My Views on Carbon Offsets [Updated]
by Michael Graham Richard, Gatineau, Canada on 03. 9.07
Dear reader, as you know TreeHugger is a group effort. We are not a monolithic entity, but rather a diverse group of people from all around the world working together to bring you all kinds of green stories that we found interesting. Over the past two and a half years, we've written quite a bit about carbon offsetting (see Wikipedia article for a primer).
The topic is controversial these days and I'd like to share with you some of my views on offsets. Speaking for myself and not for TreeHugger as a group. More after the jump.
The way I see it, offsets are a tool. Not good or bad in itself, it all depends on how you use it.
The chronological order in which things should usually be done goes something like this:
1) Question, Information: Do you know what you are doing, what are the impacts and what are the alternatives (if any)? Have you asked yourself: "Do I really need this?"
2) Reduce, Re-Use, Recycle: When you finally make an informed decision to do something, try to minimize its impact with the three Rs.
3) Mitigate: Then come the offsets. Once you've done your best, offsets can be used to "mop up" what's left until you can find a way to replace what you're doing with something that doesn't have the negative side effects that require the offsets in the first place.
The main problem (I see a few others, but I'll keep them for another post) with offsets is that when you look at them from far enough away, as just part of a system, you can see that they might not be the most efficient use of our resources (cash, human and technological capital) to achieve the objective of reducing ecological damage. The investment that we make in them might not give us, in return, the biggest environmental benefit that we could get from that investment.
But that's the difference between theory and practice. In practice, I understand how they can be the best tool available in certain cases...
In theory, it is much better to invest upstream and fix the problems at their source rather than to try to clean up the symptoms downstream.
For example: If you invest X resources in updating the manufacturing process of laptop computers so that they use less materials and energy, that they contains less toxic heavy metals and that they are made in such a way as to be easy to recycle, you have one big capital investment and then you reap the benefits of that action for as long as you make laptops. As we wrote before, efficiency works forever.
But if you use that same X amount of resources in offsetting the negative impacts of all that energy and material use, and of all those toxic materials, you only offset these impacts for a limited amount of time. As more laptops are built, you have to keep offsetting and that will eventually add up to more than what it would have cost to just fix the upstream in the first place. And if you wait while offsetting and do the fix later, you have to pay the capital cost to upgrade your process plus the costs of offsetting. That's inefficient.
So the most cost-effective way for society as a whole to do things seem to be to fix the upstream as soon as possible.
But in practice...
It is up to governments and corporations to decide to do the capital investments to clean up the upstream. If for some reason they do no see the benefits of cleaning up their act sooner rather than later, the "fix the upstream" option is out of reach for the average person who wants to help and all that's left is downstream measures, offsets being one of them.
That's why it's so important to send a clear signal to governments and corporations: "If you build it, they will come." Clean up your act, and it will be good for your brand and your bottom line. You will be a leader, not late to the party (or become obsolete). It doesn't take a visionary anymore to know in which direction things are moving. Your products will have a true added value, and as the green wave that is currently starting to swell in the mainstream turns into a green tsunami, "clean" will be a serious competitive advantage. And don't try to fake it either: That can only work for so long, and as more and more people become familiar and enthusiastic about "green" concepts, the backlash against the deceivers will become more and more considerable.
TreeHugger wants to make "green" mainstream, because once the public gets it, the politicians and corporations will follow the votes and the money.
But back to offsets:
They are not perfect, but they are 1) Better than nothing, 2) they can still be improved -- it's not because something is imperfect that it should be thrown out -- and 3) their success is a signal of what people want.
Most individuals are not on the board of Dell and can't vote to have them upgrade their processes to clean them up, but if Dell sees that people are ready to go as far as offset the impact of their computers, that means that there's definitely demand for clean computers. Once Dell (used as an example here, but it could be any corporation or government) knows there's a demand, a market for it, they just need to realize that they are in a better position than individuals and offsetters to deliver, and that they could be making that money instead of offsetters. They control the upstream (the "they" also includes governments because they can create frameworks and regulations that encourage clean innovation), so it's their decision, but they do not live in a vacuum, we influence them.
So that's part of my view on offsets. Please share your thoughts in the comments below.
Update: Thinking some more about this, I came up with what I think would be the best offset method with the strongest incentives for people to join and the best benefits to the environment.
The concept is simple: Create a clean energy project (wind farms are the most cost-effective choice for now, but in a few years solar and wave will catch up) and sell shares. Once the capital cost of the infrastructure is paid back, the profits are distributed among shareholders. A bit like WindShare in Toronto, but on a larger scale and not limited to local investors.
That would have a similar impact to some of the current offsetting companies who invest in clean energy, but the incentive to buy would be much bigger and thus more clean energy capacity would be built. The offsetting company would be offering buyers their expertise in planning and managing a project and so would keep a management fee from the profits, but ownership would be spread among more people (I'm sure that owning part of a wind farm would have a certain psychological impact too).
Why do I favor clean energy? Because planting trees or buying carbon credits to retire them form a carbon market (f.ex. the CCX) won't generate profits, so you don't have the shareholder incentive, and because increasing clean energy production capacity is an "offensive" move against global warming and pollution and it helps drive the costs of these clean technologies down while the other two are more "defensive" (though important too).
Thanks so much for putting offsets in perspective. One thing that worries me about them, though, is that people who don't follow green issues really think they are offsetting their impact, that they can just pay a little money for their environmental damage and it will be erased. As part of my project--No Impact Man, in which I try to make as low an environmental impact as possible for a year--I have given up air travel. People actually say to me: why give up air travel, can't you just buy an offset? They don't get the concept that damage still gets done. So my concern is that the promotion of offsets kind of puts people back in their trances where they can forget about how the way they lead their lives might hurt the planet.
