Me and Dan Kalafatas

What should I ask a carbon offset expert?

Posted by David Roberts at 10:27 PM on 08 Oct 2007

Sorry for the late notice, but tomorrow at 1pm (Pacific) I'm interviewing Dan Kalafatas, president and COO of 3 Degrees, a new outfit that delivers "customized, global climate change solutions to U.S. businesses, utilities and institutions."

In English, that means they sell offsets and RECs to businesses, work with utilities to establish green power pricing programs, and help businesses market their sustainability for maximum advantage.

"Another offset provider," you yawn. Hold on, though. The reason I'm interviewing Kalfatas is that I'm quite taken with 3 Degrees' "Reduce, Renew, Balance" approach. That means when they work with businesses, they recommend first that the business increase its efficiency and reduce its emissions, second that the business build onsite renewable power generation or buy green power credits (RECs), and only third that the business account for the rest of its emissions with offsets.

I suspect that nothing could satisfy some offset critics, but this certainly sounds like what greens want, right? If every business followed this plan the world would be a much better place.

In addition, 3 Degrees employs some people with expertise in verifying offsets, and their recommendations for how to source offsets are top notch.

So, here's a chance for all you offset skeptics to have your questions answered. Help me give Kalafatas the third degree (ha ha).

What should I ask him?

For story: Me and Dan Kalafatas
5 Comments | Post a Comment

Biogas

Since biogas digestion of manure and other waste both provides renewable energy and saves emission of methane caused by manure run off, does that justify extra offset funding? methane is 23 times worse as a GHG than CO2.

How does conservation like using geothermal heat exchange instead of air conditioning qualify for offset funds? This is a huge source of GHG, coal power plants generating power to run conventional air conditioning.

Can energy storage that heats and cools buildings during power surplus conditions get offset funds, it does save GHG by increasing the efficiency of the grid and the use of wind and solar.

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog

by amazingdrx at 12:18 AM on 09 Oct 2007

Fire and Fuel Management

I have a few questions on forest land offsets.

I'd ask how much fire management and understory vegetation management get factored into the offset equation. Is there a table of deductions or something for burn frequency and forest fuel density to account for carbon released by fire?

It's my understanding that open pine forests with an herbaceous and graminoid understory that is maintained by fire store more carbon in the growth of timber and root stock each year than is released through periodic prescribed fire, but it seems that you'd still need to deduct for them; but when forests are allowed to become overgrown with a thick shrubby understory that are ripe for intense canopy-reaching wildfires all bets are off.

Should carbon offsets be intended more for non-fire dependant communities like forested swamps?

What happens if we start using forest thinning operations to harvest overgrown understories for biofuels? Do the forests still get the offset credits? Is there a deduction for what is harvested?

Are offsets given to work that would be done anyway on land that is already preserved and managed? Or exclusively to restoration projects? If they are given to existing forests that are already preserved and managed in a way that naturally maximizes carbon storage, what new carbon is being stored due to the offset money?

Land_Man

by LandMan at 7:09 AM on 09 Oct 2007

How expert is he? Give him a test

Has he read and evaluated the two independent studies that suggest that over a 30 year period growing trees in mid-and lower latitudes would reduce global warming?
What countries are number 3 and 4 in green house gas emissions and why?
Has he read and evaluated the study that suggests that all monocrop biofuels may emit more greenhouse gases than fossil fuels (i.e. businesses should not choose that route as an offset)?
http://www.llnl.gov/tid/lof/documents/pdf/324200.pdf :

Planting a forest in the United States could cool the Earth for a few decades
On time scales longer than a few centuries, the net effect will actually be warming in these regions
...[It would take] several decades ...[for] carbon dioxide ...[to] begin diffusing from the ocean into the atmosphere, diminishing the cooling effect and warming the Earth in the long term
In tropical regions, forests help keep the Earth cool by not only absorbing carbon dioxide, but by evaporating plenty of water as well

http://environment.newscientist.com/article/dn12496-forge ...

They found that reforestation would sequester between two and nine times as much carbon over 30 years than would be saved by burning biofuels instead of gasoline

Indonesia and Brazil, deforestation.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/science/article2 ...

Rapeseed and maize biodiesels were calculated to produce up to 70 per cent and 50 per cent more greenhouse gases respectively than fossil fuels.

In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world

by biodiversivist at 8:50 AM on 09 Oct 2007

Expertise

Back a long time ago when I was a computer programmer, people often had this mistaken notion that I could fix their computers. And sometimes I could -- because there was nothing really wrong with their computers, and because I had a general facility with them, and because I knew how to use Google. But nothing about being able to program web sites in Java made me an expert in fixing laptops.

Where I'm going with this is...there's no reason for Dan to be an expert in monocrop biofuels, or to ace a quiz on which countries emit the most greenhouse gases. In fact, he may know a lot about those things, because he's a smart guy who works in a climate-change related industry. But pop quizzes aren't going to be a good use of his time.

The things Dan is likely to know about are stuff like carbon project finance, carbon project methodology and quality standards, corporate energy efficiency, etc. I'm looking forward to the interview.

www.terrapass.com/blog

by Adam Stein at 4:43 PM on 09 Oct 2007

Who said he needed to be an expert on monocrops?

"...there's no reason for Dan to be an expert in monocrop biofuels, or to ace a quiz on which countries emit the most greenhouse gases.

One does not need to be an expert in monocrop biofuels to have kept abreast of the latest studies suggesting they are worse for global warming than fossil fuels. Dave could ask him if a company could claim an offset by replacing all of its fossil fuels with biofuels. It would be instructive to see how he would answer that one even if he came prepared to answer it. Carbon offsets are a probability game. What are the odds that biofuels are worse than fossil fuels for GHG?

I would be most unimpressed if he, as a GHG offset expert, is unaware that Indonesia and Brazil are number 2 and 3 and for what reason.

In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world

by biodiversivist at 6:55 PM on 09 Oct 2007

ADVERTISING POLICY

You are not logged in. Thus, you cannot post a comment. If you have an account, log in. If you don't have an account, well, by all means go make one! Meet you back here in five.