Offset Companies Targetted Again
by Sami Grover, Carrboro, NC, USA on 08.20.07
[Update: See end of post for Climate Care's response]
It looks like the UK’s offset companies are again being targeted by climate change protesters. The Climate Camp, which disbanded yesterday, and which we covered here, here and here, has now spread out to continue its direct action against what they describe as ‘the root causes of climate change’. In addition to blockading the offices of the British Airport Authority, BP, and a private equity firm funding the expansion of Leeds Bradford Airport, two groups of protesters dressed as red herrings have simultaneously also occupied the offices of Climate Care and the Carbon Neutral Company (whose offices were previously occupied by protesters back in February). Protesters explained their choice of targets as follows:
"Carbon offsets are ineffective, based on dubious science and lead people to believe they are helping when they are not - the concept and the practice are a con," said Sophie Nathan, who is taking part in the Carbon Neutral Company invasion. "Real climate action involves taking direct responsibility for personal emissions levels as well as engaging in political organisation for wider change."
While we do, to some degree, understand protesters concerns about offsets becoming an excuse for inaction, we are concerned about the dogmatic, black-and-white approach they are taking. Protesters repeatedly make claims that offsets are ‘a con’, that they ‘do not work’, and that they are only about making a fast buck, while dictating what ‘real climate action’ is, as if they are the only authority on this matter. They also regularly repeat the assertion that offsets are akin to the medieval practice of buying indulgences for your sins from the Church – an entirely emotive argument that bares little relation to how offsets work.
We suspect that part of this opposition is down to ideological rather than practical reasons – many protesters are wary of companies that seek to make money from climate change. However, money being a strong motivating factor in this society, and time being short to bring about a revolution, smash the capitalist system, and come up with a viable alternative (something that people have been trying to do for some time now), we tend to think that understanding and using market forces wisely to direct funds towards the most effective emissions cuts can only be a good thing. That’s not to say that offsets are an end in themselves – cutting emissions at source, and engaging with political structures to tackle the perverse incentives for climate destructive behaviors must be absolutely top priority. Protesters are assuming that this is an ‘either/or’ scenario – there is no consideration of the possibility that, when properly regulated, managed and communicated, offsets can be an effective way to engage folks in climate change, raise awareness of their own emissions, and build up knowledge, understanding and motivation for wider personal and political change.
While there will certainly be companies that are less than scrupulous out there, from our discussions with offsets providers we know that many are motivated, committed and thoughtful folks who are working extremely hard to cut emissions as best they can. The science is young, and they will make mistakes along the way, but they are well aware of the need for credibility and accountability within the industry, and are bending over backwards to achieve it. They know only too well the limitations of offsets, and see themselves as the thin edge of a much larger educational ‘climate wedge’ in people’s lives. Whatever protester's views about what constitutes 'real' action on climate change, we suggest that their cartoon-like depiction of all offsetters as villains who are just 'conning the public' is as unhelpful as it is inaccurate. We suggest that the next Climate Camp may do better sending folks elsewhere. For our thoughts on offsets done right, check out our guide on How to Green Your Offsets.
[Update: Climate Care have just issued a press release responding to protester's allegations - the following are excerpts:
"Activists holding a protest at the offices of leading carbon offset company Climate Care were invited inside for a cup of tea and an amicable discussion on the role of carbon offsetting in tackling climate change. Climate Care commended efforts to encourage more government action, and received acknowledgement from the activists that Climate Care’s work was a genuine attempt to cut carbon emissions and had many strong arguments in its favour."
"Carbon offsetting is not an excuse to pollute: carbon offsets are a way of taking responsibility for unavoidable carbon emissions, just as recycling is a way of dealing with unavoidable waste. Offset providers need to communicate this clearly but it is the responsibility of those buying offsets to use them responsibly. Where there is a carbon footprint – and even the most Green have one ! – it should be offset. There is little evidence that carbon offset services encourage people to continue polluting, and all the evidence that Climate Care has points to the opposite effect – that offsetting helps to engage the majority of the public and give them a concrete first step in taking responsibility for their impact. A survey of our own customers showed that 93% saw offsetting as part of an overall effort to reduce their impact on the climate and that 90% had done one or more of the following: driven less, flown less, made their home more energy efficient."]
