# 22 Carbon Offsets
A feel good dodge for the status quo, or an important tool for climate stability?
JACK OR JILL
Let’s say Jack likes to barrel down the highway in his Hummer (about 100 lb. of CO2 per hour), or zoom out to the fishing grounds in his sports fisherman yacht (probably more than 1000 lb. CO2/hr), or fly off for a weekend in the Caribbean in his private jet (about 200 lb./hr for a little jet). But Jack knows that for pocket change he can buy carbon offsets and brag to his friends about how he is part of the solution.
Now consider Jill who owns a company or maybe a farm that emits a fair amount of carbon dioxide and methane, both bad greenhouse gases. Jill wants to do the right thing and buy an expensive piece of equipment that will reduce her emissions. The cost will be high, but the equipment manufacturer shows her how she can reduce the cost by selling carbon credits to guys like Jack.
A SIMPLE IDEA, BUT IT GETS COMPLICATED
At the heart of the idea of carbon offsets is a simple concept: an entitiy that can’t or won’t clean up their act can pay money to help an entity that will either reduce it’s emissions or otherwise remove greenhouse gases from the atmosphere. But the twists and turns of the process can be bewilderingly complex, and as a result, well intentioned people can have strong opinions on either side of the issue.
For many, carbon offset markets can seem like the selling of indulgences in the pre-reformation Catholic church — pay money and the slate is washed clean. There is no question that the process has opened a wide door to greenwashing. A corporation that has done absolutely nothing to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions can advertise that it is “carbon neutral” by buying offsets. To see more on this side of the argument, read here: Greenpeace
Until fairly recently, the principal offset mechanism was in planting trees to sequester carbon. At first glance, this seems like a natural: preserving and expanding forests not only helps remove and store carbon from the atmosphere, it can also help endangered species and indigenous peoples who depend on such forests. There is also a certain justice in the transfer of money from the industrialized world (which is almost entirely responsible for climate change) to countries with tropical forests (where a disproportionate dose of the bad effects will be felt).
But can someone come along later and harvest these trees? If the wood goes for lumber, at least some of the carbon will remain sequestered in the buildings built from that lumber. But what if it goes to make paper? And what if such a forest is devastated by wildfires, as has recently happened in several California offset plantations? Then much of the carbon goes right back into the atmosphere. These are a few of the reasons that the offset market has been moving away from such heavy reliance on reforestation.
A SWISS APPROACH
In September 2020 Switzerland enacted a sweeping revision of it’s CO2 laws. The new rules aim to make the country carbon neutral, and include taxes on flying, rules on automobile efficiency, taxes on fossil fuels, and emission limits for buildings. The law also allows for 25% of the country’s emissions reduction target to be achieved through offsets generated outside Switzerland.
One of Switzerland’s offset projects will fund energy-efficient cooking stoves in Peru. In much of rural Peru, families do their cooking over wood fires which are inefficient and result in respiratory illness from breathing smoke. The carbon offsets come from reductions in the amount of wood cut and burned by the traditional practice. The respiratory health benefits are a bonus. For more information see Tuki Wasi Program
PROGRESS AT COP26
While the UN Climate Conference in Glasgow last Fall (COP26) was seen as a disappointment in many areas, real progress was made on carbon offsets. Clearer and stricter standards were set for exchanges between individual entities as well as governments. These are absolutely necessary to ensure that individuals, companies and countries can be confident that their carbon offset money is not wasted. By some estimates, a verifiable carbon offset market could reach 100 billion dollars by 2030: Reuters
AND SO, THE BOTTOM LINE?
Opinions on whether or not carbon offsets are a useful tool in combating climate change run the gamut. Some view them as nothing more than a global greenwashing scheme. Others, particularly third world countries, see them as a useful way to get money from polluting countries to help fund their own climate mitigation programs. Responsible companies see them as a way to augment the real greenhouse gas reductions they are already making. Many consumers would be willing to purchase reliable offsets as a way of making a personal contribution.
Although maddeningly difficult to regulate, I believe that carbon offsets can be a valuable tool if good rules can be agreed upon and enforced. But of vastly greater importance, we MUST reduce our greenhouse gas emissions, and not simply try to offset them in an attempt to maintain an unsustainable path.
THINGS YOU CAN DO:
Please follow some of the included links to become better informed on this important subject.
Consider purchase an offset of your own. You can experiment with a very small investment.
Demand more information from companies that claim they are “climate neutral”. What third party organizations verify their claims? Put them on notice that you are watching with a critical eye.
Doug Hylan, Brooklin, Maine
For a fairly concise explanation of what makes a good carbon offset: Center for Global Development
Learn about one third world country’s hopes for carbon offsets: CarbonTanzania
Consider purchasing a personal offset: Terrapass
For insight into the decision maze for companies trying to navigate the carbon tax/carbon offset dilemma: Climate Concious
We face all kinds of threats in our line of work, but few of them truly deserve to be called existential. The climate crisis does. Climate change is making the world more unsafe and we need to act,” stated Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin.
The Secretary of Defense could start with the U.S. Military, now considered the world's largest climate polluter, emitting more CO2e (carbon-dioxide equivalent) than Morocco, Peru, Sweden, Hungary, Finland, New Zealand, Norway, and Switzerland. Cutting back on unnecessary global wars, mostly waged to increase the profits of U.S. weapons manufacturers, would be a big carbon offset. Of course, that ain't gonna happen and nothing much else of any consequence is gonna happen at the government level as the Biden administration has shown, so it's pretty clear that this whole idea of carbon offsets is indeed a dodge for the status quo. The hard truth is that the neoliberal, predatory capitalist global economy must be dismantled in order to ensure climate stability, but nobody really wants to admit that at the upper levels of the military/corporate/congressional establishment. Interesting post, though, Doug. It's too bad we have so many leaders who are incapable of telling the truth.