The "carbon offset" scam

Well, I've always believed you should modify your lifestyle as much as possible. Paying someone else to mitigate your carbon footprint isn't much incentive to act differently. While I think Ed Begley Jr. is a little on the extreme, I'd rather live his way than just pay someone to plant trees.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(efusco @ Jun 24 2007, 12:28 PM) [snapback]467280[/snapback]</div>

I hear you. But I think some changes can be made that do not fit the definition of sacrifice. Slightly inconvenient, maybe. Less wasteful certainly.

Washing out a can and putting it in the recycling is a change in lifestyle that is inconvenient. It is not a sacrafice. Replacing that burned out incandescent lightbulb with a compact fluorescent is hardly inconvenient or a sacrafice. These are little things that can be done.

We're now putting blankets on our water heaters. Is that a sacrafice?

And as I do things little by little they become habit rather than inconvenient. And I can do more. And as I slowly do a little more and a little more, it will hardly seem like a sacrafice.

It's that....or somewhere along the line we are going to have to make sudden, drastic changes. And *that* will certainly seem like a sacrafice.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(efusco @ Jun 24 2007, 01:33 PM) [snapback]467307[/snapback]</div>

I hear you.

I'm taking a big plunge this year. I've applied for a home equity loan and am putting in solar panels. It's something I've wanted to do for 15 years. Advantage is that the technology has improved in the past 15 years. The cost hasn't. For the current incentives in place, this is the best year so I'm going for it. As long as I'm going that, I'm going to replace my driveway that has needed to be replaced since I moved in to the house in 1987. It has some major cracks and the top has worn/chipped off down to the aggregate. As long as it's being replaced, I'm going to put in "green pavers" rather than just have another slab poured. It will probably be more expensive. But it will add some plants where none were before. Maybe not enough to completely reverse global warming but doing my little bit. It will take a little more water, but I can extend the drip system I already have that is on timers so I doubt I'll see that much of an increase in the water bill. (I have a recycling washing machine BTW.) And when I wash my car, the driveway will now absorb that water. I may have to switch car shampoo to something that doesn't harm the green....don't know yet.

It is a shame that some things we can do aren't going to get done because of the price. Those same people that can't afford to purchase healthcare and aren't covered through their jobs are the same ones that are going to be buying cheap incandescent bulbs instead of compact fluorescents.

The one bright spot is recycling. In my city the recyclers pay for glass, plastic and aluminum so people that need money are more likely to recycle than those that are more affluent. And wha the recyclers don't pay for can be put in the blue bins. I'm rinsing and recycling the metal cans now. I just made $30 on the glass, plastic and aluminum I brought to the recycler last week. I had no idea it would be that much.

 

Just because some offsets are dubious - and some sure are - doesn't mean the concept is flawed. If you can something you are reasonably sure is legit, I see no reason to compare them to church indulgances. You're not trying to get into heaven - merely undo some of the damage you can't help causing in your daily life. Some people can only reduce their impact by so much, especially people who live in cities or people who have no choice but to fly frequently. It's certainly better than the alternative - doing nothing. You just need to do some research to make sure the contribution you make is really going towards something that will help "offset" your carbon footprint.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(efusco @ Jun 24 2007, 12:28 PM) [snapback]467280[/snapback]</div>

I look at sacrifices a little differently in that I'm hoping that the sacrifices I make now will help mitigate those that I may be forced to make down the road, should predictions about global warming become realized. But I guess it all comes down to what one considers a sacrifice. I don't like "stuff" anyway and I can't stand shopping.

I think carbon offset programs could be very important for people that don't have access to renewable energy for their homes, such as myself. In this case I don't see the purchase of these offsets as a cop out. I see them as being a potential important mechanism to provide demand for clean, renewable energy. These programs are still in their infancy, so I'm hoping that they work out the kinks so that I can be assured of the degree to which my footprint is offset and be assured that I'm not participating in a scam.

 

I'd like to add a slightly different perspective to this conversation. While carbon offsets may be viewed by some as a scam they may provide a useful tool for slowing urban sprawl.

What do I mean? In my coastal community landowners are often land rich and cash poor. As real estate prices continue to rise many landowners are seduced into selling their land. The subsequent development usually means pavement (increased runoff), houses (increases in community energy construction), habitat loss, wildlife corridor loss, species reductions...etc, etc.

I personally see a utility in carbon offsets as one possible cash source for landowners. What does this mean? Carbon offset payments added to other sustainable agricultural methods may decrease the economic pressures on landowners to sell land and thus begin to slow the ecologically erosive effects of urban sprawl.