::Climate Camp:: via The Guardian::
Hi Sami,
As a fellow writer for TH who has written about the issue, I obviously disagree. I have never gone so far to say that Carb Offs are a con, but there is plenty of evidence of shoddy business practice; saying its 'a new market' and they just don't know what they are doing yet is really giving them the benefit of the doubt. And in the case of at least one big carbon fund, it is increasingly suspect that it is in fact an out and out scam.
Of course the indulgence argument is valid - why else would CO providers juxtaposition their product with the sale of the 'bad' item, the air flight, the trip, etc. It is the sales practice itself that is emotive, not the critical argument.
Ultimately I do think COs reduce some bad gas, and I don't particularly like the 'dressing up as fish' idea. But I do agree with the rationale behinds CC initiative, that overall these offsetters are wasting people's limited time, money, and patience on the topic. There are many environmental groups that are seemingly desperate to find anything tangible to point to and say, beyond the shadow of a doubt, "green". Carb Offs are not it.
----------
Author's comment:
Thanks for the thoughts Mark. By saying it's a new market, I certainly wasn't suggesting that this excuses failures to offset, but my experience of looking into reputable offset companies has shown me that they are very careful about accounting for GHG reductions, and factoring in a certain rate of failure for individual schemes, to make sure emissions reductions overall are credible and accountable. That's not to say there aren't scams out there, and I am also aware (as are many in the offset industry) that one big fund is definitely looking more and more dodgy by the day. However, these criticisms of offsets are about matters of bad practice, and inadequate transparency/regulation, and not a condemnation of the concept itself, IMO.
My problem with the indulgences argument is basically the same as Rob's - medieval church indulgences were essentially a way to raise money for the church, with no action being taken to remedy the original sin (unless, of course, the church can directly have a word with higher powers to assuage people's bad behavior). Offsets, on the other hand, take funds and turn them into demonstrable reductions in GHG's. Yes, some do this better than others, and yes, some companies may be scamming the consumer - but that is merely an argument for more careful vetting and regulation of the players, not an argument for abandoning the game.
An annecdote, that doesn't exactly prove my point, but does reflect the complexity of these arguments: I once spoke to a climate change protester who was vehemently opposed to carbon offsets. They did, however, have family on the other side of the world, and therefore took the occasional flight to see loved ones. When asked how they felt about this, they said they bought compact flourescent light bulbs and distributed them amongst friends, as a way of attoning for the emissions they created. I failed to see how this was different to paying for CFLs in the developing world, except emissions reductions per $ spent would be higher with offsets, and those receiving the bulbs would be in greater need of them, and less able to afford them. Of course, the personal engagement of handing out bulbs does have something going for it too, but it is not inherently better.
Either way, I think most folks in the offset industry that I have spoken to are very wary of becoming a fig leaf for inaction, but really want to inspire much greater change. I expect to see the quality offset companies moving further and further away from the 'carbon neutral' language, and instead marketing themselves as a service that helps people to cut emissions, both at source, and in the wider world.
There is a company that will completely offset all of your CO2 emissions for the whole year, car, home everything, for $109. So there you go, we can all keep driving Hummers, run the hell out of the AC, and all we have to do is pay someone $109 and it all goes away. I don't know what they do with that money, but who cares? Keep on consuming to your hearts content with no more guilt whatsoever.
Indulgences were offered by the Medici popes because they were crazy to raise as much money as possible. Indulgences were offensive because the immortal soul is viewed as a priceless thing. They were certainly a terrible warping of the Church's doctrine.
However, with offsets we're basiclally talking about a voluntary tax to remedy a problem of vast but tangible size and scope. If there is humbug and sharp practice, by all means expose it, but how many people do you know who otherwise pay voluntary taxes like this?
