Are there others here who think that Carbon offsets are

[cali]

are largely useless when it comes to reducing the carbon footprint, and mostly a scam. The more I read about it, the more convinced I am that this is a pretty pointless, albeit lucrative, business.

[n2doc]

1. I've said it for quite a while

But I usually get flamed for it. While in principle a good idea, I think carbon offsets have been mainly a scam to let businesses "feel good" while keeping up their bad habits. Too many of these "offsets" are on paper only.

[JackintheGreen]

2. Offsets aren't about reducing carbon

just about shifting it around. Since most of the people able to sell credits are able to so through improvements they made on their own, without any government assistance, there is no incentive for more polluting companies to change anything. They'll just let the do-gooders and three-huggers spend their own money to feel good and spend pennies buying their credits instead of real investment to reduce their carbon imprint.

[Canuckistanian]

3. Where is all this "carbon offset" money going?

Almost everybody pays lip service to it, but who is evaluating the effectiveness of carbon credits?

Are some better than others? Are there real scams going on? Is there any regulating body for this?

[cali]

5. No regulating body

Yes, it appears as if some people are evaluating its effectiveness, and they're not too impressed. There are 36 companies engaged in it. Yes, there are probably real out and out scams. And anyone with half a brain should know that paying $100 bucks a year to drive a "carbon neutral" Hummer, is bullshit.

The LA Times published an article recently about the business of carbon offsets. From the article

Beneath the feel-good simplicity of buying your way to carbon neutrality is a growing concern that the idea is more hype than solution.

According to Native Energy, money from "An Inconvenient Truth," along with payments from others trying to neutralize their emissions, went to the developers of a methane collector on a Pennsylvanian farm and three wind turbines in an Alaskan village.

As it turned out, both projects had already been designed and financed, and the contributions from Native Energy covered only a minor fraction of their costs. "If you really believe you're carbon neutral, you're kidding yourself," said Gregg Marland, a fossil-fuel pollution expert at Oak Ridge National Laboratory in Tennessee who has been watching the evolution of the new carbon markets. "You can't get out of it that easily."

The race to save the planet from global warming has spawned a budding industry of middlemen selling environmental salvation at bargain prices.

http://www.latimes.com/news/science/la-sci-offsets2sep02,1,249680.story?ctrack=2&cset=true

[donsu]

4. yes, SCAM

nt

[rucky]

6. It's been accepted all too uncritically.

thanks for bringing it up.

[porphyrian]

7. Until we focus on corporate polluters, anything we do will barely matter.

Sure, if everyone did it, it would make a difference. But how many people don't recycle, even when the bins and pickup are supplied for free? We need to focus on the largest polluters, and they aren't individuals.

As far as the carbon offset things go, I haven't looked into them enough to know, for the reason above.

[cali]

8. No it wouldn't make a difference.

But I agree that we need to focus on restricting corporate pollution. Carbon offsets, btw, aren't just for individuals.

[Wcross]

9. Scam.

The hucksters are profiting by making you feel good. If you really want to DO something you will have to sacrifice and make the changes in your life to reduce your carbon footprint.

1) Drive less and drive a fuel efficient car.
2) Install compact fluorescent bulbs in all your outlets.
3) Insulate your home.
3) Install alternative energy systems in your home. Things like solar hot water heating are not expensive and very effective. Solar and wind energy can be installed. Even a passive air heating system will help reduce your energy consumption. Subscribe to mother earth news & home-power magazine and you will see the many things you can do.

All you are doing by purchasing carbon offsets is feeding a scammer. YOU can plant your OWN tree. YOU can invest in alternative energy. YOU can make a difference. Buying a "carbon offset" is like buying a "star" from the international star registry. A scam.

[cali]

10. Exactly right.

I have only cf bulbs in my home. Drive as little as possible, and my house is well insulated. I dry my clothes on a line most of the time, and in the winter keep my house at 62 degrees. Little stuff adds up.

[Wcross]

14. You are doing more than anyone who buys an "offset". n/t

[City67]

25. I bought armloads of CFL's

A local 99 cent store had 2 packs of compact fluorescent lamps (CFL's) for a buck each. I bought like 50 packs of them. I replaced all the incandescent light bulbs with them in my house and garage and my electric bill dropped over $40 the first month. They easily paid for themselves in 2 months. Plus I am well stocked up for years to come.