In our case we have invested in land and have held it for over 20 years. I have included a link to my website which shows aerial photos from 2001 and 2006.
http://www.oldtramroadfarm.com/Carbon_Offset.html
The 2006 aerial photo shows the residential development adjacent to my property. My property is circled. I estimate that the carbon offset sequestration loss due to development is roughly 70 tons per year while the carbon pollution produced by each household is at least 15 tons per year. (If you do go to my site you'll see some google ads. Some are anti carbon offset and some are pro. Whatever your perspective on carbon offsets, I think it is undeniable that a forest is more environmentally friendly than a parking lot).

I am sure that some of you think I am promoting my website, a business model or perhaps even a scam?

Yes and no. There is no scam on my part. I am simply promoting the concept of private parties working together to preserve land. I encourage you to support local landowners/farmers, private nature areas, the preservation of public woodlands and the development of blighted urban areas instead of forests/farmland. By becoming involved in this way you can maintain or increase local carbon sequestration and help slow urban sprawl.

Thanks,

 

http://www.cheatneutral.com/

Seriously though, although I'm skeptical about offsetting generally, I think that more specific schemes like Cool Earth Action are a good idea - stopping endangered rainforest from being flattened - one of the biggest CO2 hazards at the moment. This is of course the sort of thing that should be done on an intergovernmental level: carbon trading schemes should be paying these countries squillions to protect their forests.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(KMO @ Jun 27 2007, 08:59 AM) [snapback]468726[/snapback]</div>

KMO, I'm skeptical also. I do however embrace the carbon offset concept when I can reach out and touch the trees, plants or farmland.

That is why I recommend that likeminded folks group together or independently purchase forests, farmland or implement an afforestry program on property they themselves manage. If that is not within reach then my recommendation is to support your nearest organic farmer.

I remain hesitant to recommend one send money to a corporation who in turn plants trees in some far away place. Although the tropics do absorb significant amounts of CO2 the termperate climes also contribute. Anyway, I like to walk in my forest. I can't do that if my forest is in equatorial Africa, Asia or South America. Flying there seems to defeat the purpose.

Jim

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Suburban600 @ Jun 27 2007, 08:00 AM) [snapback]468802[/snapback]</div>

Try ArborDay.org-Replanting our National Forests
http://arborday.org/replanting/
or
AmericanForests.org
http://americanforests.org/
"American Forests works to protect, restore and enhance the natural capital of trees and forests. Healthy forests filter water, remove air pollution, sequester carbon, and provide homes for wildlife. Help plant trees to restore areas damaged by wildfire, where critical wildlife habitat has been lost, and to clean our air and water."

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(nytimez @ Jun 24 2007, 06:37 PM) [snapback]467388[/snapback]</div>

Well said.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(HBO6 @ Jun 28 2007, 08:42 AM) [snapback]469309[/snapback]</div>

HBO6, Wonderful programs for taking action here in the US! By the way If anyone gets a chance to go visit the Arbor Day foundation...do so...maybe sort of a Prius pilgrimage. We really enjoyed our visit while we were living in Omaha. Thanks for jogging those memories. I intend to put links to those organizations on the carbon offset or environmentalism portions of my website at www.oldtramroadfarm.com .

I think that there is room at the table for everyone to help turn around domestic deforestation. Whether buying land or contributing to an organization that does the same helps to reverse deforestation here in the US. As you may know most (60%) of the forested land in the US is privately owned and the total of forested acreage is decreasing every day. According to the article at the link 1 million acres of forest sucumbs to development each year ( http://www.fpemagazine.com/articles/44millionacres.html ). The problem is not just a problem for the tropics.

For example, just the other day as I was flying into Atlanta the scars of development covered the areas along the approach path of the aircraft. Trees bulldozed making way for thousands and thousands of suburban homes. In an areas which have development potential the owners sold what in many cases was their birthright...and today instead of walking through a forest full of wildlife, a variety of plants and trees they walk along paved streets in front of overfertilized monoculture yards dotted with an occassional remnant or non-native tree. But, how can a landowner resist someone waving a check for a million dollars?

I encourage everyone to contribute to forest preservation.

 

I hope that someone else's toxic rain doesn't damage the forests we're trying to preseve!

 

Folks, here's a study that evaluates the current crop of the carbon offset companies currently operating around the globe. I found this study when I was looking to renew my 2007 offset a couple of months ago... and since then I also posted the link at www.cleanMPG.com.

http://www.tufts.edu/tie/tci/carbonoffsets...oncompanies.htm

You can reach the PDF publication here:

http://www.tufts.edu/tie/tci/pdf/TCI_Carbo..._April-2-07.pdf

I know some of you have doubts about these companies, or even perhaps the concept of paying for one's environmental "mis-deeds" but for some of us "inactivity" is not a moral option. Even if you do not believe in offsetting your carbon, heck, at least read what drives the other people so that you can better argue them in your next exchange.