Coincidentally a few hours before you posted, I had a similar issue/question about offsets. You got a lot more detailed of course, being the green geek on the block. well said and cleared up some issues for me.
I do still feel there is a danger though that this method of "buying your way out of jail" can breed a lacksidasical way of thinking. Oh i did bad, i'd better pay some money. But it is true, that the lemmings need a leader, and offsets can be that leader that will hopefully steer them away from the cliff.
Great article! I've bought offsets before for stuff like airplane trips and whatnot because I agree that they are better than nothing. But I always feel a bit odd doing it, as if I am purchasing indulgences from the pope or something... :)
One cool thing to do if you want to "offset" something you aren't ready to change about your lifestyle (like me flying to see my mom and Dad several states away a few times a year) is to help someone else save energy. I'm about to replace a bunch of traditional lightbulbs in my church as a personal donation--if I do enough, it will be kinda like an offset for a flight, but it feels more "real" to me....
i do not think that there should be a profit for the offsetters. the rich people and countries builded up climate change and environmental damage but the developing countries are the most suffering from it. so offsetting should directly support them in handle with the threats we did and still do to them. the profit should be theirs. this is why i do not only favor clean energy and efficiency projects in the developing world. i view them as the only legitimate way of offsetting.
as far as i see treehugger hasn´t reported on the german atmosfair (http://atmosfair.de/index.php?id=9&L=3) yet although it has been mentioned in some comments. i think their approoach to offsetting is the most sincere and transparent right now. i highly recommend a review.
they say: "The best thing for the climate is not to fly at all. Before the Wright brothers, people got along fine without airplanes, and today too, there are real alternatives to flying" and suggest examples of climate friendly holiday alternatives.
Beyond not generating profits, planting trees is simply not a long-term solution. Trees are a temporary stoage medium.
I love your idea of using "carbon offset" money to fund "carbon REDUCING" projects - geothermal, solar, wind... heck, maybe even pay for a plasma gasification system to generate power AND reduce landfill space. Not sure how your concept of ownership/profit sharing would work - but that could be another path to fund these sort of projects.
While carbon offsetting is a wonderful concept, and I applaud the start of the industry, we certainly need to provide feedback and encouragement to improve the process. I am concerned over the low pricing, but getting people involved with the current pricing is a wonderful way to introduce the concept. To fund projects mentioned above, pricing will have to me magnitudes above what they are today - 5-10x more. I find it hard to believe I could pay a couple hundred bucks to offset all the carbon a house and two cars produce.
Again, I want to applaud the industry for getting a start on this issue, but encourage them to move away from planting trees as a method of offsetting.
Brian
By the way, my wife and I have been steadily implementing our plan to reduce our energy usage. We have upgraded to a 16-seer HVAC system, installed a tankless hot water heater, and will be replacing our old dishwasher and washer/dryer in a month or two. Future projects include increased attic insulation (can do this now that HVAC is installed), replacing single pane windows and buying a much more efficient vehicle when ours die off. We're working the efficiency angle as the carbon offsetting industry gets itself organized.
While I have done little investigation into this concept, the one thing about offsets that has always felt wrong to me is that money is involved. Not that spending money to offset impact is, de facto, wrong, but rather that the introduction of money, and potentially lots of it, into the system opens it inevitably to fraud. When you buy an offset, your money goes off into the ether supposedly for good uses. BUt who really knows.
Before anyone gets hoping mad, I'm not accusing anyone of anything. I'm simply expressing curiosity and concern over the issues that, in most other "charity" endeavors has lead to fraud and theft.
Has treehugger ever investigated this possibility?
I am against offsets because they are just like putting a band aid on a deep cut. It won’t solved anything. I agree with your assessment that manufacturers are part of the equations. I think the argument that since we do not have the technological solution right now, we will permit offsets is a short sight view. The three R are not done on the larger scales in industries and governments. We have to rethink the way we live, produce and consume not to let big polluters buying their way out.
"I think the argument that since we do not have the technological solution right now, we will permit offsets is a short sight view."
Actually, we do have the technological solutions right now (unless you can tell me what's missing? A few things need incremental improvements, but we know we can do that fast if we really pushed for it). They would just require some leadership and fairly big capital investments, but in the long run, that's the best thing to do.
I too think that carbon offsetting is a great idea, but like kim says, it's a band aid.
Fundamentally, carbon offsetting is merely a way for us to buy ourselves time. We can slow the increasing concentration of CO2 in the air, but we'll still reach the tipping point, only a little later.
I'm not saying that buying time is a bad thing. We only have to look to ourselves to see that we often need to buy time to reorganize our way of being. Look at how a person fighting cancer may need surgical removal, chemo & radiation to push back the development of the tumors so s/he can have the time to make the necessary changes to his/her lifestyle - food, physical activity, stress, emotions, relationships, etc.
The carbon offseting, like the cancer therapies, is a wonderful gift that buys us time. The goal is to use that precious time to make real change - carbon reduction. If we don't make real change, we'll see the problems grow everworse - just like a cancer that will more likely relapse if no lifestyle changes are made after treatment.
I have hope that we will not lose sight of this ultimate goal. I have hope that we'll soon realize that our growing attraction to carbon-offseting will wane and that we'll value more our need to reduce our carbon output.
Don't get me wrong. I believe we still need to make a transition to more efficient power & transport systems. That, however, still doesn't address our increasing appetite for power & petrol. At this rate we could claw back all the gains we'd make in efficiency and emit more than ever before.