Would you buy carbon offsets?

[Puppycow]

On my commute this morning I was listening to the BBC daily newspod and a bit about carbon offsets. A fellow was angry that British Airways had not made it very easy for its passengers to voluntarily buy carbon offsets. Personally, I would not buy carbon offsets because I am not sure if it would be a good use of my money. If I'm going to give to charity, I would rather give to one that I can understand well enough to be certain that it would actually benefit somebody.

[quixotecoyote]

I feel the same way. If we can figure out a way to do it that actually accomplished the intended goals, I have no objection to it on principle.

[Rolfe]

When I first came across the idea (in following up a local estate agent's surprising claim to be "the UK's first carbon neutral estate agent") I thought it was a scam. I still think so, though I'm open to persuasion.

Rolfe.

[WildCat]

Buy your way out of the guilt that comes with owning a McMansion and a fleet of automobiles! Then you can still drive your SUV to the global warming rally and cluck about the poor people who can't afford to strip every wall in their 1,000 square foot home to insulate it properly, while you use enough power in your life to power a small city!

It's the American way!

[Puppycow]

Buy your way out of the guilt that comes with owning a McMansion and a fleet of automobiles! Then you can still drive your SUV to the global warming rally and cluck about the poor people who can't afford to strip every wall in their 1,000 square foot home to insulate it properly, while you use enough power in your life to power a small city!

It's the American way!

What's the use of being wealthy if it makes you feel guilty? I suppose that if it makes people feel better, it could be argued that it is worth the money. Of course, the same argument could be made for psychics or homeopathic remedies.

I find it somewhat liberating to realize that it is not my fault that there is suffering in the world. It's too bad, but I didn't create the problems.

[Bikewer]

Although I have heard some evidently-reputable individuals promoting "carbon trading" and offsets and such, I must admit that it all sounds like a big shell game to me.

I'm a polluter, and it's vastly expensive for me to clean up say, my coal-fired power plant. So I pay for my pollution by giving money to an appropriately "green" industry.
This supposedly motivates me to clean up at some point....

Are these offsets and carbon-trading fees sufficiently painful to motivate me to clean up, or can I offset the "offsets" by a bit of price-raising and book-cooking?
(not to mention paying lobbyists to "work" with congress...)

[Overman]

History has seen something like this before... (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indulgence)

[Overman]

on a sidenote...

Hoth makes a good planet X.

http://www.theforce.net/swtc/Pix/chron/hoth6.jpg

[chulbert]

When I first came across the idea (in following up a local estate agent's surprising claim to be "the UK's first carbon neutral estate agent") I thought it was a scam. I still think so, though I'm open to persuasion.

After reducing your carbon output as much as reasonably possible you compensate for what's left by either planting trees or paying others to reduce their carbon emissions.

It's not a long-term or complete solution but it will in principle reduce net global carbon emissions. Some have doubts regarding its practical implementation but that's a different issue. Others have ethical objections but that too is a different issue.

History has seen something like this before... (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indulgence)

Carbon offsets are not at all similar indulgences. To see why, start with a proof of God's existence.

[MilwaukeeMike]

Hoth... Yes, maybe we can use Hoth instead of planet X from now on.

[Overman]

Carbon offsets are not at all similar indulgences. To see why, start with a proof of God's existence.

To see why they are similar, start with proof that buying a carbon offset actually improves the environment.

[chulbert]

To see why they are similar, start with proof that buying a carbon offset actually improves the environment.

That's a different issue entirely.

[Overman]

Not in my metaphor.

[MilwaukeeMike]

Someone answer me this; does buying the carbon offset actually reduce carbon emissions? Or does it just make somebody feel good about themselves?

[Overman]

^Depends what you buy...Most of the companies doing this are frauds, and then the science on it is difficult to judge, because of the indirect effects they may cause...

Either way it is a mute point, because people are buying carbon 'offsets', which supposedly just 'offsets' the persons negitive effect. It does not improve the enviroment.

[MilwaukeeMike]

^Depends what you buy...Most of the companies doing this are frauds, and then the science on it is difficult to judge, because of the indirect effects they may cause...