BBHighway:
It seems to me that you are a customer like all the others. What are you doing that is benefitting the environment when you are running your computer?
Yes, it would be great if everyone would just stop driving their SUV's, running the TV day and night, Dry cleaning all their clothes, running their A/C constantly, and living in a 3,000+ sf home. I have news for you: You will not change people by forcing them into a corner and ramming facts and figures into their brain. They need education. Carbon offsetting is an educational step to inform the uninformed about climate change and gives them an opportunity to give back. This is all done in hopes of opening their eyes to how their lifestyles affect the environment.
If this is not a movement in the right direction I am interested in how you would change the world and what you are doing about it right now.
Arguing against a movement is simple, finding the solution is the difficult part. Protest all you want, but if you really want to change the world why don't you start with educating your neighbors and supporting the community instead of bashing every attempt to improve our situation.
I have seen for myself, first hand, the benefits of the carbon reduction projects we fund.
Work like that of our project partner in India the IDEI, which promotes foot-powered water pumps, is already benefitting from the market for voluntary offsets. There is so much more amazing work that stands to gain if more people pay for their carbon emissions.
Critics of offsets so often respond by saying "we should fund these anyway, but not in connection with our own carbon emissions". But it is naive in the extreme to think that charity or even government funds can provide the necessary global investment to cut carbon emissions as fast as is needed.
That is why most commentators agree that we need some form of global carbon market. If we are to 'be the change we want to see in the world' we should support its development, and that means offsetting your own carbon emissions.
A bit more 'systems thinking' from the anti-offset lot might lead them to change their minds, and see offsets as an opportunity to encourage systematic economic change. Appeals to switch the TV of standby are not enough!
A final thought....
To fit a 2 kW solar panel to my house will cost around £12,000, and save less than 1 tonnes CO2 per year. The same £12,000 could fund over 300 foot-powered water pumps, saving over 200 tonnes CO2 per year and helping transform the lives of hundreds of families (and make them better able to cope with the effects of climate change and rising energy prices).
The climate doesn't care where the carbon savings are made. It is immoral not to spend our money where it can make the biggest impact.
(For more info on the water-pump project see:
http://www.climatecare.org/projects/countries/india-treadle/ )
Michael Buick
Communications Manager, Climate Care
One thing I never understand about offsets, perhaps someone can explain:
If I pay a company £100 to offset my flights for a year, they will put that money into a developing country, where they will perhaps buy 100 CFL bulbs. OK so far.
But if someone asks that developing country "what have you done to reduce your emissions?", they cannot say "we bought 100 CFLs", because that reduction in energy will already be accounted for in my country. So if they did count it, it would be recorded twice.
So do offsets mean that developing countries can' t really "do their bit"?
-------
Author's comment:
From my understanding, this is one of the concerns with carbon offsets - so called 'double accounting'. However, this is one of the major issues that is being addressed by the various standards that are being developed. I believe, for example, that Climate Care will only invest in projects in the UK that do not count for the country's Kyoto targets, basically because those buying offsets want to know it goes above and beyone what would have ahppened anyway.
Perhaps Michael from Climate Care can explain further?
Michael,
Couldn't you also fund 300 foot-powered pumps in the UK?
That would mean that emissions made in the UK, are balanced out by reductions in the UK.
Why are indian farmers happy to replace diesel with hard, manual labour? When I imagine UK farmers might not be so enthusiastic?
I just get very confused by the accounting. Basically under your example, what is viewed to have happened in the UK? An increase in emissions, a decrease or has it stayed the same? (Or does it vary depending on what the person buying the offset was doing?)
Remember the Multiplier Effect? Look at a Divisor Effect....buying a CFL bulb with offset revenue maybe should not be double-accounted, but the energy saved by the CFL over an incandescent, and the energy infrastructure not built or depreciated because of the energy savings should definitely be accounted for...
