I guess this is vaguely funny, but I also think it’s really unfair. It surprises and disturbs me that many environmentalists think Cheat Neutral is so clever and are willing to completely discount a potentially valuable tool in fighting climate change.

It should be obvious why offsetting cheating isn't analogous to offsetting carbon emissions, but given the enthusiasm people have for Cheat Neutral, I suspect it may not be. So, here’s why: • The pain of cheating is mostly limited to the person who was cheated on. Paying money to someone else obviously does nothing to alleviate this pain. In contrast, carbon is carbon wherever it is emitted and one’s specific carbon emissions don’t harm anyone in particular.* If you have actually reduced equivalent carbon emissions elsewhere (a big “if,” admittedly), it really does neutralize your climate impact. • Cheating on a significant other is widely considered to be unethical, while most of the actions that produce carbon dioxide are not in and of themselves considered unethical. As a result, one might find the concept of cheating offsets to be repugnant, but find carbon offsets to be perfectly acceptable. • Cheating is avoidable and, unfortunate as it may be, carbon emissions often aren’t.

These folks are also providing misleading information. In the video, they imply that all offsets involve rich countries paying poor countries to reduce emissions. This isn’t necessarily the case at all. Similarly, their website suggests that “there is currently no practically feasible way of measuring how much carbon offset projects actually save.” Again, this may be true for some types of projects, but it’s not necessarily true of all projects. They present offsets as being in conflict with reducing one’s own emissions, but there's no reason it has to be this way. Indeed, some offset retailers explicitly encourage customers to do everything they can to reduce their own emissions before resorting to offsets.

I don’t want to suggest that offsets are unequivocally good – there are undoubtedly some questionable practices and products on the market. However, I can at least conceptualize offsets that would work as intended and I’m not willing to throw the baby out with the bathwater, as these folks seem to want to do. Rather than tarring all offsets with a broad brush like these folks do, I think we’d be a lot better served as a movement if we could focus on directing offset funding to high-quality emissions reduction projects that support social justice and have additional environmental benefits besides carbon reduction.

For instance, is it really so bad if a campus that has done everything it can to reduce its own emissions provides funding and training to help folks in the surrounding community retrofit their houses and businesses? These kinds of offset projects aren’t just theoretical – the Climate Trust currently sells offsets generated through a program of the Portland Office of Sustainable Development that works to improve energy efficiency of multifamily housing. In another example, offset purchasers have helped fund boiler upgrades for cash-strapped public schools.

It’s important to realize that promoting the “all offsets are bad” mentality has real impacts that are damaging to the cause. Right now, for instance, there are campuses that refuse to sign the American College & University Presidents Climate Commitment because they realize they might have to resort to purchasing offsets at some point in the future. They have been led to believe that all offsets are a joke and thus don't want to get in a situation where they are expected to purchase them.

So, instead of attacking all offsets, let’s work towards creating standards that ensure offset funding is directed to the right kind of projects. As we criticize those offsets that are questionable, we should also be willing to acknowledge offsets that do work.

• The exception to this is that there are usually other pollution emissions associated with CO2 that are localized, the communities that suffer from these emissions won’t benefit from offsets elsewhere. This does generally mean that locally generated offsets are preferable, but it does not mean that all offsets are bad.

I agree with Julian. I would normally write an argument showing why I feel that way, but Julian has already done such a great job that I think I'll just refer people to his post.

I think it is worth mentioning though, that if one was going to talk to someone who isn't already sold on the idea of creating a sustainable world, this seems like a reasonable and balanced solution- one that has businesses and people in mind- not just a bunch of "Hippie Talk".

Thumbs up to Julian for the well stated explanation.

Totally free carbon offsets here:

http://www.freecarbonoffsets.com

Julian and Taylor, I think you do not fully appreciate the point being made. Supporting a non-polluting industry through purchasing carbon credits doe not erase the pollution. The rate of increase of carbon emissions may be attenuated by these programs, but existing coal plants will continue to emit CO2. The irony in carbon trading is that coal plants become perceived as green while solar and wind become de facto polluters! And how likely are citizens to push for carbon emissions controls on solar and wind power facilities? Not at all! Carbon offsets, unregulated as they are simply a new layer of smoke and mirrors couched in the economics of the “free market” that allow us to avoid dealing with the real problem for yet another period of years.

