Listen to this Podcast
More 60-Second Earth
-
The Best Science Writing Online 2012
Showcasing more than fifty of the most provocative, original, and significant online essays from 2011, The Best Science Writing Online 2012 will change the way...
Read More »
[Below is the original script. But a few changes may have been made during the recording of this audio podcast.]
The producers of the Fox TV show 24 are going carbon neutral. They're helping to fund a wind farm in India and burning some biodiesel in the production trucks to try to precisely balance the carbon dioxide emitted from all those klieg lights with the amount avoided by generating Indian electricity from the breeze rather than burning coal.
Only problem? The accounting doesn't quite work.
To truly offset CO<sub>2</sub> emissions, a project like a wind farm must be in addition to projects already in the works. If not, such so-called offsets aren't displacing the emissions from fossil fuel burning, they're simply adding more electricity to the overall system. That's the wrong kind of additionality.
This kind of tricky carbon accounting is what led the U.S. House of Representatives to abandon its pledge to go carbon neutral after determining that there is no way to verify that purchased offsets would make a difference. Too bad they already spent $89,000 on them.
Some say offsets are merely a way for the rich to buy their way out of environmental guilt. Whether it's offsets from no-till farming that would have happened anyway from the Chicago Climate Exchange or offsets from hydropower dams in China that would have been built anyway under the terms of the Clean Development Mechanism of the Kyoto Protocol, it's all a bit of a shell game at present.
Keep your eye on total emissions, which rise year after year. And remember: offsets may play a role in any upcoming cap-and-trade scheme to curb CO<sub>2</sub> emissions. We may figure out a way for offsets to be more than a marketing ploy, but the numbers have to add up.
—David Biello
60-Second Earth is a weekly podcast from Scientific American. Subscribe to this Podcast: RSS | iTunes
See what we're tweeting about
11 Comments
Add CommentCarbon credits are total BS. Try selling some for proof. Look for a market to sell credits on. I have a huge tract of rain forest and I wanted to sell some credits for it. My options are market it myself (who would know if I doubled sold them) or PAY to list them on some 2-bit exchange website that is as fake as being able to hold a CC in your hand. It is total magic money and a completely false market.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCarbon credits were defined in the Kyoto protocol by climate scientists, and were pointed to by Sir David Stern of the UK Treasury department in his review of the economic impact climate change in 2007 as an essential part of the climate solutions map because it is the best way to control the cost of reducing emissions - by allowing cap and trade. The challenge with projects is proving they are 'additional' and reducing emissions by a quantifiable amount. This is where (back to the Kyoto Protocol) you use independent standards and methodologies to prove the reductions are real - the leading standards are the Clean Developmen Mechanism in Kyoto, and the Voluntary Carbon Standard.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe idea that offsets are paying off your guilt is hysterical scaremongering. They are acknowledged as essential by people who actually know what they are talking about, not reactionist bloggers and posters. The idea that they are unproven and you don't know if you are reducing emissions is also false.
The fact that congress could not be bothered to do their research properly is hardly surprising given the US failed to sign Kyoto and has historically 'missed the point' on climate talks and policy.
Cap and trade reduces the cost by allowing more cost-effective ways such as biochar application to the soil to be substituted for more expensive carbon capture. Mistakes have been made but there is no reason that it cannot work well. Here is an article on biochar: www.clrlight.org/biochar.htm
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBe like algore! Send me some money, I'll send some boy scouts out to plant some trees! Trust me. It's that easy!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this$1,200 per 21 trees. Act now, I'm running low on trees.
tblakeslee : Unfortunately, to make biochar viable, third world entrepreneurs would have to receive carbon credits, but most countries have not signed the relevant treaties to make their citizens eligible. And biochar means there would be less incentive for people to avoid burning fossil fuels until they eventually ran out. The U.N. Convention to Combat Desertification is actually studying whether to apply biochar technology to restore the Sahel.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat was the co2 level in the air in the era of the dynosaurs? Look it up. Now how can you think co2 is hurting our world? More co2 will lead to better plant growth, better crops, and slightly higher temps. Well higher temps lead to more cloud cover, which leads to more rain, which helps us. Remember when everyone, including the top scientist, believed the world was flat? In 200 years the world will be laughing at the global warming society.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCompanies that are quick to offset their "toe print" are costing themselves twice as much to decrease their GHG inventory: the company must pay for the offsets while squandering its opportunity to invest in developing a sustainable industry.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAJD. The idea is that you do both and most businesses do. Avis offer offset to customers at the same time as increasing the proportion of hybrid vehicles in their fleet. Freshfields law firm reduced their footprint by 6% at the same time as buying offsets. Businesses treat this as a business issue and why would they buy offset at $10 a ton when they can reduce emissions in house at $8 a ton. They know that. The scientific community knows that. Regulators know that. Which is why the western climate initiative, RGGI, and the new president all want to include or are including offsets in their design. I will take the advice first I think.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBy all means go to the Chicago Climate Exchange and obtain carbon credits from M. Strong & A Gore, they really need the money and it will make you feel good about reducing your carbon foot print. You can be just like Al, live an extraviagent life style and be rightous too.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this" A fool and his money are soon parted."
This is just like the dispensations the Catholic Church sold, so people could sin, but pay to have their responsibility for those sins erased.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRich liberal politicians like Al Gore and Hollywood celebrities love stuff like this, where they can continue having multiple mansions, fly around in private jets, and generally live a life that uses more resources for themselves than a dozen average families, while being able to crow about how they care about the environment and are doing their part.
Of course, they then expect us peons to also sacrifice.
This is all a big scam by a bunch of Chicken Little hypocrites who are telling us the sky is falling between changing the story from the coming ice age, to global warming, to now it's a few decades of global cooling followed by massive global warming. Basically if it gets warmer, cooler or stays the same, they say it's all proof of their theory!
So a business or individual generates CO2, then pays a third party to do something to reduce CO2, that money goes into planting activities or whatever that generate more CO2 before any reduction is achieved. Surely we should focus on reducing CO2 at source?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this