Either way it is a mute point, because people are buying carbon 'offsets', which supposedly just 'offsets' the persons negitive effect. It does not improve the enviroment.

That's what I thought. Thanks.

[chulbert]

Not in my metaphor.

Yes, it is. You're confusing two related issues. (I should not have called the "entirely" different. I'm sorry.)

The first is whether or not carbon offsets reduce total global carbon emissions. It should be plain to see that they do. If you plant enough trees to soak up the carbon you emit, your net output is zero. The fact that those trees might be on a different continent, professionally sold and managed by a company, is not relevant. Additionally, the fact that one or more of those companies may be fraudulent does not have bearing on whether carbon offsets work in principle.

The second is whether reducing global carbon emissions will "improve the environment." While this is an important question it is separate from the first.

[chulbert]

Either way it is a mute point, because people are buying carbon 'offsets', which supposedly just 'offsets' the persons negitive effect. It does not improve the enviroment.

If one compensates for their own negative effect with an equal or greater positive effect, how does that "not improve the environment"?

P.S. - Points can be moot, not mute.

[BPSCG]

Why can't I just plant a tree in my back yard and be done with it?

Here's a thought. We have a huge oak tree in our front yard. It's really nice to have until about mid-July (which is right now), when it starts dropping acorns, which signals the end of walking barefoot outside season. Then in October, it starts dropping leaves. Last year, I counted the number of leaves that it dropped and stopped around the third or fourth time I got to infinity. Those leaves have to be raked up, a job Mrs. BPSCG and I have not quite come to blows over, yet.

Plus, when I mow the lawn, I have to mow around it, instead of doing one nice long row after another.

So we're not sure this big old oak tree is worth it to us. We could cut it down and chop it up and have lots of wood for the fireplace, which we've never used.

I suppose cutting it down and burning it a little at a time would be bad for the environment, though, 'cuz it probably takes a lot of CO2 out of the air and burning it would put a lot of CO2 into the air.

So, since the net benefit of keeping this tree is greater for y'all than it is for me, I'm going to set up a PayPal account called SaveBPSCGOak@PayPal.com. If I don't see $500 in that account by September 30, when the leaves will probably start coming down, I'm getting the chain saw out. You want to save that tree and save the Earth? Make it worth my while. There's your carbon offset for you.

[Overman]

The first is whether or not carbon offsets reduce total global carbon emissions. It should be plain to see that they do. If you plant enough trees to soak up the carbon you emit, your net output is zero. The fact that those trees might be on a different continent, professionally sold and managed by a company, is not relevant. Additionally, the fact that one or more of those companies may be fraudulent does not have bearing on whether carbon offsets work in principle.

On comparing Carbon Offsets to Indulgences...

'It should be plain to see that Indulgences offset sins. If you do enough good deeds to counteract all of the sins you have done, your net output is zero. The fact that those good deeds might be done on a different continent, professionally sold and managed by a company or church, is not relevant. Additionally, the fact that one or more of those churches may be fraudulent does not have bearing on whether indulgences work in principle.'

And now you can understand how I was using my metaphor. It seems the same right down the line to me.

[Darth Rotor]

The first is whether or not carbon offsets reduce total global carbon emissions. It should be plain to see that they do.
That they might, if no one cheats and we have an effective global measuring/monitoring system that tracks the actual emission rate.

If you plant enough trees to soak up the carbon you emit, your net output is zero. The fact that those trees might be on a different continent, professionally sold and managed by a company, is not relevant.
There is some question on that, given wind pattern variation. A few months ago we had a neat discussion on Global Warming and Oceanic CO2 absorption the pointed to some curious variation between hemispheres, and the Indian Ocean in general. (Or I mixed it up with a Sci Am article, brain fuzzy.)
Additionally, the fact that one or more of those companies may be fraudulent does not have bearing on whether carbon offsets work in principle.
How they might work, in theory, versus how the implementation does or does not work, in practice. How often do theory and practice match in human endeavours, particularly when there is a monetary incentive to cheat? ;)
The second is whether reducing global carbon emissions will "improve the environment." While this is an important question it is separate from the first.
Yep. A tough nut to crack. Cutting global human population by 50% might be easier than implementing carbon offsets on a global scale without cheating, as horrific a thought as the former may be. However, in defense of the offset idea, not trying solves nothing.