Carbon taxes would achieve reductions more quickly, and without providing greenwashing opportunities. The belief that unregulated markets (AS THEY CURRENTLY ARE) will create a meaningful solution is, frankly, naïve.

Carbon Kenny, what a great site. I love that someone will avoid showering and wiping their ass on my behalf, for free, so that I can emit guilt-free carbon. This is priceless! I requested one and three quarters gajillion credits form the site administrators (and I have a certificate to prove it), which should cover my SUV and outdoor propane porch heater for a year at least!.

I absolutely agree, ProfAbbott. In America, most people are fortunate enough to have opinions on topics that they WANT to have opinions about...and not worry about things that don't interest them. For example, ask any given high school student his or her opinion on, say, President Bush's stance on dealing with Iran and you will likely get a blank stare. Ask the same qestion to European teens, though and chances are good that you will get a much more informed response. My point is that it seems that American culture has evolved to the point that it is ok to be selectively ignorant. Sustainability is another such issue. How many people don't recycle because they don't care enough to even think about the issue? A good many. However, the issue is gaining magnitude, and it seems to me that a direct consequence is "Carbon Credits". We have countless people who don't want to care about an issue but are finding that eventually they must. So, they have created a way to continue not caring in good conscience. What a novel idea! -- make SOMEBODY ELSE care!

We need lots of dialog about the role Carbon Credits will play in ameliorating climate change, I'm glad to see it taking place.

By way of introduction, my name is Matt Harmin. I am the newest intern at the AASHE office in Lexington, Ky.

Carbon Credits do provide a useful greenwashing tool, as pointed out by ProfAbbot. "This pollution here isn't a problem, I paid somebody else not to pollute in equivalent amounts." To me, that is an essentialization of what carbon offsets are, but it serves to remind me that carbon offsets are not ProfAbbots's "meaningful solution". Nevertheless, properly implemented I can see them nudging the market towards meaningful solutions. I think that to say "unregulated markets (AS THEY CURRENTLY ARE)" is a gross mis-statement about the current state of the market, at least in America. An unregulated market would have seen the emergence of wind and solar and geothermal to more prominence years ago. However, a market in which coal, nuclear, and petroleum based energy sources are subsidized into comparative advantage suppresses these other possibilities.

Carbon offsets and carbon credits are not this "meaningful solution", nor should we expect them to be. In particular, if they are used to authorize continued pollution for some price, instead of encouraging the market toward sustainability, they are not doing what we want. I think a carbon trading system could have great power to shift the operation of markets, and force them to value environmental health in a way that is currently completely exterior to the way these markets function.

For all you offset haters out there, strike back! http://www.carboncreditkillers.com/

Sheesh.

Thanks for your comments ProfAbbott and Mark. It’s great to have some offset critics participate in the discussion. I’m a little disappointed though that neither of you choose to really address the issue that I raised.

I should start by saying that I agree with ProfAbbott that it is unreasonable to expect unregulated markets to solve global warming. Further, I don’t think anyone believes offsets are some sort of panacea that could single-handedly stop climate change. I certainly didn’t intend to suggest this. Stopping global warming will require many different strategies and approaches, and offsets are, at best, just one small piece of the puzzle.

ProfAbbott implies that we have to choose between either offsets or government action, but I don’t see any reason why the two approaches have to be in conflict. Indeed, I’d venture that almost all voluntary offset purchasers are supportive of greater government action on climate change and see purchasing offsets as an interim step. In my case, I think that greater government action is almost infinitely more valuable than offsets could ever be in getting us to where we need to go. However, I don’t see the point in attacking something just because it’s not a big enough piece of puzzle.

The main point I was trying to make in my previous post is that there is an incredible diversity of offset types out there, and rather than just attacking them all indiscriminately, we would be better to think about how we can direct offset funding towards projects that will really help move society toward climate neutrality. It generally isn’t helpful to talk about offsets as if they were all the same, and ProfAbbott’s critiques suffer as a result of not making any distinctions.

ProfAbbott suggests that offsets are supporting “non-polluting industry.” S/he also implies that all offsets come from solar and wind installations, and as a result, they can’t actually reduce emissions (since coal plants will continue to operate), and can only slow the growth of emissions.

