CCX marks the spot

House buys carbon credits through Chicago Climate Exchange

Posted by Joseph Romm (Guest Contributor) at 2:47 PM on 20 Nov 2007

Perhaps this (sub. rqd.) is not the best strategy:

The House purchased these carbon credits to offset the impact of 30,000 tons of carbon emitted by the U.S. Capitol's coal-burning power plant each year. The funds will be used on carbon reducing measures, such as planting trees and underground storage of carbon dioxide, as well as green technologies like wind and solar power. The auction was oversubscribed with a weighted average clearing price of $2.97 per ton.

I hope they didn't plant a lot of trees -- they aren't the greatest offsets (see here also). And I really hope the underground storage carbon dioxide isn't used for enhanced oil recovery -- a very dubious offset.

I personally wouldn't recommend the Chicago Climate Exchange for offsets -- too many environmental groups have doubts about it, and I have heard some serious concerns directly from people involved in their offset projects.

At least the House is cleaning up its own act first:

The House will become carbon neutral by purchasing wind power for the electricity it uses, and by substituting natural gas for coal to generate the House's portion of the electricity produced by the Capitol Power Plant. To offset the carbon emitted from burning natural gas, the House will purchase carbon offsets.

That's much, much better than just trying to offset coal power with, say, trees.

This post was created for ClimateProgress.org, a project of the Center for American Progress Action Fund.

For story: CCX marks the spot
5 Comments | Post a Comment

Why not shut coal down and buy natural gas power?

by sunflower at 3:20 PM on 20 Nov 2007

Yeah,

what Sunflower said. And why not fund a new conservation trust to preserve an intact carbon sink/bio-region instead of plant trees?

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

by biodiversivist at 5:40 PM on 20 Nov 2007

Real carbon neutrality or fake carbon neutrality

Why do people who claim to be serious about global warming use such deceptive and misleading language, and why do other people who claim to be serious about global warming find it acceptable?

Lets look at a few definitions.

CARBON CREDIT

Real definition. A technology that extracts a specified amount of carbon from the atmosphere each year and buries it in a way that will keep it SAFELY isolated for at least several hundred thousand years. In the case of coal it should also extract and isolate equivalent amounts of sulfur, mercury, arsenic, uranium, cadmium etc.

Fake definition. An energy source that produces somewhat less carbon per unit energy than the politically incorrect source being "offset", or a technology that removes some carbon for a short time, like growing trees.

CARBON NEUTRAL

Real definition. When a person or organization buys enough real carbon credits to offset all of the carbon their existence creates.

Fake definition. When a person or organization buys enough fake carbon credits to match some of the carbon their existence creates.

You can fool most of the people some of the time but you cannot fool mother nature.

The subject of this post is carbon dilution and political correctness, not carbon neutrality.

This is why we should simply tax carbon and other emissions at a rate that fairly represents the harm that they do, and use the money to develop technology that can effectively resolve the problems.

The carbon credit and cap and trade business will become a magnet for people with the knack to sell third rate technology at first rate prices, we will have a whole new set of multimillionaires, but nature will not be satisfied.

Things Everybody Should Know About Energy

by BILL HANNAHAN at 12:55 AM on 21 Nov 2007

Indulgence

The US congress bought carbon indulgencies so they could keep on powering themselves with the dirtiest coal plant anywhere.

Is Cheney at 9% approval rating now? Congress at 20%? Trying to beat Cheney to the bottom, right democrats? I would assume democrats, who are in charge now, took this step that completely exposes offsets for the scam they really were all along.

That's our party. Thanks democrats. It makes it real easy come election time. No need to bother working for the local party, only republicans would join the effort after the failure to stop the war and support for fuel farming, clean coal, nukes, and now carbon offsets instead of renewables to power congress.

Wait! That must be the strategery. Get republican votes by doing just what republicans would do. If you can't beat 'em, just become THEM.

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin

by amazingdrx at 7:55 AM on 21 Nov 2007

Just sent

Just sent a copy of this comment to my congressman. Explaining why volunteers are dropping out of our local party at an alarming rate.

If we don't get a handle on this out of control pandering to lobbyists and the republican base by democratic politicians, we will wish we had bush back when we collect the big win in '08. At least bush is an enemy we can clearly oppose.

It is going to confuse the enviro movement no end to confront a democratically controlled government that still pushes oil war, nukes, clean coal, gas guzzling, and fuel farming.

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin

by amazingdrx at 9:24 AM on 21 Nov 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.