If you were intent on buying some offsets, this study can help you decide which company is doing the most with your offset dollars and as a result making the most difference in the world.


Cheers;

MSantos

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(MSantos @ Jun 30 2007, 09:01 AM) [snapback]470560[/snapback]</div>

Thanks for the valuable info. I'll be looking through the list. I am especially interested in finding information on how private landowners can have their carbon sequestration verified and then sell directly to individuals seeking to offset thier carbon pollution.

I am interested in adding carbon offset to a list of agricultural/natural products available for members of community supported agriculture enterprises with emphasis on the concepts developed by Dr. Booker T. Whately. http://www.motherearthnews.com/UnCategoriz...-T-Whatley.aspx

We currently estimate that our property sequesters about 93 metric tons of carbon per year. That is based on 2 tons per acre. However, the table extracts below see: http://www.epa.gov/sequestration/rates.html
Indicates that our 46 acre property reforested in primarily loblolly pine could be as low as .6 tons per acre on a 50 year rotation. Erring to the low side our property would still sequester 27.6 metric tons. Never the less, it seems we do have excess sequestration capacity that could be placed on the market.

I think there should be a market for property owners to make direct carbon offset sales to individuals. Offsetting carbon coupled with camping, biofuel sales, and other products from the land may combine to make a desireable environmentally oriented package of products for consumers.

To date the only means I have found for determining my properties annual carbon sequestration is from the US EPA (see below):

*************
Representative Carbon Sequestration Rates and Saturation Periods for Key Agricultural & Forestry Practices
Important Note: Any associated changes in emissions of methane (CH4) nitrous oxide (N2O) or fossil CO2 not included.

Representative carbon sequestration rate in U.S.(Metric tons of C per acre per year) Time over which sequestration may occur before saturating (Assuming no disturbance, harvest or interruption of practice)
References

Afforestation a)
0.6 – 2.6 b )
90 – 120+ years
Birdsey 1996

Reforestation c)
0.3 – 2.1 d)
90 – 120+ years
Birdsey 1996

Changes in forest management
0.6 – 0.8 e)
If wood products included in accounting, saturation does not necessarily occur if C continuously flows into products
Row 1996

0.2 f)
IPCC 2000

Conservation or riparian buffers
0.1 – 0.3 g)
Not calculated
Lal et al. 1999

Conversion from conventional to reduced tillage
0.2 – 0.3 h)
15 – 20 years
West and Post 2002

0.2 i)
25 – 50 years
Lal et al. 1999

Changes in grazing land management
0.02 – 0.5 j)
25 – 50 years
Follet et al. 2001

Biofuel substitutes for fossil fuels
1.3 – 1.5 k)
Saturation does not occur if fossil fuel emissions are continuously offset
Lal et al. 1999

a ) Values are for average management of forest after being established on previous croplands or pasture.
b ) Values calculated over 120-year period. Low value is for spruce-fir forest type in Lake States; high value for Douglas Fir on Pacific Coast. Soil carbon accumulation included in estimate.
c ) Values are for average management of forest established after clearcut harvest.
d ) Values calculated over 120-year period. Low value is for Douglas Fir in Rocky Mountains; high value for Douglas Fir in Pacific Coast. No accumulation in soil carbon is assumed.
e ) Select examples, calculated over 100 years. Low value represents change from 25-year to 50-year rotation for loblolly pines in Southeast; high value is change in management regime for Douglas Fir in Pacific Northwest. Carbon in wood products included.
f ) Forest management here encompasses regeneration, fertilization, choice of species and reduced forest degradation. Average estimate here is not specific to U.S., but averaged over developed countries.
g ) Assumed that carbon sequestration rates are same as average rates for lands under USDA Conservation Reserve Program.
h ) Estimates include only conversion from conventional to no-till for all cropping systems except for wheat-fallow systems, which may not produce net carbon gains. Estimates of changes in other greenhouse gases not included.
i ) Assumed that average carbon sequestration rates are same for conversion from conventional till to no-till, mulch till or ridge till. Estimates of changes in other greenhouse gases not included.
j ) See Improve/Intensify Management section in Table 16.1 of Follett et al. (2001). Low end is improvement of rangeland management; high end is changes in grazing management on pasture, where soil organic carbon is enhanced through manure additions. Estimates of flux changes in other greenhouse gases not included.
k ) Assumes growth of short-rotation woody crops and herbaceous energy crops, and that burning this biomass offsets 65-75% of fossil fuel in CO2 emissions. Estimates of changes in other greenhouse gases not included.