However, many offsets do not come from non-polluting industry, and most don’t come from solar and wind installations. There are offsets-types that don’t necessarily suffer from the problems s/he mentions. In the examples I provided, the funding from offset projects went to public schools to upgrade boilers and in another case to a government program that helps private citizens make their apartments more efficient.

These kinds of projects result in direct reductions in energy consumption, and support important social goals. I suppose you could say that, because of rising energy demand generally, even these energy efficiency projects are also only slowing growth of emissions and shouldn’t count as a reduction. The fact remains however that real emissions are avoided by these projects.

Even if, for the purposes of argument, I were to accept that offsets can only slow the growth of emissions, it still wouldn’t warrant throwing out the concept. Reducing the growth in emissions is a critical first step towards actually reducing emissions, and if we’re going to begin actual reduction with the next 10 years as called for by leading climate scientists, we’re going to need all the help we can get.

The market for carbon offsets in the U.S. may be as large as $100 million annually, according to Business Week. Rather than just throwing this all away, I’d like to come up with ways to ensure this money is being invested in projects that really reduce emissions and help get us on a path towards sustainability.

My questions to the offset critics in the audience: 1) Why are offsets assumed to be contradictory to government action? Can’t the two approaches be mutually supportive? 2) What harm is caused when an individual who has done everything they can in their personal lives to reduce emissions purchases high quality offsets (like the examples above) to mitigate emissions they are unable to avoid? 3) Do you believe the concept of offsetting emissions is inherently flawed, or can you envision an offset program that you would support?

One more thing …

Both Mark's and ProfAbbott's comments perpetuate the myth that offset purchasers are living extravagant, carbon-intensive lifestyles and refuse to take even basic steps to reduce their emissions. I'm sure this is true in some cases, but it certainly isn't necessarily true. I suspect that most voluntary offset purchasers are well-meaning individuals who have already taken significant steps to reduce their own emissions and just want to mitigate the emissions they are unable to avoid.

A survey of customers by offset retailer, Terrapass, appears to back up my suspicion. The survey found that Terrapass customers were significantly greener in their personal lives than the average American. Admittedly, this survey was conducted by an offset retailer and so could be seen as self-interested, but it matches my experiences, and common sense for that matter. If you don't care enough about global warming to take steps to reduce your emissions – many of which save money – you certainly aren't likely to go out of your way to pay money to offset your emissions.

It is peculiar to me that offset critics see purchasing offsets as a way of avoiding responsibility. How is it that people who are going out of their way and paying money in an attempt to negate the consequences of their emissions are dodging responsibility? Are people who don't offset their emissions are somehow taking more responsibility for their pollution?

I would like to address the questions you raised, though I do not consider myself an offset critic, so to speak.

1) "Why are offsets assumed to be contradictory to government action? Can’t the two approaches be mutually supportive?" - I think offsets are assumed to be contradictory to government action because in the traditional American paradigm of capitalism, government action can only hinder the operation of the market, not enhance it. In my opinion the emergence of carbon offset markets necessitates government action, and can only succeed with legislative and government support.

2) "What harm is caused when an individual who has done everything they can in their personal lives to reduce emissions purchases high quality offsets (like the examples above) to mitigate emissions they are unable to avoid?" - I see no harm. One thing that is difficult to assess though is whether or not the offsets you purchase are high quality. Do you know if there is a carbon credit consumer advocacy group? If not, there will be a need for one soon. I would hate to see carbon credit production become profitable enough that industrial, mono-cropping tree farms (i.e. Plantar, in Brazil) propogate unsustainable sequestration projects. My first direct experience with carbon credits came this summer, during July. Greenpeace and Seventh Generation hosted a week long environmental activist get together. Everything was free, including lodging and flights(or trains or buses) for 200 students from all over the place to Washington D.C. This was a collection of people who had done a lot in their personal lives to reduce emissions, and would use activism to continue to do so. To participate in this event, transportation was an unavoidable source of emissions, and the bringing together of 200 environmentalists was made legitimate by the purchase of carbon offsets. I know in my mind, and Im sure many others, the fact that carbon offsets were purchased for our travel was an important thing given the reasons we were gathering.

