Staff Contributors
Guest Contributors

Offset mania

Can't we offset something other than carbon?

Posted by David Roberts at 1:29 PM on 25 Jul 2007

Lordy, this is getting out of hand:

Under the agreement announced Wednesday, the Forest Service and the National Forest Foundation will allow individuals or groups to make charitable contributions that will be used to plant trees and do other work to improve national forests.

...

Under the new program, known as the Carbon Capital Fund, consumers can "offset" their carbon emissions by investing in projects on national forests to plant trees and improve water quality, increase wildlife habitat and help restore public lands damaged by natural disasters such as wildfires.

Tell me, why can't you give money to "plant trees and improve water quality, increase wildlife habitat and help restore public lands damaged by natural disasters such as wildfires" just because those are laudable goals in and of themselves? Why the carbon hook?

I won't reject this scheme a priori -- I guess it's possible that they're really including "independent verification of projects that have a 'specific and measurable' reduction in carbon dioxide emissions." But it's getting a little surreal. I'm glad average folk are willing to pay for carbon reductions, but is that really all they'll pay money for? Do all other worthwhile projects have to tap into this same concern?

As I see it, the voluntary carbon offset market is something like privatized charity. Instead of giving money to an NGO in hopes of making some unknowable incremental difference, you give money to an outfit that will rigorously insure and verify for you exactly how much difference you're making. For that service, they take a cut.

As I've said here before, I have no objection to the business model in principle. Indeed, maybe it could be extended to other areas.

After all, living a normal American life, you consume X number of trees. So why not tree offsets? You can pay to have some trees planted (or preserved). Clean water offsets. Particulate pollution offsets. Land-use offsets. Etc.

If Americans are willing to voluntarily pay to improve the environment, hell, let's give them as many ways to do so as possible. It's getting a little goofy, everyone trying to squeeze onto the carbon bandwagon. There are, after all, other environmental ills.

human nature

I totally agree with you, but I think it helps people to be able to connect environmental preservation with their own lives and actions. I think that personal carbon monitoring and offsets helps people to make that connection.

it's like

you've been reading my mind (or my posts)!

you can give $ to "plant trees and improve water quality, increase wildlife habitat and help restore public lands damaged by natural disasters such as wildfires", and people do, but not in the numbers that we'd like to see.

Elsewhere I mentioned that there is no point to call  them "carbon" offsets and we could easily switch to calling them something simple like "environmental protection credits" or "ecological credits".  But carbon is in the center of the the environmental "movement" these days.  There's also a lot of it, so it makes for a big market.

The whole point is to eventually move into a completely open market for ecological goods and services like habitat, water filtration, buffering, etc.  The offsets serve as the intermediary to that realization.

one ity bity concern

I was starting to come around to accepting the value of carbon -- and other -- offsets, but I'm worried about one thing.

If people start volunteering a LITTLE BIT of money to preserve national forests, will the Republicans see it as a green light to cut ALL federal funding for preserving national forests?

However much I hate slippery slope objections, I'd like to know whether this could be a serious problem. Opinions?

Racket

What a potential racket this is!  Looks out for all kinds of sweet deals, kick backs, cooking the books, rules written by lobbyists, and political corruption.  Everybody and their dog is going to jump on this bandwagon.  Where's mine?

Sadly, I agree with justlou

The market for "offsets" almost certainly will be taken advantage of by scammers, dirty politicians, etc.  Good deeds rarely go uncorrupted by others to some degree.  Look what happens to humanitarian aid, for example. But that does not negate the need for more "good deeds" - especially since most are not undermined by the selfish.

I still would also like to see a carbon tax or pollution tax or energy waster tax. . .

"We must be the change we wish to see in the world." -- Mahatma Ghandi

A good example of a bad carbon offset idea

Bureaucrats are not going to save the planet.

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

now offers a credit card offering offset points instead of miles. "Spend $750/month with our card and offset all your carbon emissions!"

The true meaning of life is to plant trees, under whose shade you do not expect to sit.
Except the emissions

Created by "THEM" over there (the yellow and brown hordes we're told to fear) to make the stuff you bought with your charge card -- that's THEIR emissions, not "yours."

Gotta keep shoveling the coal into the firebox on this runaway train, don'cha know ... keep buying, keep consuming, keep spending, and for God's sake don't question whether such "progress" and "growth" is actually taking us further and further down the wrong path ...

The 5% Project

These guys are a little more honest....

http://www.carboncreditkillers.com

Except if you know anything about forestry clearing the small stuff actually increases the longevity of the old growth. Planting trees does nothing to increase carbon storage in the real world. Where they would grow without assistance they tend to plant themselves. Where they require protection and nurturing we tend to plant and ignore them and they die.

Should we ask the russions to turn the Siberian forests to charcoal in order to store the carbon? If they started at one end by the time they got to the other end the forest will have regrown but I doubt it would add up to much benefit.

Carbon credit schemes are scams.

Put the Carbon Back

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.
sign in
Search Gristmill
Subscribe
  • subscribe via RSSStay updated with the Gristmill RSS feed.
  • Add to My Yahoo!
  • Subscribe with Bloglines
  • Subscribe in NewsGator Online
  • Subscribe in Netvibes
  • Subscribe in Google
Using Gristmill
  • What is Gristmill?
  • Posting rules
The comments of Gristmill users reflect the opinions of those individuals only, and do not necessarily reflect the viewpoints of Grist, its staff, its board members, their psychotherapists, or their aestheticians. Got it?

Gristmill is powered by Scoop.

ADVERTISING POLICY


About Grist | Support Grist | Job Board | Archives | Grist by Email | RSS | Podcast
Gristmill Blog | In the News | Ask Umbra | Muckraker | Victual Reality | 'Tis the Season | The Grist List | The Bottom Line



Grist: Environmental News and Commentary
a beacon in the smog (tm) ©2008. Grist Magazine, Inc. All rights reserved. Gloom and doom with a sense of humor®.
Webmaster | Sitemap | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Trademarks