What is carbon offsetting?

Carbon offsetting is the process of attempting to redeem the CO₂ generated by a particular activity, by paying a contribution to a project that will remove an equivalent amount of CO₂ from the atmosphere, or prevent its release.

Got that? OK. Let’s try again.

“…carbon offsetting is Enron environmentalism, a neat accounting trick that does little to stop global warming. The government should focus on transforming the way we use energy here in the UK at the same time as helping to put the growing economies of the developing world on a low carbon pathway.”
Greenpeace statement on carbon offsetting, 17 January 2007

An offset is essentially a financial instrument, measured and traded in units corresponding to one tonne of CO₂. Buy an offset, create a tonne of pollution (or visa versa). Your money funds projects to develop renewable energy, carbon sequestration (capturing and burying pollution), energy efficiency, or forestry. Theoretically, by the time you’re done, it’s as if you never polluted in the first place. In reality, assuming the project you contributed to was even fully successful, your carbon emissions may not be neutralised for years.

Proponents of offsetting see it as anything from a great way to create investment in renewable energy and energy efficiency to a panacea for developing countries. Another way of looking at carbon offsetting is that it is a license to pollute, what George Monbiot describes as “an excuse for business as usual”. When the ideal aim of reduction of CO₂ emissions costs money and takes investment, effort and changes to infrastructure and behaviour, offsetting offers a great way out by paying for these things to happen elsewhere while you continue doing what you were doing all along.

Carbon offsetting is controversial, difficult to prove, and yet the most popular way so far to mitigate climate change.

How does offsetting work?

Cough up if you cough up.

Carbon offsetting activities can be split into two main types; the large scale offset trading of companies and governments to comply with greenhouse gas emissions capping within a regulatory regime set out by the Kyoto Protocol, and the smaller scale activities of organisations, companies, governments and individuals within a voluntary regime. That means anything from nation states building wind farms to a family paying for a few trees to be planted to offset their flight to Spain.

Since the introduction of the Kyoto Protocol on February 16 2005, 183 countries have agreed to put in place efforts to reduce 5 percent of their GHG emissions between 2008 and 2012 from 1990 levels, including Europe. The UK has since undertaken to reduce carbon emissions by 34% on 1990 levels by 2020, announcing the Low Carbon Transition Plan on 15 July.

Under the EU Emissions Trading System (ETS), also introduced in 2005, companies can buy and sell carbon credits representing one tonne of carbon emissions. In exchange for a payment, a company is allowed to emit carbon, with the payment contributing to the cost of projects that defray the environmental impact of those carbon emissions. If a company has excess permits, it can sell these in an open marketplace.

The failure of the ETS

The ETS has been compromised by political and commercial meddling since its inception. Emissions caps were initially set too high, ignoring the scientifically indicated effective level, and industrial lobbying has led to a market flooded with surplus permits.

After the introduction of the ETS, industry lobbied the EU over the perceived commercial threat posed by a strict carbon trading scheme – to tourism and transport, for example. To placate industry, emissions permits were over-issued, for free or from abroad in the form of Certified Emissions Reduction (CER) credits from the Clean Development Mechanism, a system where industrialised, high-carbon nations can buy credit from developing, low-carbon nations. This flooded the permits market, commoditising permits and driving down their value to less than €1 in the early stages. An ETS carbon credit costs about €14 at the time of writing, less than half of its peak value in 2008.

With low-cost, readily available emissions permits, combined with a reduction in emissions in the last decade due to recession and off-shoring, many European companies have acquired a massive surplus of emissions permits. For example, German company Integriertes Hüttenwerk has 10.3 million surplus permits, one in ten of all surplus permits in the EU. That’s roughly the amount of emissions one person creates by flying return from London to Sydney. Two and a half million times.

European industry is likely to have 400 million tonnes worth of surplus permits in the period 2008-2012, which could be sold for over €5 billion in profits, or simply banked for future use, potentially depressing permit prices for the foreseeable future, while having no effect on emissions levels. There is no formal mechanism for clawing these surplus credits back. Companies are effectively able to continue business as usual, profit from surplus credits, and further enable other companies to pollute. High limits on the use of CER credits and further stockpiling could lead to a possible surplus of 1.6 billion permits in the ETS, which may be kept in reserve up to 2020.

Failing the environment

The environmental concerns attached to the failure of the EU ETS are numerous.