3) "Do you believe the concept of offsetting emissions is inherently flawed, or can you envision an offset program that you would support?" - I support the current offset program, and would be ecstatic if improvements were made, but I support it in spite of the fact that I think, conceptually, carbon offsets are flawed. The setting of quotas in the EU on carbon emissions determines how many carbon credits a business/institution/organization has. If they exceed that amount they need to buy some offsets, but if they undershoot that quota that have offsets to sell. I do not think any carbon should be credited to an entity that doesn't pollute as much as they are allowed to. Everyone and everything is society is obligated to pollute as little as possible, so polluting less than you could have should not garner carbon credits in my mind. The Plantar tree farm project in Brazil is indicative of something I would hate to see spread. Carbon credits and sequestration should not hasten bio-diversity loss and habitat fragmentation. Check it out if you are curious, I would insert a hyperlink if I could. Under Kyoto, it seems like new growth is the only way to sequester carbon in ecosystems. I would like to see, within the framework of Kyoto carbon credits given, and protection extended, to ecosystems that process and store carbon. Otherwise it is highly encouraging of clearing way for new growth because it is so much hungrier in terms of carbon. Old growth systems should be preserved for their own sake. There is a big lingering doubt for me as well that it cannot be fruitful to look to the market for correction in the environmental sustainability direction. Bio-diversity loss, climate change, and environmental pollution are all fundamentally problems with the way our hyper-consumptive markets do business, so the market is the last place I want to look for solutions. I always want to defer to community based ideas to rectify environmental problems. Admittedly, if the same hyper-active nature is applied to markets of carbon sequestration, that might be good news for all of us.

Check out this article. It pertains to what we've been talking about.

http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2007/10/18/82011/827

Well, I’m glad to see that my polemic stimulated a bit of reflection. If only this worked with my students! For the record, I know that my discussion, above, was reductionist and essentiallized. Further, I am speaking of the US scenario (Kyoto signatories have an entirely different situation, problematic in its own right, albeit in different ways not explored here.)

The carbon offset industry is of course diverse, and much good work is going on by honest people working in this industry, but as organized today they cannot achieve their long-term goal. US energy production markets are heavily distorted in favor of fossil fuels, so unregulated pollution markets do not have a fair chance. This is a fundamental concern. Capitalist systems are generally unable to deal with long-term management solutions, especially on a voluntary basis (which carbon offsets epitomize in the US today).

How can there be a market for carbon offsets when there is no market value associated with carbon emissions? Domestically this is the reality because the heat retaining effects of CO2 and methane are not considered in our pollutions standards (Clean Air Act or elsewhere). There is no penalty or cost associated with GHG emission, which is why carbon offsets prices can vary from free to 30 dollars per ton. At present, offset prices are set by the collective conscious of a small group (essentially, global climate change believers and those capitalizing on market opportunities created by these beliefs). This is based within a “moral economy,” which is generally marginalized and unvalued (disarticulated) in high capitalist societies.

A carbon tax enlarges the community of interested parties to the entire nation, immediately, and puts into place a codified framework for the quantification of emissions at the national level. This creates a relatively fixed point, in cash terms, from which debate and negotiation can be based. Of course such a tax in the US would probably be below the cash value cost of externalities (an educated guess), and the framework would need extensive revision (over and over again).

Carbon markets can work, but as a body of citizens, unified, we need to agree that carbon emissions have a cost, and we need to be willing to fix that cost at levels that reflect the harms created (a relatively abstract venture in and of itself). Expecting the market to fix the cost for externalities that many deny the very existence of is irrational. How can we expect entrepreneurs to capitalize on GHG emissions at a meaningful scale when regulation and subsidies are stacked against the venture at the outset? Offsets can be a solution (just as a benevolent despot can be a solution) but not as they are currently framed in the US. Cheerleading incomplete plays, when the goal is so far down the field, will not win the game.

Excellent discussion, this thread makes useful reading for students of sustainability.  Although I am pretty late, I do want to add my few cents. In my view, purchasing carbon offsets is akin to donating to a church [or the equivalent place of worship of any religion] to 'repent' one's bad deeds. Sure, God [Gaia, in the case of carbon?] will probably accept offerings of every kind and pardon all sin unequivocally. If this were a more believable parable, someone might already ask: "Who is the better devotee, one who avoids committing sins, or one who does not mind the occasional indulgence, but offers gifts to God?"  I am sure all of us, even "eco-atheists", know the answer to this question in our hearts...