governed by strict cost-benefit rules. There is nothing wrong with this, people buy by brand names all the time, in fact most of our purchases have some emotional element to them. It is 'not logical' in the fact that you personally don't get anything for your purchase except a feeling, whereas with most purchases you actually get a physical something.

And if TerraPass were not-for-profit, would it make any more sense? You've paid considerable attention to the fact that they are for-profit. Where would salaries come from if they were not? They would still have overhead costs--and they'd be more dependent on unpredictable outside sources of money.
>>Yes, I think it makes more sense to be transparent when you are making money off the transaction. How would you feel, for example, if 70 to 85 percent of the money you sent to Terrapass went towards their bottom line, not the carbon offsetting project? That seems high doesn't it, but according to the Tufts study thats what other for-profit companies such as Carbon Neutral and Clean Air Pass are making off these types of transactions. Now compare that to Dell's program, where you are guaranteed that 100 percent of the money you give goes right to the carbon offsetter.

I don't buy them because of guilt, but rather because I am seeking to do my part to help improve the state of this world. It's an optimistic attempt to improve things, not simply to assuage some vague guilt I may feel because of my lifestyle.
>>I think this is a good idea, to link carbon offsets with hope instead of guilt. In fact, this is why I think Dell expanded their program, so that their carbon credits were not just available when you bought something. But like guilt this is an emotional argument too.

Are there any carbon offset companies that focus 100% of their money to deploying solar/wind/hydro power generation and/or plasma gasification?

I feel that planting trees, while a nice incremental way of capturing carbon, is not nearly as good as deploying generating capacity that stops that carbon from being created in the first place (avoidance is better than offsetting).

Obviously, this method may encourage consumption, but that is an issue that needs to be addressed separately.

To encourage conservation, I would love to see a federal tax on power consumption - lets say 1/4 to 1 cent per KwH - that would be used to install renewable energy capacity and/or fund consumer-based conservation programs (i.e. $xx mail-in rebate or tax credit toward an energy star fridge, or low-flow toilet [water is a precious resource also] or toward installing their own solar panels). By taxing power consumption, there is incentive for EVERYONE to consume less.... and for those that are rich and just want to buy their way out (note that I have no issue with that), that's fine too. Their high consumption will help pay for renewable capacity. I personally don't care if someone wants to consume a lot of power, so long as they are paying into a program used for renewable generation.

I'm not a fan of the green community's class warfare - if someone makes a lot of money and wants a huge house, dimmable lights (i.e. non-CFL), landscape lighting, pool heater, jacuzzi, etc, etc, that's totally cool in my book. If I were rich, I'd want those things, too! What I am a fan of is setting up a system where everyone pays into a green program based on their consumption - high consumption = high percentage of the bill. Heck, maybe the government could set up the program in a fashion that the first 500KwH per month is tax-free to further encourage low usage and save money for the "little" guy that's already doing their share. A program like this would get everyone paying into a program - which would make a HUGE stride in long-term decrease in carbon emissions.