Energy Literacy Advocates Newsroom

It is well documented that global warming, through CO2 and other gas emissions, is occurring and is a threat to humankind. Amid concern about this climate change the trafficking of “carbon offsets” has emerged, principally by for-profit companies. The theory is that if an individual or company is unwilling to reduce their own emissions through conservation, they can pay someone else to reduce their “net emissions”.

Reducing “net emissions” falls into 3 categories:
1. Sequestering or absorbing CO2, such as planting trees;
2. Allegedly “using” zero-emissions sources of power, such as wind power;
3. Reducing current sources of emissions, such as methane combustion.

After carefully researching the field of carbon offsets, the inevitable conclusion is that, at best, the concept is flawed but does little damage. At worst, it is a scam that both fleeces consumers and breeds dangerous complacency. The fact is, there is no substitute for conservation—reducing the usage of fossil fuels.

Confusion and Dissembling
To properly assess the global carbon offset industry, we must consider three scenarios:
1. Reducing global warming;
2. Reducing the GROWTH of CO2 emissions;
3. Reducing future Net Gas Emissions (which may or may not reduce global warming).

At present, the world economy is spewing over 27 billion metric tons of CO2 into the atmosphere annually. For global warming to be reduced or stopped, this tonnage must be reduced immediately. But most efforts to reduce CO2 emissions, and carbon offsets in particular, are geared around reducing growth or future emissions, not present emissions.

Example 1: Tree Planting
While a mature tree may absorb a significant amount of CO2, planting a seedling (which is the closest approximation to a legitimate carbon offset programs commission) absorbs a negligible amount of CO2 in the near term. Tree planting, at best, reduces net CO2 emissions at some future date—10-25 years from now depending upon the type of tree and where it is planted. Additionally, while at some future date a seedling- turned-tree may absorb CO2, it is debatable whether that absorption decreases global warming. A recent study showed the dark surfaces of trees absorb sunlight, which potentially increases warming.

Example 2: Wind Power
Wind-generated power does not exacerbate the problem of global warming, but it does not as yet reduce the problem as marketed by brokers of carbon offsets. Only if new wind power farms were used to retire existing fossil fuel power generation, such as coal plants, would they help ameliorate global warming. This has not been the case currently for two reasons: 1) fossil fuel plants must be maintained for the periods when wind power farms are not operating for lack of wind, and, 2) wind power farms to date have only addressed incremental, or increasing, power requirements. Finally, while some states have provided energy credits to wind farms which the wind farms have then sold to carbon offset companies, the money received simply goes into the pocket of the existing wind farm owner. It does not create more wind power, much less reduce global warming.

Lack of Verification and Transparency
So unfortunately, “carbon offset” actions do little, if anything, to reduce global warming. The one and only offset-type project which may reduce global warming are systems that reduce the methane generated by farm animals or landfills.

As we move forward, some key questions need to be answered in order to provide transparency and accountability in the carbon offset market:

• What percentage of the money that the carbon offset company receives actually reaches the project?
• If it does reach the project, is the money crucial for its execution or does it simply increase the return and profits of the owners?
• Are these projects already required by existing laws or regulations?
• Even if the project passes the tests above, how can one quantify its impact upon global warming?

Innocuous or Damaging – Indulgences versus Conservation
Even if the carbon offset industry does little if anything to reduce global warming, the question still arises: So what? What’s the harm? The answer: There is significant harm:
1. The money that goes into promoting and sustaining the carbon offset industry and “green” marketing could be used for true conservation;
2. Carbon offsets breed complacency—it’s the environmental equivalent of ecclesiastical indulgences in the Middle Ages -- go ahead and sin as much as you want as long as you pay the Pope for it!

In the final analysis, there just simply is NO SUBSTITUTE FOR CONSERVATION. The only honest and sure way to make a significant contribution to the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions is to cut our use of fossil fuels through either more energy efficiency or a greater sacrifice of creature comforts, or both.

Robert Stetson
Board Chairman – Energy Literacy Advocates
July 2007