I think carbon offsets are selling salvation. Are they cleaning the air? Well, trees do, and wind power stops some furture coal burning, so in effect, they are doing "good." But do they offset CO2 emissions from a jet aircraft or a cross country road trip? No.
I think if people want to donate money to support green energy sources and reforestation, let them. People donate to causes all the time to make themselves feel better. Their intention does not stop their donated dollars from feeding a starving world citizen, helping a disaster refugee, or creating clean energy.
I think the fact that people are making a profit from carbon offset companies is part of what really bothers some. But, what is the difference between a carbon offset company, Toyota, Tesla Motors, or Wal-Mart for that matter? They sell "green" products for a profit. Just as the local organic farmer does.
I view carbon offset companies as a red herring myself, but I will not argue against more trees or wind power or the like.
'If I pay a company £100 to offset my flights for a year, they will put that money into a developing country, where they will perhaps buy 100 CFL bulbs. OK so far.
But if someone asks that developing country "what have you done to reduce your emissions?", they cannot say "we bought 100 CFLs", because that reduction in energy will already be accounted for in my country. So if they did count it, it would be recorded twice.'
I work in carbon trading. Double counting is only a problem if it could lead to the double selling of emission reductions or allowances. Double counting or emission reductions cannot occur in developing countries as they do not have an emission's cap under kyoto.
An offset project in the UK might reduce the UKs target below it's kyoto allowance, meaning it could sell allowances to another country to meet that country's obligation. This is double counting and therefore double selling. Which is why you do not see many legitiamate projects in developed countries.
This is a subtle different from the double counting that Sami elludes to - which is a project or retail provider selling the reductions twice. And this is why there are a number of standards coming into place. Although because of the size of the market (ie small) this practice is highly infrequent and improbable especially with the major players. This would lead to considerable commercial liability that any company would want to avoid.
If a country has an offset project or CDM project initiated then how can it say it has reduced? they just says that they have engaged in the international carbon market to produce reductions that otherwise would not have gone ahead. Nothing wrong with that.
The carbon market is complex, the issues are nuanced and it is not black and white. The protesters essentially have an ideology problem with capitalism. If they had an understanding of reality they would see that (like it or not) we all (yes even them) operate in an ecnonmy that is based on the fact that every one acts in their own self interest (monetarily speaking). A carbon market is an ideal way to price carbon into our lives and encourage behavoural change. One question the the protesters should answer is: if people are going to pollute (which unforunately they will for years to come) should they not at least pay for the right to?
Carbon offset companies are a for-profit business so I'm wondering how much of a percentage do the companies take off the donations they receive? If a company pays $1,000 to offset pollution and the offset company takes 20% then the actual donation going to offsets is $800. However the company providing the cash can greenwash their efforts saying they donated $1,000 implying that entire amount will go to carbon reduction.
Then when that $800 goes to a company to develop a wind turbine how much of a percentage goes to that company's profit. If they shave off another 20% for themselves then only $640 actually goes to the carbon reduction project.
So really, how much is actually going to offset carbon rather than just going into someone's pocket? Here's some better solutions. Go buy some CFLs and distribute them to people who don't have them in exchange for their old lightbulbs. Or pool together with some office mates and use those offsets to buy a more efficient fridge for the breakroom. At least you know where your money is going and what effect it is having.
Thank you fizzyfazer, that makes it clearer to me (well, a bit anyway!)
When you say "Double counting or emission reductions cannot occur in developing countries as they do not have an emission's cap under kyoto." does that mean they are viewed as having no impact on the climate?
Your point that people should pay if they pollute is a good one, as I feel the debate should be turned round to say "You get the benefit and convenience of high fossil fuel use, You should take responsibility for the emissions you produce" Unfortunately as most schemes are currently optional we are a long way from this.
Does anyone think we could get to a point where it is the same CO2 allowance per person, regardless of whether you live in Sierra Leone or the US? That is truly fair, surely?