• Firstly, with the reduced value of emissions permits and overall volatility of prices, no predictable revenue stream exists to undertake large-scale sustainable energy projects or other projects aimed at reducing the impact of emissions. A lack of investment in low-carbon technologies arguably renders the ETS redundant as one of its primary aims is to fund this investment.
• Secondly, the ability of companies to purchase CER credits through the Clean Development Mechanism allows industrialised nations to purchase credit from developing countries with lower emissions, enabling them to continue to pollute by claiming the credit of low-carbon nations. It goes without saying that the effects of climate change caused by continuing carbon emissions are often felt most severely in precisely those developing countries.
• Thirdly, European companies sitting on a potential surplus of 1.6 billion tonnes of emissions permits need take no action on cutting domestic emissions, keeping surplus permits banked for sale or offsetting.
• Finally, any benefit of lower emissions levels due to decreased fossil fuel consumption as a result of decreased industrial output is cancelled out by the sustained activity of polluting companies with surplus credits, as well as their having enabled other companies – particularly power companies – to pollute with traded credit.

The next steps

The United Nations climate change conference in Copenhagen this December presents an opportunity to address the failures of the current approach to climate change, stymied by the competing concerns of the economy and the environment – as the EU ETS so clearly illustrates.

Fixing the ETS

The EU ETS could still provide a template for fledgling international emissions capping schemes, even for a global emissions market.

UK campaigning organisation Sandbag is focussed on emissions trading, specifically fixing the problem of surplus low-price EU emissions permits. Sandbag provides supporters with the means to buy and ‘retire’ (tear up) emissions permits, thus taking permits out of the system which can not then be used to pollute. Companies like Carbon Retirement also focus exclusively on buying and retiring emissions permits.

Sandbag is also campaigning to tighten emissions caps, forcing industry and governments to take the action that the ETS was originally designed to promote – to develop low-carbon energy infrastructure. These measures, along with financial incentives for permit cancellation and setting reserve permit prices, could repair the bloated and ineffective ETS.

Gold Standard organisations such as Climate Care also provide brokerage, trading and offsetting services with a focus on investment in effective, high quality projects offering sustainable development.

Protest and awareness

Campaigning organisations continue to serve an essential function by raising public consciousness to the issues around climate change, and stimulating debate.

On the day of publication of the UK government’s Low Carbon Transition Plan, the World Development Movement described it as a ‘dangerous get-out-of-jail-free card’ due to the reliance of the plan on carbon offsetting. Furthermore the WDM has initiated the ‘Big If’ campaign to protest against the construction of the new E.ON coal fired power station at Kingsnorth in Kent, inviting supporters to vote for candidates who oppose the construction of coal fired power stations, organise vigils, and ‘stand in the way’. Actor Pete Postlethwaite, supporting the campaign, told the press at the launch of environmental documentary ‘The Age of Stupid’ that the government should be dissolved if it proceeded with the construction of new coal fired power stations. Projects like the new Kingsnorth facility can only go ahead with the use of carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology to sequester the huge amounts of carbon they will generate, and represent a step in the opposite direction from the development of renewable or low-carbon energy production.

Offsetting done right?

Surui land viewed with Google Earth

The Surui people of the Brazilian Amazon have been fighting a grassroots campaign with the assistance of environmental and monitoring groups, to protect their tribal lands from deforestation. They first drove settlers away in 1982 after their tribe was virtually wiped out by disease and loss of land in the wake of incursions by land speculators and loggers. The Surui have gained support from organisations who seek to promote the REDD (Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation) approach to carbon capture, an approach based on the principle that forests are worth more intact than felled.

Though reforestation is a controversial approach to carbon offsetting (amongst other reasons, CO₂ capture can be difficult to guarantee), the REDD approach suggests that leaving forests intact could go some way to mitigating up to one fifth of the world’s carbon emissions, and that intact forests, if closely monitored, are an essential component of a successful low-carbon future for the world. REDD attracts funding to communities in developing countries; the Surui map their lands with laptops and a high-resolution version of Google Earth, and they have been given funding for community education and health projects, and the establishment of sustainable industries. Industrialised countries can sink money into REDD projects as a component of their current cap-and-trade activities.

