4 Comments

Summary:

Mark Shapiro, of Berkeley, Calif.’s Center for Investigative Reporting, has written a scathing report on the carbon offset industry in the February edition of Harper’s. Policymakers crafting U.S. climate legislation, which might include provisions for offset projects, should heed the warning, but the criticism shouldn’t be […]

Mark Shapiro, of Berkeley, Calif.’s Center for Investigative Reporting, has written a scathing report on the carbon offset industry in the February edition of Harper’s. Policymakers crafting U.S. climate legislation, which might include provisions for offset projects, should heed the warning, but the criticism shouldn’t be confused with calls to kill a nationwide cap-and-trade program.  

The industry to generate and then verify carbon offsets has exploded in recent years largely because of the Kyoto treaty, which established national limits on emissions. The treaty allows regulated companies to purchase credits produced from these offset projects to meet a portion of their emissions-reductions targets set by the international program. More than 300 million credits, each representing the equivalent of one metric ton of carbon dioxide, have so far been generated, and these credits can then be traded on commodities markets. Shapiro says up to 2 billion new credits could be drawn from offset projects if a cap-and-trade program similar to the proposals now before Congress were to become reality.

Shapiro, who traveled to Brazil and Europe and interviewed a legion of experts to write this piece, argues that the system is fraught with pitfalls, from grossly inaccurate readings on the emissions reduced by projects to conflicts of interest from the third-party firms hired to “verify” offsets. A study published in the peer-reviewed journal Climate Policy reportedly found that just 60 percent of the projects it looked at actually provided evidence that they were reliable. Shapiro calls the market for credits produced by offset projects “an elaborate shell game, a disappearing act that nicely serves the immediate interests of the world’s governments but fails to meet the challenges of our looming environmental crisis.”

Other writers have taken their shots at the offset market, including those at BusinessWeek and the Financial Times. UK-based environmental journalist George Monbiot has likened the industry to selling indulgences and called offsets an excuse for business as usual. But Shapiro’s warning comes at a crucial time, as Congress is expected to start debating national climate legislation again later this year.

The offsets allowed under current cap-and-trade proposals in Congress would be far broader and complex than those now traded in Europe and created under the Kyoto regime, according to Shapiro. He points to provisions allowing offsets from reductions in greenhouse gas-intensive farming practices and the preservation of forests as two examples of new classes of “carbon promises” with measurement and accountability challenges.

In theory, allowing for the creation of credits from offsets has benefits – incentivizing businesses and individuals to invest in carbon-reducing projects that otherwise wouldn’t have occurred and transferring technology to poorer countries, say through a project that replaces kerosene lamps with solar-powered lights. But if a reliable system can’t be established to verify real offsets, then the idea should be phased out. A robust and effective cap-and-trade program could be implemented without offsets – large emitters bid each year for a gradually declining number of allowances, or credits, sold by the government and those that end up needing fewer than they bought can sell them to those that require more. Killing cap and trade because of the offset problem would be like cutting off an arm because of a broken finger.

Image courtesy The Library of Congress via Flickr.

Related research

Subscriber Content
?
Subscriber content comes from Gigaom Research, bridging the gap between breaking news and long-tail research. Visit any of our reports to learn more and subscribe.
By Justin Moresco
  1. Offsets have been criticised by many because they are wide open to cheating and allow rich countries to shift their obligation to limit emissions onto poorer countries.

    But I have a more fundamental problem with offsets. There already exist millions of examples of renewable energy sources being used, energy being saved and carbon dioxide being absorbed by vegetation, without any payment being made. It is only fair to pay these people for their good deeds too (indeed the free market will not work effectively if subsidies are only paid to new entrants) but that would mean paying trillions of dollars without any corresponding emission reduction.

    Share
  2. Carbon Retirement in the UK also produced a piece of research recently which demonstrates that the method of offsetting used in the EU Emission Trading Scheme – the CLean Development Mechanism – is a highly inefficient way of getting money to environmental projects. Less than a third of money spent on the offset credit reaches the project. The full research is here http://www.carbonretirement.com/content/less-one-third-money-spent-project-based-offsets-goes-environmental-projects

    Share
  3. First. unless your very uneducated and I assume that is not the case, you realize that global warming is a hoax. Everyone with some degree of knowledge now knows global warming for what it is, a huge hoax. All reputable scientists say so. The only scientists left who support this hoax are those whose credential were discredited a long time ago. Ask the founder of the weather channel to name just one. He has called this the biggest hoax ever played on mankind.
    So let’s stop the madness and stop the trillions of USD spent on this hoax. This money could feed how many children? Questions to ask yourself:
    Why is the weather in most places actually getting colder? Take California as an example.
    Why are 98% of the ice sheets on both the South and North Poles actually increasing in size. Why was the coldest year in recorded history 1934? I guess man made causes were greater then? Why don’t the global warmist care about the 2,000 deaths a day (mostly children) directly caused by fighting a hoax. This number is accepepted by all economists as the cost of fighting global warming. I guess if we save 1 polar bear it is worth the sacrifice of 2,000 humans!!! Hopefully your child or grandchild will not be one of the 2,000? Why are poeople so arrogant to think that we as humans are greater than God and that we can change the weather?
    So please start thinking for yourself and don’t just follow the crowd. Look at the FACTS. If you do you will see GLOBAL WARMING IS A SCAM!

    Share
  4. There are 500 scientist world wide who refute Global Warming. News Max carried the article and used NASA data and imagery to indicate little to zero carbon emmisions. Check out the National Weather Service historical data that shows a slight cooling off since 1939. How can I accept a fraud scheme from a bunch of misinformed progressives?.

    Share

Comments have been disabled for this post