Carbon offsets should trouble anyone concerned about climate change. Whether on a personal, business, or community/nation level, even when they work, they act almost as a form of indulgence: paying someone else resources as a means to make up for your own failures and problem creation.
If offsets can manage to work, however, to help hasten reductions in global pollution levels such that we can avoid a massive crash in the global system's ability to support modern human civilization, then this is a moral and ethical issue worthy of debate and discussion in philosophical circles rather than a functional reasoning to fail to exploit any and all effective measures to turn the tides of Global Warming's rising seas.
The real challenge when it comes to "offsets" is a functional one:
Do international carbon offset programs work well today to help reduce carbon emissions cost effectively?
Should we have confidence that that they will do so into the future?
A report, released earlier today, suggests the answer is an emphatic NO!
A pause for a brief definitional item:
Carbon Offsets, as referred to here, are really an international issue. In other words, moving resources across international boundaries to support emissions reductions in one country to 'offset' emissions in another. Currently, the European Union's cap and trade scheme allows significant credits (in essence, 50% of a nation's targeted reductions) for international offsets. The Waxman-Markey American Clean Energy & Security (ACES) bill, that passed the House earlier this year, has significant provisions for international offsets. (Enough, in fact, that they could, in theory, displace any direct US carbon emissions for decades into the future.)
Back to the questions
Friends of the Earth just published A Dangerous Distraction: Why offsets are a mistake that the US cannot afford to make. This report provides significant documentation to answer the two functional questions. And, that material should give us great pause because the answer to both questions, based on this work, is a very resounding: NO!
Do international carbon offset programs work well today to help reduce carbon emissions cost effectively?
As for today, there are multiple ways in which the current offsets systems are gamed and some serious functional problems in the offsets' processes, leading to uncertain results and uncertain effectiveness as to actual carbon emissions.
- There is, at best, uncertainty about whether programs would have gone forward without offset investments. In a large number of cases, the programs are already under construction. To give a rather large example, hydropower is a Chinese government priority: basically every single building PRC hydropower program has applied for (and, normally, received) offset certification. Would China have no hydropower without international offset investments?
- There are limited resources for true auditing of claims in applications and for auditing actual programs.
- The baseline are "Business as Usual" for pollution. What that "BAU" might be, without the offset investment, is somewhat like voodoo economics and, as per bullet above, there are limited resources for actual analysis as to that BAU's actual validity.
- Resources from the current programs are going to many questionable programs, including significant investments in fossil fuel energy systems rather than energy efficiency and clean energy.
Should we have confidence that that they will do so into the future?
Sadly, the situation looks grim on this account. With tightening carbon restrictions, there is mounting pressure for increasing offset availability, with little action seen to deal with the fundamental challenges
It is suicide to base our future on offsets. Offsets provide the illusion of taking action to stop global warming when in fact they often allow emissions to rise," said Michael Despines of Friends of the Earth, one of the authors of the report. "People need to realize how dangerous offsets can be—they provide a false sense of security because they often do not deliver as promised."
Fundamentally -- Offsets as counterproductive ...
The title carries real meaning: A Dangerous Distraction. If implemented, on larger scale, in anything like the way in which this report outlines, offsets will be little better than dangerous distractions from the serious business of reducing carbon emissions -- globally. Offsets could provide a tool for providing a fig leaf of meaningful action, while actually providing coverage for retarding investments in a low-carbon future.
Global Warming represents a serious challenge (and serious opportunities). We need global reduction of emissions, not too easily gamed trading schemes that could foster (near) business as usual polluting activities.
Some additional thoughts
There are reasons to look to international offsets, at least in theory, as part of real climate change solutions. If $1 can achieve X reductions in carbon emissions in country A, but 2X emissions in country Y, then it would be a more efficient use of resources to secure that 2X emissions levels with that $1 as quickly as possible. The challenge, however, is that we would not truly secure a 2X reductions, as the emitter in country A would expend enough resources to meet their X reduction requirement, pocketing the difference in the interim. This is, however, assuming that the system works well, honestly and efficiently. As A Dangerous Distraction documents, however, current offset mechanisms look to be riddled with quite serious problems and those problems might just increase, rather than be constrained, with growing demands for international offsets with a tightening EU program and the creation of a US Cap and Trade system.
There are those who advocate strongly and passionately for the value of offsets, for their value as a core part of any cap & trade regime. They argue that the US system would have significant safeguards as to actual programs that would be authorized (with tighter controls, they assert, then seen with current CDM processes) and that the actual availability of affordable carbon offsets would be far lower than the levels ACES authorizes. And, they advocate that offsets help provide tools for addressing serious challenges. For example, we must stop (and reverse) deforestration (especially, but not solely, of tropical forests) -- are there viable paths, outside offset credits to providing the necessary resources to achieve this?
We need a fundamental and thoughtful lay down of the varying arguments (and data) on 'both sides' of this discussion, with a focus on the actually effectiveness of offsets to the achievement of emissions' reductions.
From my, limited, perspective, I see power in how offsets can help accelerate both Developing Countries moves to a more prosperous and cleaner energy future while also providing more cost-effective tools for reducing emissions on a global scale. However, there are some elements that would make this more 'effective', imo, that could include elements such as the following:
- Developed countries should adopt targets at the high end of IPCC recommendations (40% below 1990 levels) and allow offsets to account to no more than the amount that represents the low end of IPCC recommentatiosn (25% below 1990 levels). Thus, drive real reductions in the developed world while provide a still substantial window for international offsets (and the resources these represent).
- Drive for auditable, science-based standards for offsets, with overlapping auditing to reduce the potential for fraud and errors.
- Do not allow offsets to be a 1 for 1, but some multiple (perhaps 3 tons of offset for every 2 tons not reduced in the developed country) to reflect the reality of inefficiencies and achieve greater impact from the offset provisions.
These are, simply, some thoughts as to how to reduce the inherent problems with offsets.
As a regret, A Dangerous Distraction has a strong focus on the morality and ethics issues related to offsets. While, as per the opening sentence of this post, I see real moral and ethical issue, the first item on the table truly should be the question of effectiveness. The morality and ethics issues will have little sway, imo, with those questioning of climate change and of actions to address global warming. They could, however, be open to discussions of effectiveness and accountability.
And, some of FOE's moral discussion seems off target. Consider this paragraph on page 5
there are severe equity impacts for developing countries if developed countries offset even part of their emission reduction targets. offsetting deepens inequality in per capita carbon consumption between developed and developing countries.
Those writing this report almost certainly believe (understand), as I do, that a clean energy future will be a more prosperous one for a wide set of reasons. Why would helping Developing Countries achieve that cleaner energy future faster, quite likely at the expense of more rapid movement in the Developed World, create "severe equity impacts"? Rather than hurting them, helping developing countries leap frog past 19th and 20th century energy efficiencies and polluting energy systems would boost their competitiveness and create better living conditions for their populations.
While there are moral and ethical issues that can (and should) be part of the discussion, the fundamental issue is one of effectiveness. If international offsets are, today, an ineffective use of resources in face of our climate challenges (and the opportunities these challenges create) and there are uncertain, at best, prospects for making them effective into the future, these morality and ethical issues become moot.
Finally ... This is only the briefest first glance at A Dangerous Distraction. This report merits attention, including future posts at GESN. And, for an alternative discussion, see Solve Climate.