Would you buy carbon offsets?

[chulbert]

Carbon credits are permits sold by the government, in limited quantity, that entitle the owner to emit a predetermined amount of carbon. Companies typically buy these credits to cover their carbon emissions and avoid fines. Once the annual supply of credits have been exhausted, any company whose emissions are determined to be in excess of their credits will be fined.

Carbon offsets are currently a private and voluntary system whereby an individual, typically through a company specializing in this sort of business, pays to reduce the amount of carbon emissions elsewhere in the world in an effort to reduce their net emissions to zero. For example, they may pay to plant trees in a deforested area or subsidize clean energy in a developing nation.

 

[WildCat]

For example, they may pay to plant trees in a deforested area or subsidize clean energy in a developing nation.

Why am I picturing, say, a lumber company that has just clear-cut a forest selling offsets to plant trees that would have been planted anyway, only making money in the process?

 

[Scott Haley]

Wikipedia article

I recommend the Wikipedia article on this subject.

--Scott

 

[Puppycow]

I recommend the Wikipedia article on this subject.

--Scott

OK, I read it, but it doesn't really give me confidence. For example, if you simply left land alone, wouldn't it grow a forest anyway?

And if you protect one forest, they will simply cut down other trees elsewhere. Like squeezing a balloon, the demand for trees just goes to look for another supply.

Compared to a charity that provides vaccines to poor children, the benefits are much more uncertain. I would rather spend it on a family planning/women's empowerment charity. I think overpopulation is the root problem. These charities begin to address that problem. The more you educate and empower women, the fewer babies they have.

Financial Times investigation
In 2007, the Financial Times conducted an investigation of the carbon offsets industry.[21] Among the findings they reported were:

Widespread instances of people and organizations buying worthless credits that do not yield any reductions in carbon emissions.
Industrial companies profiting from doing very little – or from gaining carbon credits on the basis of efficiency gains from which they have already benefited substantially.
Brokers providing services of questionable or no value.
A shortage of verification, making it difficult for buyers to assess the true value of carbon credits.
Companies and individuals being charged over the odds for the private purchase of European Union carbon permits that have plummeted in value because they do not result in emissions cuts.

 

[Slimething]

I am not too sure about this global anthropogenic warming hypothesis. Although it makes intuitive sense, there is lack of direct evidence or reliable predictions or managment strategies for the problem. For now, I see that bit as an unamanageable problem and monetary contributions towards remediation of extremely doubtful benefit.

I am, however, fully against pollution of any type so I walk as much as I can. Keep my HVAC system on the minimal amount of time. Cook basic foods (not canned, processed stuff), plant trees, plant plants, etc. I don't see putting money in anyone's pocket as helping the problem in any way whatsoever. Especially seeing as how the Democrats (read the Green Party) in the US Congress just opened hearings into fraud in the carbon trading markets. (They're afraid that the current level of fraud will sink the battleship.)

I sincerely believe that using that money to upgrade the energy efficiency of what you operate to live as much better for the environment than giving it to someone you don't know to do something you don't know with it.

 

[The Painter]

Why am I picturing, say, a lumber company that has just clear-cut a forest selling offsets to plant trees that would have been planted anyway, only making money in the process?

Exactly. And why not?? I had the same thought. Maybe a landscaper in outer Whitelandia getting extra money for planting bushes and trees. How many offsets is a Red Maple or a Weeping Cherry worth?

 

[Rob Lister]

For each carbon credit you buy, I'll buy one of these

 

[Earthborn]

For each carbon credit you buy, I'll buy one of these

I guess you mean carbon offset. Buying a carbon credit allows you to increase your carbondioxide emissions.

 

[chulbert]

Why am I picturing, say, a lumber company that has just clear-cut a forest selling offsets to plant trees that would have been planted anyway, only making money in the process?

I think you've brought up an important point that hasn't yet been mentioned.

You're right, the company will make extra money for simply doing what they already planned. In fact, many of the earliest carbon offsets sold will represent reductions that were going to happen anyways.

However, once those are exhausted any unmet demand for offsets must be supplied with new offsets that represent reductions that wouldn't have otherwise occurred. Once those aforementioned trees reach maturity the lumber company will need to consider revenue lost by cutting them down.

 

[Overman]

I think you've brought up an important point that hasn't yet been mentioned.

You're right, the company will make extra money for simply doing what they already planned. In fact, many of the earliest carbon offsets sold will represent reductions that were going to happen anyways.

Read: Fraud

However, once those are exhausted any unmet demand for offsets must be supplied with new offsets that represent reductions that wouldn't have otherwise occurred. Once those aforementioned trees reach maturity the lumber company will need to consider revenue lost by cutting them down.

Actually, the Lumber company doubles by cutting down the trees, getting money for them, then just replanting new ones for even more carbon offsets.

 

[varwoche]

Why can't I just plant a tree in my back yard and be done with it?

Trees in temperate latitudes are less effective than trees in the tropics, according to recent studies.

 

[chulbert]

Read: Fraud

Not by any definition of fraud of which I am aware. Can you elaborate? Please be specific.

Actually, the Lumber company doubles by cutting down the trees, getting money for them, then just replanting new ones for even more carbon offsets.

This is a possibility; however, saplings offset less carbon than mature trees, which would reduce the number of offsets they could sell. Cutting down the trees would cost the company revenue.

 

[Slimething]

Not by any definition of fraud of which I am aware. Can you elaborate? Please be specific.

It's fraud on two separate counts:
1. The company selling the offset on the premise that the money will be used to perform an act that would additionally counteract global warming.

2. The company receiving payment which does not provide a service for it.

 

[Puppycow]

Not by any definition of fraud of which I am aware. Can you elaborate? Please be specific.



This is a possibility; however, saplings offset less carbon than mature trees, which would reduce the number of offsets they could sell. Cutting down the trees would cost the company revenue.

Even if you don't think it technically counts as fraud, you wouldn't pay your own personal money to pay a company to do something it would do anyway, would you?

Please read the quote from the article again:

Financial Times investigation
In 2007, the Financial Times conducted an investigation of the carbon offsets industry.[21] Among the findings they reported were:

Widespread instances of people and organizations buying worthless credits that do not yield any reductions in carbon emissions.
Industrial companies profiting from doing very little – or from gaining carbon credits on the basis of efficiency gains from which they have already benefited substantially.
Brokers providing services of questionable or no value.
A shortage of verification, making it difficult for buyers to assess the true value of carbon credits.
Companies and individuals being charged over the odds for the private purchase of European Union carbon permits that have plummeted in value because they do not result in emissions cuts.

 

[WildCat]

This is a possibility; however, saplings offset less carbon than mature trees, which would reduce the number of offsets they could sell. Cutting down the trees would cost the company revenue.

But what pulls more carbon from the air: a mature, old forest or a young forest? I would think a young forest, because there is far more undergrowth in a younger forest.

 

[The Grave]

Global scam!

NO!