Hi MY,
sorry - that was misleading, it should have just read that 'double counting cannot occur in developing countries' - excluding the words 'emission reductions'. The reason it cannot occur, is becuase the country does not have a cap under kyoto, therefore the reduction cannot be counted and sold twice.
The reduction can count towards how the country is doing, in terms of it's total GHG inventory if necessary - it's for what purposes the counting is taking place, not the counting in principle.
It's a red herring to say that because it's an emission reduction (offset) project, that the reductions can't be counted by the host country - they can, as long as it does'nt interfere with other GHG accounting. (like AAU kyoto allowances at government level)
FOR DOUG - I have to say, this is an extremely naive view of offsetting. When you buy a product, you want to know that it works before you buy it, otherwise you wouldn't pay for it. A reduction of 1 tonne of CO2 is just that - a product that you want to know has worked ie been verifed and the project validated by a third party (in most cases accredited by the UN). When you donate £10 to a charity - have you got any idea what happens to it? maybe 90% (probably much much less) is given to a project in Africa - great you think, but what benefit is that £9 giving to the project? how do you quantify that benefit. When dealing with climate change projects you can quantify the benefit -, we know what we're measuring - CO2 reductions.
What I'm getting at is this. (this figures are do not necessarily reflect real life) a project might receive say $4 a tonne for it's reduction - which might be sold to you at $10. net profit by the retailer might be say $1.
Whether you pay $10 or $6 for your offset is not important (to the project), what's important is how much CO2 you have claimed to offset. A statement from a company who says 'we have spent $1000 on offsetting' is meaningless to everyone. If they said we have offset 1,000 tonnes of CO2 - then great, the cheaper they are able to buy it at the better (that's the market for you). just becuase the company is for-profit makes no difference, it might be slightly more expensive or it might not. Many corporations can be much mroe efficient than not-for-profit (and if it is more expensive it may just be due to VAT being added). There is no reason why a not-for-profit will give more money in absolute terms to a project - personally I'd be happy to pay for a company to profit if it was working in this field.
The project will get enough funds to help it go ahead, if they were given too much then that would be as much of a problem as if they were not offered enough (adding to profits...i hear the protester chant). needless to say, a project will not enter into a contract unless it will provide the project with enough funds for continuing operation.
Now, if i distribute CFLs to some people I know as you suggest Doug, how do I have any idea how much CO2 I've reduced? I won't be able to be sure will I? the project design, monitoring and verification of emission reduction projects is highly complex - and it's this complexity that brings additional sectors and costs into the equation - it's not as simple as 'how much money goes to the project'
By giving out a few CFLs I have no idea how much I've reduced, half the people might then sell or give their old incandescent bulbs to their neighbours, or they might put them in the bin and a tramp picks them up and sells them on (a situation called 'leakage' in the carbon world - easily gotten rid of in this example by your word 'exchange') - it's not as easy as it sounds (and you then have to equate electricity usage with carbon dioxide emissions).
The devil is in the detail, and unfortunately it is easy to miss this detail out when considering offsets and the carbon market. The press do it, polarised protesters do it - they're all so sure they're 'right' - (and that requires an entirely different post for an entirely different website!) I see the protesters concerns, it's a shame they do not appreciate potential benefits of offset and the carbon market (which are the same thing)
sorry - a slight after-thought to the above - for DOUG.
the more a company can claim it has paid for offset, the better. (the cheaper the better for the company, but not the better for the environment)
The whole point in a carbon price is so that companies and individuals internalise the cost of their GHG emissions. So the more they have to pay for their polluting, the more likely it will be their behaviour will change. This is the principal of the EU-ETS, which despite problems, looks as though it will no provide the correct incentives for reductions.
An example - If an energy company has a coal fired power station and a gas fired power station, it would rather sell energy from the coal station, because coal is a lot cheaper. if however the price of coal + carbon price (through market or tax) is more than the cost of gas, then they will use the gas generator, thus reducing emissions by a considerable amount.
This principle can work with examples ad infinitum.