I havent had a single one go bad yet and even gave a bunch to the ex and a couple of friends. The older ones had a bad flickering problem and were slow to come on. But the newer ones are fantastic. I think CFL's have the possibility to conserve and do much more good than carbon offsets.

Al Gore might disagree with me though. :-)

[Wcross]

31. I don't have a single incandescent bulb in the house.

I am planning on making even bigger changes. I am saving up to build a passive solar home on my property using solar hot water heating and geothermal heating/cooling. Hopefully by the time the project kicks off solar panels will be affordable enough to also install and use them for the majority of my power needs. My dream is to tell the electric company to remove their lines, I won't be needing them anymore.

[Buzz Clik]

11. One of the problems is that a real carbon offset must be NEW.

You don't get credit for existing forests or planting a tree to replace the one you just cut down.

So, carbon offsets will only go so far. As many have said on this thread, the only thing that matters is reducing emissions.

[soothsayer]

12. scam, scam, scam!

[MisterHowdy]

13. Agreed.

But offsets are better than nothing though.

[cali]

16. It doesn't have to be the very dubious benefits of

carbon offsets or nothing. There are lots of things people can do to actually reduce consumption; lots of things business can do. And yes, sacrifice is vital too. That's why Al Gore and others who speak green but live conspicuous consumption lifestyles, are somewhat of a disappointment to me.

[ljm2002]

15. A modern form of indulgences...

...for those who can pay.

[bbgrunt]

17. well put! One of the problems with

offsets is that it eventually concentrates pollution in those areas least able to buy their way out of it-those areas that are already economically disadvantaged.

[applegrove]

18. I know people who are planning to add a small wind turbine (family sized) to

their property to run the geothermal heating/cooling system. That may be an idea that catches on.

[ourbluenation]

23. I was thinking about that lately...why can't each house have its own wind power?

well I know they can, technically...but maybe it should be more accessible and affordable - and sized on the energy needs of the household. I have a small house in an area that gets a mighty wind almost every afternoon for 3-4 hours. should be an easy way to harness that energy.

[applegrove]

26. The small turbines exist. I just don't know anything about them or how expensive they

are to hook up. Wish I knew more.

[ourbluenation]

28. I looked it up a few months ago. I think the sizes available are too big for neighborhood homes

overkill.

[City67]

19. I have always had to chuckle at carbon offsets

The thought that you can pay roughly $10 in carbon offsets (I read that somewhere but dont have the link) to cancel out the pollution of a round trip flight in a Gulfstream from California to DC and back the way Diane Feinstein does makes me smile. But hey if it makes people feel better about their personal travel habits and puts a few dinero in Al Gores pocket I don't have a problem with it. Our Governor here in california even buys them.

[Canuckistanian]

22. "a few dinero in Al Gores pocket"?

Are you implying that carbon offsets are paid directly to Al Gore?

[City67]

30. Of course not

It was just a joke because of his carbon offset company. Actually I admire his business acumen.

[Canuckistanian]

32. Oh, my mistake

I didn't realize he had one.

[seriousstan]

20. I am currently selling carbon credits at BELOW market rate.

By purchasing MY carbon credits, from OHWHATADAMSUKERIAM.COM, you will be instrumental in my promise to...

1. Not build a coal burning power plant

2. Not mine the coal for the power plant.

3. Not create the coal runoff sludge pond.

I will also, for no added cost,

Not fly private jets

Not build a house as big as John Edward's or even Al Gore's.

Not purchase a fleet of large SUVs.


Please hurry, this offer can't last long.

P.S. there is a per household limit of as many credits as you can possibly buy.

[Frogger]

21. Any business with big

money involved is going to attract its share of scam artists. In this area as in all others, let the buyer beware.

[nam78_two]

24. I am of that opinion Cali as are many many environmentalists I know.nt

[Frogger]

27. I don't think

that it is a substitute for reducing your own emissions. Say that Al Gore, or Barbra Streisand, or any of the high consumption people that are telling us to reduce our consumption were to actually reduce theirs? there would be a negative addition, a subtraction in fact, of the carbon in the atmosphere. Instead, they shift it around. Somebody else has to do with less so they can do with more.

On the other hand, perhaps it's a good thing because at least they are reminded that there is a cost to their high consumption.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

29. Scam--it's about affluent people continuing to use their toys and make money

in all their favorite ways and then to say it's okay because they planted some trees or because they took some factory offline.