DR

[Darth Rotor]

So, since the net benefit of keeping this tree is greater for y'all than it is for me, I'm going to set up a PayPal account called SaveBPSCGOak@PayPal.com. If I don't see $500 in that account by September 30, when the leaves will probably start coming down, I'm getting the chain saw out. You want to save that tree and save the Earth? Make it worth my while. There's your carbon offset for you.
*Clevon Little voice*

"Don't nobody move, or the oak tree gets it!" :cool:

DR

[Ziggurat]

Either way it is a mute point,

I presume you mean a moot point.

[Overman]

^I do.

But maybe a muted point is near the same? j/k...

[fuelair]

No! But, I would happily sell some to the credulous wealthy.

[MilwaukeeMike]

Why can't I just plant a tree in my back yard and be done with it?

Here's a thought. We have a huge oak tree in our front yard. It's really nice to have until about mid-July (which is right now), when it starts dropping acorns, which signals the end of walking barefoot outside season. Then in October, it starts dropping leaves. Last year, I counted the number of leaves that it dropped and stopped around the third or fourth time I got to infinity. Those leaves have to be raked up, a job Mrs. BPSCG and I have not quite come to blows over, yet.

Plus, when I mow the lawn, I have to mow around it, instead of doing one nice long row after another.

So we're not sure this big old oak tree is worth it to us. We could cut it down and chop it up and have lots of wood for the fireplace, which we've never used.

I suppose cutting it down and burning it a little at a time would be bad for the environment, though, 'cuz it probably takes a lot of CO2 out of the air and burning it would put a lot of CO2 into the air.

So, since the net benefit of keeping this tree is greater for y'all than it is for me, I'm going to set up a PayPal account called SaveBPSCGOak@PayPal.com. If I don't see $500 in that account by September 30, when the leaves will probably start coming down, I'm getting the chain saw out. You want to save that tree and save the Earth? Make it worth my while. There's your carbon offset for you.

That sounds good... I’m going to set up a pay pal account also in which I will decrease the fart output of myself and my dog by an additional 10% starting at $100, and in $100 increments... I warn you, once I reach 90% flatulence reduction that last 10% will be hard..

[Miss Anthrope]

I moved to a town where we could walk everywhere and my hubby could use the commuter train. Our town consistently wins awards from "green groups" because of how many trees we plant, and these are paid for by my property taxes. Since I'm now down to using one tank per month in my gas guzzling truck--rather than two tanks per week--I'd say I've done my part. I don't need to pay someone to do more for my guilt.

[MilwaukeeMike]

Since I'm now down to using one tank per month in my gas guzzling truck--rather than two tanks per week--I'd say I've done my part. I don't need to pay someone to do more for my guilt.

How do you pull that off?

[BPSCG]

I moved to a town where we could walk everywhere and my hubby could use the commuter train. Our town consistently wins awards from "green groups" because of how many trees we plant, and these are paid for by my property taxes. Since I'm now down to using one tank per month in my gas guzzling truck--rather than two tanks per week--I'd say I've done my part. I don't need to pay someone to do more for my guilt.But what about the poor people who can't afford to buy trees? Don't you have an obligation to help your fellow man?

Some of the property taxes I pay to The Democratic People's Republic of Alexandria goes to provide "affordable housing" to people who work in Alexandria but could not otherwise afford to live here, on the apparent rationale that having a poor underclass is good for a town. Maybe there should be an "affordable CO2 offsets" tax, too, to help people buy CO2 offsets, who couldn't otherwise afford them.

[Overman]

I moved to a town where we could walk everywhere and my hubby could use the commuter train. Our town consistently wins awards from "green groups" because of how many trees we plant, and these are paid for by my property taxes. Since I'm now down to using one tank per month in my gas guzzling truck--rather than two tanks per week--I'd say I've done my part. I don't need to pay someone to do more for my guilt.

What about the previous X years of your life?

[Miss Anthrope]

What about the previous X years of your life?

I didn't own a car until I was 26, it was public transit until then. I rarely fly, have always been good about the thermostat.

[Fnord]

IMHO, "Carbon Offsets" are just one more way that the Government has of separating people from their money.

