Comments on: From Mexico to Palestine: Carbon offsets http://theesperanzaproject.org/2010/01/from-mexico-to-palestine-carbon-offsets/ A Green News Portal for the Americas Thu, 09 Feb 2012 13:31:14 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9 hourly 1 By: Esperanza Project spotlights Latin America’s eco-warriors | Uprooted, an eco/travel blog http://theesperanzaproject.org/2010/01/from-mexico-to-palestine-carbon-offsets/comment-page-1/#comment-52 Esperanza Project spotlights Latin America’s eco-warriors | Uprooted, an eco/travel blog Mon, 22 Feb 2010 17:22:42 +0000 http://theesperanzaproject.org/?p=492#comment-52 [...] of my first articles, though, has to do with a more personal dilemma: Whether to buy carbon offsets to help compensate for the pollution my travel will inevitably cause. Carbon offsets have become [...] [...] of my first articles, though, has to do with a more personal dilemma: Whether to buy carbon offsets to help compensate for the pollution my travel will inevitably cause. Carbon offsets have become [...]

]]> By: Mark Haim http://theesperanzaproject.org/2010/01/from-mexico-to-palestine-carbon-offsets/comment-page-1/#comment-28 Mark Haim Tue, 12 Jan 2010 15:26:22 +0000 http://theesperanzaproject.org/?p=492#comment-28 The discussion of carbon offsets is quite timely. I've read through and followed your logic, and it seems to me that you are making an appropriate choice. This said, I still question offsets, especially when they are used not simply for individuals to offset their impacts, but by large corporate polluters seeking to avoid having to reduce their emissions. The issue is complicated, to be sure, but it seems that many of the projects that are being included as eligible for offsets either aren't really reducing emissions (and in some cases actually increase them), or would have been done anyway (or really need to be done anyway) and thus don't take the place of real reductions in the CO2 output of industrialized economies. If we end up with a cap and trade system--an idea I'm not sold on--how we deal with offsets will be a key variable in determining whether or not the system actually meets its goals. From the various experts I've been following, I come away pretty well convinced that the more offsets you allow into the system, the less likely you'll get the results you're looking for. There's a pretty good discussion on this, as well as cap and trade in general at: http://www.democracynow.org/2009/12/15/cap_trade_a_critical_look_at One other concern is that when you calculate the value of an offset--not its monetary value, but rather its carbon-reducing value--you have to do some kind of life cycle analysis. If the project you are using to offset your travel, for instance, is planting trees, you have to look at how much CO2 the trees will sequester over their lifetimes, a matter of decades. The problem is that the CO2 emissions you are aiming to offset are taking place NOW, in January 2010. But the sequestration won't even start in any serious fashion for a few years, until the trees get big enough to really start putting some carbon away, and the full impact won't be felt for decades. And, as you note, there is always the question: wouldn't these trees have been planted anyway, or something similar done on that land that would capture carbon, sometime over the coming years? So for me, while I support your decision, Tracy, I would hate for folks to extrapolate and come to the conclusion that carbon offsets make for good public policy. The discussion of carbon offsets is quite timely. I’ve read through and followed your logic, and it seems to me that you are making an appropriate choice.

This said, I still question offsets, especially when they are used not simply for individuals to offset their impacts, but by large corporate polluters seeking to avoid having to reduce their emissions.

The issue is complicated, to be sure, but it seems that many of the projects that are being included as eligible for offsets either aren’t really reducing emissions (and in some cases actually increase them), or would have been done anyway (or really need to be done anyway) and thus don’t take the place of real reductions in the CO2 output of industrialized economies.

If we end up with a cap and trade system–an idea I’m not sold on–how we deal with offsets will be a key variable in determining whether or not the system actually meets its goals. From the various experts I’ve been following, I come away pretty well convinced that the more offsets you allow into the system, the less likely you’ll get the results you’re looking for. There’s a pretty good discussion on this, as well as cap and trade in general at:
http://www.democracynow.org/2009/12/15/cap_trade_a_critical_look_at

One other concern is that when you calculate the value of an offset–not its monetary value, but rather its carbon-reducing value–you have to do some kind of life cycle analysis. If the project you are using to offset your travel, for instance, is planting trees, you have to look at how much CO2 the trees will sequester over their lifetimes, a matter of decades. The problem is that the CO2 emissions you are aiming to offset are taking place NOW, in January 2010. But the sequestration won’t even start in any serious fashion for a few years, until the trees get big enough to really start putting some carbon away, and the full impact won’t be felt for decades. And, as you note, there is always the question: wouldn’t these trees have been planted anyway, or something similar done on that land that would capture carbon, sometime over the coming years?

So for me, while I support your decision, Tracy, I would hate for folks to extrapolate and come to the conclusion that carbon offsets make for good public policy.

]]>