[Sanctified]

33. It's a scam.

I know someone who offers his customers a carbon offset for $45.00 in addition to his services. If his customer takes the $45 offset he plants a damn $10.00 tree in his backyard which he does not care if it lives or dies.

The guy practically bragged about how dumb people were for falling for his scam, I was pretty sick over it and let people know what the guy is up too.

[Link93]

34. carbon offsets are a scam. nt.

[cali]

35. So far, the "scam" seems

to be the concensus. Am I wrong in recalling that a few months ago, anyone who quesioned the value of carbon offsets here at DU, was brushed off?

[bread_and_roses]

36. Yes, they are a band-aid at best and

like "clean coal" are reassure us that we can keep consuming at our current mad level and beyond while addressing climate change. They are a sop to keep politicians from talking about the serious changes that will be required to even slow down our current path to destruction. Changes like consuming far less, traveling far less, eating local, etc.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

37. Scam. nt

[robcon]

38. A conscience-salving scam.

n/t

[HamdenRice]

39. A similar system RADICALLY reduced water pollution in the US, so NO

Pollution control is admittedly a technical subject and a little counter-intuitive. The carbon offset system is an attempt to take the US water pollution control system and extend it to the world's pollution of the atmosphere with CO2. If applied properly, it could be one important tool in what must be a big tool kit to address the problem.

To understand how it works, you have to understand how water pollution control works. What shocks most laymen is that the very effective water pollution control system in the US does not forbid pollution; it permits it to occur in regulated sustainable way.

The first step is the EPA decides what a body of water is going to be used for. It might be fishing, recreation and drinking water. Then it asks, what level of pollution is consistent with that use, because most waterways can sustainably tolerate some pollution.

Now comes the part that freaks most people out. The EPA allocates "permits" to pollute to those users who were already polluting the waterway. But the permits are a fraction or share of the total burden that the water resource can bear. At first, this required most businesses to drastically reduce pollution to conform to their permits, and then sustain that reduced level of pollution.

The EPA could reduce pollution further by "squeezing" down the total load allowed and hence the share allowed to each permit.

In the 80s, it was discovered that permit holders had no incentive to reduce their pollution on their own. For example, if business A discovered a way to cut his pollution by 75%, why would he go through the expense of doing so? It was a deadweight expense to him. Moreover, if he cut pollution by 75%, then he would have excess "right to pollute" of 75% that would be useless to him.

So the EPA came up with the idea that he could trade permitted pollution. Business B might have been struggling to conform to his permit.

So business A could sell the 75% of his "right to pollute" that he no longer needed thanks to his new technology, to business B. Business A now has a financial incentive to reduce pollution and adopt the new technology. Business B got some breathing room (he usually was not allowed to buy the total amount of pollution reduction accomplished by A). Everyone was happy and total pollution in the water resource went down.

The problem with air pollution is that it is not located in one place with a defined number of polluters. A lake, for example, might have a certain number of factories and municipal sewage systems on its shores; those were the permitted polluters. But if I burn a pile of brush in central Brazil, it's the same atmosphere as is over France.

So it was realized that a global market for carbon credits had to be established if the permit system was to work. Carbon credits are basically like pollution permits. So if I can reduce my carbon emissions, I can sell them on the market, reducing my CO2 output, and someone who was having trouble conforming could buy some breathing room. The total amount of CO2 put into the atmosphere, however, now declined.

It's one tool, but not the whole solution by any means.

[robcon]

41. A similar system ended acid rain in the Northeast U.S.

Credits and charges for pollution controls were very effective in that instance.

[Odin2005]

40. It's useless BS inspired by Free-Market ideology.

It was a bad idea that only won favor because it avoided the boogyman of "government intervention". More proof that Free Market ideology is a religion. The only thing that is going to reduce carbon emissions is regulations, carbon taxes, government promotion of ethanol fuel and electric cars, and government investment into nuclear and renewable energy.

[HamdenRice]

42. Actually it depends on government regulation

Carbon trading, pollution trading and all of these other market strategies are designed to help government regulation, and cannot exist outside of a regime of government regulation.

What is being traded is the prohibition on pollution created by government regulation. The governments of the world cap CO2 emissions and allow market participants to work out who is the most efficient at reducing carbon output. See my post upthread if you would like an explanation.