Follow the money wherever it goes. If it is invested in ways to improve or protect the environment, then it is a Good Thing. If instead the money goes into a campaign fund, lobbyist organization, or a bureaucratic grease pit, then it's a Major Scam, which is a Bad Thing.

[Number Six]

I moved to a town where we could walk everywhere and my hubby could use the commuter train. Our town consistently wins awards from "green groups" because of how many trees we plant, and these are paid for by my property taxes. Since I'm now down to using one tank per month in my gas guzzling truck--rather than two tanks per week--I'd say I've done my part. I don't need to pay someone to do more for my guilt.

The town where I live sounds similar. People that live in town can walk or bike or take the bus where they need to go and they keep lots of green and trees in town and everyone feels good about it all. But the problem is that the number of jobs in the town is larger than the number of people that can live in the town and as a result many people that work here are forced to live farther away and have longer commutes. So while the people in town can say they're helping the environment directly, they're hurting it indirectly (although they don't talk about that part).

Somebody else asked how, if s/he makes sure his own carbon footprint is offset, how can s/he possibly be harming the environment. Well the example above is one way of indirectly doing so. If you live in such a way as to completely offset your own carbon footpring but that has the effect of making it harder for others to do so, then it hurts the environment rather than helps.

[Miss Anthrope]

How do you pull that off?

I walk to the grocery store. We walk to the commuter train. I walk the kids to their doctor's office. We walk to the park and the local activities for the kids. We made this decision deliberately. We lived in a suburb that required driving for everything. Even for my husband to take the bus downtown, I had to drive him to the transit center.

We found a place with a low cost of living (our house cost less than half what it would have in our old neighborhood), a great quality of life where we were not car bound. Instead of living in a Microserf riddled suburb that required driving for everything, we moved further away, to a small town on the commuter line.

The sad irony is the house we left had many, many trees on it's acre. Now those have been cut down, and townhouses will soon replace it. While we lived there, there was lots of green, and only one house using resources.

So once again, I don't feel guilty. I've never been big on polluting. I bring my own canvas bags to the grocery store. I recycle. I've gone from driving every single day to driving once per week. This ability to walk, and the "green" mentality of the town was the number one factor in my decision.

Some people buy "offsets". I actually changed my situation, and am raising my kids by example.

[Number Six]

The sad irony is the house we left had many, many trees on it's acre. Now those have been cut down, and townhouses will soon replace it. While we lived there, there was lots of green, and only one house using resources.

The people that will live in those townhouses were living somewhere else before. The comparison shouldn't be between one house on one acre with trees vs one acre of no trees and all townhouses. Rather the comparison should be between 2 people living on one acre with lots of trees and 48 people living elsewhere vs 50 peopl living on one acre of townhouses with no trees. I don't know how the comparison would come out, but I'm just saying that the comparison of fewer people vs more people isn't a fair one because if people don't live here then they have to live somewhere else.

It's a common theme where I live for people to fight any kind of housing development on the basis of saving the environment, as if preventing the development will mean those people simply won't exist. I don't get it.

[Overman]

I didn't own a car until I was 26, it was public transit until then. I rarely fly, have always been good about the thermostat.

What about electricity? Did it come from coal or some other type of power plant?

Do you eat meat? Gases released from Cows stomach's are a pollutant!

Do you buy your groceries local? Your other goods? Transportation of goods and services takes its toll as well.


I'm not calling you out or anything. In fact I'm saying that you shouldn't feel guilty. None of us should.

The world will always be changing, future generations will face different problems than us. We may be able to predict their problems from time to time, but even in large numbers it still is near impossible to change everyone on the planets habits. You can't stress it, or feel guilty about it.

[Earthborn]

IMHO, "Carbon Offsets" are just one more way that the Government has of separating people from their money.You are thinking of carbon credits, which is an entirely different cup of tea.

[WildCat]

The sad irony is the house we left had many, many trees on it's acre. Now those have been cut down, and townhouses will soon replace it. While we lived there, there was lots of green, and only one house using resources.
IMHO many people living in a small space is better than a few people living on a giant plot of land, environment-wise. If everyone in Chicago lived on a 1 acre plot of land we'd be sprawled all the way to Iowa. It'd be like... Los Angeles!

