Commentary

First, a little background.

A carbon offset is when you pay someone to reduce CO2 emissions somewhere to counteract your own CO2 emissions.

Global warming is caused by an increase in CO2 in the atmosphere.  The earth's atmosphere is a big mixing bowl of ingredients so CO2 emitted anywhere affects all of us and CO2 reduced anywhere benefits all of us.  So from a global warming perspective, it does not matter if you emit CO2 in one location as long as you reduce the same amount of CO2 somewhere else.

So why the fuss?  Toss in morality and some ineffective carbon offset products and voila.

Morality

If we view the CO2 emissions as an immoral act, comparable to cheating on your spouse, then you can see that a carbon offset doesn’t wipe away your immorality any more than paying another couple to stay faithful wipes away your infidelity.  This is the Medieval Indulgences argument against offsets.  CO2 emissions are sinful and no church contribution or carbon offset can neutralize the sin.

Ed Begley Jr., the actor and environmental activist, said in a comment that sounds anti-carbon offset, ...If you’re going to drive a Hummer and buy carbon offsets, that’s like getting drunk every night and getting into an AA meeting, throwing money in the basket, and leaving. [Full Begley interview available here.]

Ed Begley is a carbon offset buyer so I think what he meant was that we should do our best to reduce our emissions and buy more efficient cars than Hummers.  Then we buy carbon offsets.  Even Ed Begley with his solar panels, wind turbine, electric cars and bicycle-powered toaster creates some CO2. 

Many environmentalists and members of Congress, support legislation that puts in place a CO2 Cap and Trade system.  Cap and Trade has been used quite successfully to reduce US sulfur dioxide (SO2) emissions.

Cap and Trade moves morality into a back seat role in this conversation.  A Cap and Trade law says we need to reduce CO2 quickly but it will be harder for some businesses to reduce than others.  For example, if you own a coal-fired power plant, CO2 reductions for you will come only with extremely large investments in new technology.  So let businesses that can make the CO2 reductions quickly sell some of their reductions to businesses that are having trouble making reductions.  A financial reward to be green is created.  The coal-fired power plant buys another business's CO2 reductions in order to achieve the overall CO2 reduction target.  Since the net result is a reduction in CO2, environmentalists are happy. 

It would be ironic if environmentalists who support Cap and Trade were against carbon offsets.  Because Cap and Trade is all about paying someone else to reduce CO2 on your behalf.

Effectiveness

So what is really bothering us about carbon offsets?  What is really bothering us is that we are not convinced that they are effective.  Does my $100 carbon offset purchase really cause 10 tons of CO2 to be reduced somewhere?  Or am I just making a contribution to someone who would have reduced the 10 tons anyway? 

Carbon offsets are complicated enough so that it is hard to determine exactly how the CO2 reduction is occurring.  RECs (renewable energy credits) often form the basis of a carbon offset.  A REC is the environmental benefit derived from 1 kilowatt hour of electricity created from renewable energy sources.  Huh? 

Trees are sometimes planted to create the CO2 reduction in a carbon offset.  But if you create 10 tons of CO2 today and offset it with tree planting, doesn’t it take a decade or two for the trees to offset the 10 tons?  Can we put off the CO2 reduction until 2027?

BusinessWeek and the Financial Times have weighed in to describe particular situations where a carbon offset project has not achieved the CO2 reductions advertised.

Summary

Carbon offset quality varies.  Some work well, others are not worth much.  The debate continues. 

But I maintain that there is nothing wrong with the carbon offset concept.  If the purchase of a carbon offset does directly cause a reduction in CO2 that would not have occurred without the offset purchase, then we should all buy them including Hummer owners.  Especially Hummer owners.

Assuming that the carbon offsets that Mr. Begley purchases are effective, I would change his analogy to:

Driving a Hummer and buying carbon offsets is like earning a big salary and donating some of it to charities that help the poor.  Sure it would be better if you just helped the poor directly but no one complains if you have a charity do it on your behalf.

What we don’t want is people to emit lots of CO2 and then buy carbon offsets that don’t really reduce the CO2.  Because that’s when you have the meaningless situation from the Middle Ages where you sin and then buy forgiveness from the church. 

Carbon offsets are not about CO2 emissions forgiveness.  They are about keeping your emissions from building up in the atmosphere in the first place.