REDD may be our last, best hope of saving the tropical forests.
Rhett Butler, Washington Monthly

REDD has the potential to gain more support at Copenhagen as it is shown to be more vigorously monitored, offering quantifiable benefits and development opportunities for indigenous people, and able to offer other benefits such as the preservation of biodiversity.

The future

It is vital that EU leadership (in climate change) continues. We have to invest in the future and the future is low-carbon.
Nicholas Stern (author of the Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change)

UN climate chief Yvo de Boer identifies four essential points that must be agreed at Copenhagen:

1. How much are the industrialized countries willing to reduce their emissions of greenhouse gases?
2. How much are major developing countries such as China and India willing to do to limit the growth of their emissions?
3. How is the help needed by developing countries to engage in reducing their emissions and adapting to the impacts of climate change going to be financed?
4. How is that money going to be managed?

Along with initiatives like REDD, clean energy development and low-carbon technology transfer to developing countries, fixing the EU ETS offers only part of the solution – and it’s worth noting that every question asked by de Boer above involves money. Idealistic ambitions to save the world will come to nothing if no one is willing to foot the bill.

Related posts:

1. Carbon neutral with that? Lucy Siegle points out in today’s Observer that everything is...
2. Sandbag New website http://sandbag.org.uk/ offers a solution to carbon emissions by...
3. REDD A fascinating article on the Washington Monthly website by (I...

Toilet paper. Really quite overrated.

When Christian Wolmar wrote an article on Guardian’s Comment Is Free recently appealing for people to give up using toilet paper, reactions included “who’s going to pay for a bidet for every toilet in the land?”, “can’t a guy just have a shit in peace?”, “I already recycle my cans and bottles, I’m buggered if I’m giving up my quilted Andrex”, and “I swear to god, these Greens will not be satisfied until we’re all volunteering, gladly, to throw ourselves into a vat of piranhas, for the good of Gaia”. There were supportive comments, but generally speaking, suggesting you quit using toilet paper, in the Guardian, well that’s the mad ranting of another dahl-munching leftie who knocked their real ale over because they banged their tambourine too hard to All Around My Hat.

Wolmar’s comment was prompted by another article about how in the US, the Natural Resources Defence Council has revealed that over 98% of the toilet roll purchased is made from virgin wood. The American bottom is apparently too sensitive to have recycled products anywhere near it, people possibly imagining that in the first wipe they’ll have wood splinters the size of HB pencils piercing their backsides, or beaver hair irritating them as they sit down for Monday Night Football. In Europe and Latin America, according to the article, up to 40% of toilet paper is made from recycled products, which presumably to American tastes makes our bottoms as unattractive as our teeth.

Reactions to the Wolmar article were partly Carry-On-At-Your-Convenience titters because a lot of people tend to be coy about taking a dump (unless you’re one of those people who announce their imminent bowel evacuation to the house with a rolled-up newspaper under one arm and the look of an expectant parent). Toilet roll adverts feature puppies and butterflies and all sorts of soft things designed to make us feel like defecating is some kind of transcendental experience, where if toilet roll adverts were completely honest they’d say nothing more than “This is effective at wiping fecal matter from your anus”. Sorry, hope you weren’t eating. And yet people buy toilet roll that has been quilted, infused with aloe vera, played with by puppies, gently rolled between the thighs of Tahitian virgins and fluffed by meadow breezes. Then cover it in shit and flush it down the lavatory, quilting and all.

The alternative to toilet roll suggested by Wolmar is to use water to clean ourselves after defecating. For some, this conjures up images of squatting over holes in the ground, flies everywhere. They appear to be unable to entertain the possibility that a cheap hose attachment can be added to a normal flush toilet without either having to turn their bathroom into the Mumbai slums or find room for a new bidet, and unless they’ve tried it they might not realise that it is actually far cleaner than using toilet paper. Squirt, dab dry, and away. Look at it this way – if your hand was covered in poo, would you wipe it or wash it before you ate?

But this is all academic, because a lot of us are fed up with being lectured about what we need to do next to protect the environment. Getting rid of toilet paper is only one of the things we could do to mitigate climate change, but we’re already up in arms about rat-infested rubbish that is only collected once every fortnight, being expected to wash cans and containers for recycling, putting bricks in our cisterns, eating meat less often or having to listen to a word George Monbiot says. You can hear an entire society clapping their hands to their ears and shouting “No more advice!” when another thing gets added to the list of Your Green Obligations, like Friends of the Earth and Greenpeace are some authoritarian regime who want to suck all the fun out of life and turn us into soap-dodging hippies.