[Puppycow]

Here in Japan, I don't even own a car. I can get everywhere I need to by train, bus or walking. If I need a car I rent it, but I actually haven't done that in years. The idea is to save money more than to prevent global warming, I damit. The Tokyo area is pretty dense (I live in Yokohama, but the two urban areas are contiguous (there's no country in between.) Lately they've been building a lot of tower condominiums (they call them "mansions" in Japan), which are quite space-efficient and usually conveniently located. A bit like living in a hotel. Personally I live in a house because my wife wanted a garden, but it's a small plot of land. Land prices are really expensive here.
I think this is due more to geographical necessity than choice, although the country areas of Japan have been suffering from depopulation. Everyone young it seems wants to live in Tokyo or at least a major city. All the good jobs it seems are in Tokyo.

[gnome]

You are thinking of carbon credits, which is an entirely different cup of tea.

I am BEGGING for an explanation of this...

I think half the problem is some people don't know what "carbon offsets" actually are... so they make up their mind based on what they SUPPOSE it is... some envision a bureaucratic morass that sucks in money... some envision a shell game that doesn't really change anything... and some imagine something practical that creates a market for carbon reductions. So they'll comment based on what they imagine.

I am guilty of this myself... I need to know more.

[chulbert]

Carbon credits are permits sold by the government, in limited quantity, that entitle the owner to emit a predetermined amount of carbon. Companies typically buy these credits to cover their carbon emissions and avoid fines. Once the annual supply of credits have been exhausted, any company whose emissions are determined to be in excess of their credits will be fined.

Carbon offsets are currently a private and voluntary system whereby an individual, typically through a company specializing in this sort of business, pays to reduce the amount of carbon emissions elsewhere in the world in an effort to reduce their net emissions to zero. For example, they may pay to plant trees in a deforested area or subsidize clean energy in a developing nation.

[WildCat]

For example, they may pay to plant trees in a deforested area or subsidize clean energy in a developing nation.
Why am I picturing, say, a lumber company that has just clear-cut a forest selling offsets to plant trees that would have been planted anyway, only making money in the process?

[Scott Haley]

I recommend the Wikipedia article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_offset) on this subject.

--Scott

[Puppycow]

I recommend the Wikipedia article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_offset) on this subject.

--Scott

OK, I read it, but it doesn't really give me confidence. For example, if you simply left land alone, wouldn't it grow a forest anyway?

And if you protect one forest, they will simply cut down other trees elsewhere. Like squeezing a balloon, the demand for trees just goes to look for another supply.

Compared to a charity that provides vaccines to poor children, the benefits are much more uncertain. I would rather spend it on a family planning/women's empowerment charity. I think overpopulation is the root problem. These charities begin to address that problem. The more you educate and empower women, the fewer babies they have.

Financial Times investigation
In 2007, the Financial Times conducted an investigation of the carbon offsets industry.[21] Among the findings they reported were:

Widespread instances of people and organizations buying worthless credits that do not yield any reductions in carbon emissions.
Industrial companies profiting from doing very little – or from gaining carbon credits on the basis of efficiency gains from which they have already benefited substantially.
Brokers providing services of questionable or no value.
A shortage of verification, making it difficult for buyers to assess the true value of carbon credits.
Companies and individuals being charged over the odds for the private purchase of European Union carbon permits that have plummeted in value because they do not result in emissions cuts.

[Slimething]

I am not too sure about this global anthropogenic warming hypothesis. Although it makes intuitive sense, there is lack of direct evidence or reliable predictions or managment strategies for the problem. For now, I see that bit as an unamanageable problem and monetary contributions towards remediation of extremely doubtful benefit.

I am, however, fully against pollution of any type so I walk as much as I can. Keep my HVAC system on the minimal amount of time. Cook basic foods (not canned, processed stuff), plant trees, plant plants, etc. I don't see putting money in anyone's pocket as helping the problem in any way whatsoever. Especially seeing as how the Democrats (read the Green Party) in the US Congress just opened hearings into fraud in the carbon trading markets. (They're afraid that the current level of fraud will sink the battleship.)