Not all of the advice that we’re given about what we can do to ‘be greener’ will be 100% effective. Not all climate change is caused by human activity. Not every one of the dozens of species extinctions that happen around the world every week is caused by human activity, this is true. People have rightly learned to be sceptical about statistics and studies when the newspapers can’t make their minds up from week to week whether coffee and red wine are good for us or bad for us. It’s also easy to see hypocrisy left, right and center. Emma Thomson appears on TV protesting the building of a third runway at Heathrow, a short while after she has flown up and down the first two runways to work in the US. Stephen Fry has been flying around the world looking for endangered species for his series Last Chance To See – flying in airplanes that use fossil fuels that create greenhouse gases that may well damage the habitats of the species he is filming.

That all said, even in the face of ambiguity about statistics, science and hypocrisy, it is widely acknowledged that human activity is to blame for accelerating climate change and species extinction. Swathes of tropical forest are being felled, wildlife habitats being fragmented, directly because of our demand for paper and palm oil. Even the most conservative estimates of anticipated climate change and species loss may be woefully inadequate. We are, according to some reports, on the verge of the sixth mass-extinction in the Earth’s 4.8 billion year history. And why should we be immune from this extinction? If the 4,800 million year age of the Earth were viewed as one year in time, humans would have arrived not just on the last day of the year, but at only two minutes to midnight. Barely time enough to pour champagne and find someone for an awkward snog as midnight strikes. We’re newbies, even if we are smart enough to have invented the iPod.

Claiming that ‘these scientists don’t know what they’re talking about’ or ‘these Greens won’t be happy until we’re brushing our teeth with twigs and shitting in the woods like bears’, as if people who are attempting to put forward some kind of solution are crackpots and we have time to wait for the jury to come in is little more than using reasonable doubt as an excuse for deliberate, bloody-minded ignorance and laziness. Dismissing environmental activists and scientists as ‘these greens, tree huggers and crackpots’ is as much of a waste of time as environmentalists labelling those who dispute the scientific evidence for climate change as ‘deniers’, arguably a reference to holocaust denial and an attempt to stigmatise such a stance. Melanie Phillips of the Daily Mail was recently labelled as one of the top ten ‘climate change deniers’ by George Monbiot, for such statements as “the theory that global warming is all the fault of mankind is a massive scam based on flawed computer modelling, bad science and an anti-western ideology”. As loony as that statement appears to be to me, she’s entitled to say it.

In 1992, the UN adopted the precautionary principle for preventing climate change. It says that “In order to protect the environment, the precautionary approach shall be widely applied by States according to their capabilities. Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation”. The other aspect of the precautionary approach is that the burden of proof of climate change and the risks we all face falls to those who would have us act to prevent it. If Melanie Phillips or David Bellamy dismiss the hazard of human-driven climate change, it is down to scientists to provide the evidence that they are wrong, but the precautionary principle also says, basically, that the risks are too great to do nothing while we wait to find out.

Phillips, Bellamy and others who dismiss what they see as alarmist talk of rampant climate change don’t offer any solutions, because they don’t even believe there is a problem. Indeed, the Daily Mail recently campaigned against low-energy light bulbs in the light (no pun intended) of an imminent ban on the sale of traditional light bulbs, even giving away free incandescent bulbs. The Mail saw the removal of traditional light bulbs from sale not as a measure to increase energy efficiency but as a petty Eurocratic move to rob people of good reading light and foist overpriced, dull, new-fangled light bulbs onto us all.

Whether it is low-energy light bulbs or hosing your backside, what some people see as just more hard work and some others see as infringement on our liberties by anti-Capitalists with hidden agendas are just more of the things that add up to a precautionary approach to tackling climate change that may, just may, affect all of us.

The reality of our situation in the future will be somewhere between the Roland Emmerich-directed apocalypse suggested by some, and the absence of anything in particular suggested by others. Where on this scale you think we’ll be is down to you, but chances are you’re neither a mung bean-eating hippie or Melanie Phillips. Don’t beat yourself up if you’re not triple-glazing your spectacles or knitting your own underwear just yet. Just don’t knock the hose until you’ve tried it.

No related posts.