I sincerely believe that using that money to upgrade the energy efficiency of what you operate to live as much better for the environment than giving it to someone you don't know to do something you don't know with it.

[The Painter]

Why am I picturing, say, a lumber company that has just clear-cut a forest selling offsets to plant trees that would have been planted anyway, only making money in the process?


Exactly. And why not?? I had the same thought. Maybe a landscaper in outer Whitelandia getting extra money for planting bushes and trees. How many offsets is a Red Maple or a Weeping Cherry worth?

[Rob Lister]

For each carbon credit you buy, I'll buy one of these

[Earthborn]

For each carbon credit you buy, I'll buy one of theseI guess you mean carbon offset. Buying a carbon credit allows you to increase your carbondioxide emissions.

[chulbert]

Why am I picturing, say, a lumber company that has just clear-cut a forest selling offsets to plant trees that would have been planted anyway, only making money in the process?

I think you've brought up an important point that hasn't yet been mentioned.

You're right, the company will make extra money for simply doing what they already planned. In fact, many of the earliest carbon offsets sold will represent reductions that were going to happen anyways.

However, once those are exhausted any unmet demand for offsets must be supplied with new offsets that represent reductions that wouldn't have otherwise occurred. Once those aforementioned trees reach maturity the lumber company will need to consider revenue lost by cutting them down.

[Overman]

I think you've brought up an important point that hasn't yet been mentioned.

You're right, the company will make extra money for simply doing what they already planned. In fact, many of the earliest carbon offsets sold will represent reductions that were going to happen anyways.

Read: Fraud

However, once those are exhausted any unmet demand for offsets must be supplied with new offsets that represent reductions that wouldn't have otherwise occurred. Once those aforementioned trees reach maturity the lumber company will need to consider revenue lost by cutting them down.

Actually, the Lumber company doubles by cutting down the trees, getting money for them, then just replanting new ones for even more carbon offsets.

[varwoche]

Why can't I just plant a tree in my back yard and be done with it? Trees in temperate latitudes are less effective than trees in the tropics, according to recent studies (http://www.sciencedaily.com/upi/index.php?feed=Science&article=UPI-1-20070625-10510400-bc-us-forests.xml).

[chulbert]

Read: Fraud

Not by any definition of fraud of which I am aware. Can you elaborate? Please be specific.

Actually, the Lumber company doubles by cutting down the trees, getting money for them, then just replanting new ones for even more carbon offsets.

This is a possibility; however, saplings offset less carbon than mature trees, which would reduce the number of offsets they could sell. Cutting down the trees would cost the company revenue.

[Slimething]

Not by any definition of fraud of which I am aware. Can you elaborate? Please be specific.

It's fraud on two separate counts:
1. The company selling the offset on the premise that the money will be used to perform an act that would additionally counteract global warming.

2. The company receiving payment which does not provide a service for it.

[Puppycow]

Not by any definition of fraud of which I am aware. Can you elaborate? Please be specific.



This is a possibility; however, saplings offset less carbon than mature trees, which would reduce the number of offsets they could sell. Cutting down the trees would cost the company revenue.

Even if you don't think it technically counts as fraud, you wouldn't pay your own personal money to pay a company to do something it would do anyway, would you?

Please read the quote from the article again:
Financial Times investigation
In 2007, the Financial Times conducted an investigation of the carbon offsets industry.[21] Among the findings they reported were:

Widespread instances of people and organizations buying worthless credits that do not yield any reductions in carbon emissions.
Industrial companies profiting from doing very little – or from gaining carbon credits on the basis of efficiency gains from which they have already benefited substantially.
Brokers providing services of questionable or no value.
A shortage of verification, making it difficult for buyers to assess the true value of carbon credits.
Companies and individuals being charged over the odds for the private purchase of European Union carbon permits that have plummeted in value because they do not result in emissions cuts.

[WildCat]

This is a possibility; however, saplings offset less carbon than mature trees, which would reduce the number of offsets they could sell. Cutting down the trees would cost the company revenue.
But what pulls more carbon from the air: a mature, old forest or a young forest? I would think a young forest, because there is far more undergrowth in a younger forest.

[The Grave]

NO!:mad: