"Of course, it's possible that TerraPass customers are lying, and they really are buying SUVs because they bought offsets, but absent any reason to think so, maybe we can drop this odd, moralistic trope?"

Please see "Little Green Lies", the bad news...

http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2007/8/28/14332/5489

Would you say Americans are more, equally, or less inclined to exaggerate their dedication to preserving the natural environment?

For example...

Do the people live in an area, say the desert southwest, where photovoltaics are more common. Or are they from a higher-income group?

They might drive more hybrids than the national average, but are they also from areas where even non-customers tend to buy hydrids. I think the comparison to the national average is meaningless.

Same for biking. Does TerraPass sell indulgences at Walmart stores in rural areas? Or do they sell them only at expensive grocery stores in urban areas with an infrastructure that permits biking to work? In that case, non-customers might also display a higher tendency to bike to work.

None of the other statistics are compared to national averages. Perhaps those numbers did not support the desired conclusion.

This study backs up that theory. I think that obviously the people who can't afford it will do other things and may be more committed to reducing their consumption but we should probably compare between people of the same economic class. Upper middle class people who buy a hybrid ford SUV probably offset their carbon compared to the ones who have the same money but drive a regular SUV. The ones who drive the regular SUV probably don't care about anything.

Now with all that said it is arguably the duty of the upper class to buy carbon offsets because the lower class probably in general have a smaller carbon footprint. So should we feel bad if our rich uncle who cares about the environment buys offsets along with new bulbs and a hybrid and we keep on using mass transit biking and replace those bulbs one at a time as the old ones die out? The answer is no, but we shouldn't hate them and call them posers for not dropping out of their income bracket all together for the cause. It's a voluntary rich person tax and those who pay it are obviously trying.


The Black Car Project Killing cars before they kill us!

The truth about exhaust emmissions is that they only account for 20% of global emmissions. And while it is commendary to those who buy hybrid cars, eventualy through technology or subsidy hybrid cars will take over car production completely.

This leaves the real problem, and sometimes ignored problem. Industrial co2 emission. While some governments posture and tell the public they want to affect industrial emission ammounts. Countries like China and India are going to continue to pollute while pretending to care about emmission.        

Also -- all comparisons to the national averages are listed in the TerraPass blog post. Here they are again.

    * 26% of TerraPass customers take public transportation to work. This is more than 5 times the national average.
    * An astonishing 24% of TP customers bike to work, 22 times the national average.
    * 64% of customers have installed compact fluorescent light bulbs. Fully 25% of these people opted to install the bulbs after purchasing their TerraPass, so maybe the conservation tips are working.
    * 16% drive hybrids, about 7 times the national average. Again, 25% of these people switched to a hybrid after purchasing their TerraPass.
    * Here's an interesting one: 50% of TerraPass customers have contacted an elected representative about climate change. I'm glad to hear this, because exerting political influence is the most important thing we can do to fight climate change.
    * TerraPass customers are also active contributors to other environmental causes. Fully 69% of you support green charities.
    * An astonishing 6% of you have solar panels on your home. This is 200 times the national average.

Tom Arnold Chief Environmental Officer TerraPass

When people take a plane ride let's say, and then buy carbon offsets to compensate, how much carbon offset do they typically purchase? The natural default would seem to be "purchase certificates for the abatement of as much carbon as you added by flying in a plane." But this seems to be a mistaken approach.

The reason is that an offset is basically a subsidy. You are paying for an "abatement credit". But the people generating abatement credits don't really care if they sell all of them. Often, they'd have performed abatement anyway, with or without subsidy. Of course, subsidy increases the amount of abatement. But there is no reason to believe that buying 1000 abatement credits will cause 1000 more abatements to be performed. The market for abatement credits does not seem to be like the market for chairs.

I'm too sleepy to think through the math but hopefully I didn't make a big error.

The main point I think is this: suppose an abatement credit (for some specific but here irrelevant quantity of CO2) goes for 10 dollars. Now if the cost of a particular abatement to the firm is <10 dollars, the firm wants to do it.

If the cost of abatement is <0, the firm already wanted to do it. In that case, the addition of the subsidy did not necessarily "cause" the abatement: the abatement was "caused" by the realization that it would save the company money independently of anything else.

Now, presumably Terrapass cannot distinguish between these two cases (0<MC<10 and MC<0). I'm sure they do great auditing but they're not that good. So, this suggests that if one really wants to "take credit for causing" some amount of reduction in CO2 emissions, one should buy more than that number of credits. The exact number depends on the firms performing abatement and what their marginal costs of abatement are.

Like I said, hopefully didn't screw any of this up due to being tired. Good day.

1. "Often, they'd have performed abatement anyway, with or without subsidy. ... presumably Terrapass cannot distinguish between these two cases (0<MC<10 and MC<0)." You're claiming that additionality cannot be measured. If that's true, it's fatal to the entire offset market. TerraPass -- every carbon offset provider -- does claim to be able to distinguish those cases. It claims it does not fund abatement projects that would have been performed anyway.

2. Even assuming they can measure additionality precisely, there's absolutely no reason at all to buy exactly the amount of credits that will compensate for, say, your plane flight. It's an arbitrary number relative to the size of the problem anyway. Why not buy twice that many offsets? Your flight could be carbon negative by 100%. Or you could buy three times as many, or half as many, whatever.

The horrible fact of life is that the US courts treat corporations as though they were persons.  But corporations have no sense of morality whatsoever, and their motivations come from directions very different than those that move us individual, morality-sensitive persons.

And it is the corporations who call the shots, in US history, when it comes to deciding policy related to environmental issues.

Chickens deserve our true friendship! So do fish! So do other sentient beings! Let us learn to be kind.

So...

(1) What about the "Little Green Lies" thing?

(2) You've clearly demonstrated that people using the web are probably -- if they are not exaggerating -- more inclined to use public transportation, bike to work, install CFLs, drive hybrids, email or call elected representatives, contribute to environmental causes, and install solar panels. None of this surprises me. They are probably also more informed, eager to take advantage of new technology, and more likely to live in a community that encourages use of public transportation or bikes.

If I tried to use stats like yours for proving GMOs are safe, the folks visiting this website would just laugh at me.

Your view that TerraPass customers are not simply purchasing indulgences might be 100% accurate -- I hope it is -- but the numbers don't support the view.

You don't have that data yet.  You would need to audit, and to show that the "inflated reports" effect was actually larger than the TerraPass customer reports of improvement.

Actually your argument might be sunk easier than that.  If people fib, would not TerraPass customers and non-customers fib equally?  When you compare TerraPass customers to the US population as a whole, would there not be an equal "fib" bias?

On the other hand, if you are suggesting that TerraPass customers must fib more than the general public ... get yourself some darn data.

I found this quite amusing given that someone else just posted an article discussing how people in Britain lie about the extent of their green behavior. So, I think it is perfectly reasonable to wonder whether the customers are being honest. I don't know how a statistician addresses "fib" bias, but I think it is up to them, not me, to present sound numbers.

I also believe the numbers would be more meaningful if TerraPass polled customers and non-customers and compared the results. Again, it is up to THEM to provide the sound numbers to prove their case.

odograph... do you really think it is acceptable for a business to make claims, toss us some poor data, and then leave it to us to accept their conclusions or conduct a better a study? I really think it is up to THEM to support their claim.

1. "Terrapass... claims it does not fund abatement projects that would have been performed anyway."  OK. It sounds like a really devilish problem to me. Do they audit internal financial planning reports? (I guess they can ask for whatever they want since the company is asking them for offset credits). And then disentangle those reports to extract the marginal cost of abatement? What if the company hasn't calculated the cost? Does Terrapass ask the company for the reason they abated? I can see how, if Terrapass can reach deep enough into company-internal memos, presentations, reports and even emails, it would become increasingly hard to knowingly scam them. But it still seems doable... while winking at your compadres in the company meeting, you say "well, our default option is to build Highly Polluting Plant A..." But even if auditing usually works it sounds like a very expensive and time-consuming process. I guess I should read up on what they do...

2. "there's absolutely no reason at all to buy exactly the amount of credits that will compensate for, say, your plane flight." Agreed. The main dispute I had was with the appropriate definition of "carbon neutral" given the (supposed) imperfect auditing of additionality. If credits are, say, 75% likely to be additional due to imperfect auditing, then people should not claim neutrality unless they overbuy.

putting catalytic converters on all cars is the thing that had a chance of succeeding.   That is what we should be working for.

You are just asking us to  interpret those surveys in a very particular way.  You are asking us to believe that the UK survey "cancels out" the TerraPass survey.

I don't think that is a very defensible position.

"There is data wiscidea, there are surveys."

Please direct me to the side-by-side comparison of green behavior by internet users who purchase the TerraPass product (or other carbon offset products) and those who do not. That's all I'm asking for.

You can't draw useful conclusions by comparing TerraPass customers drawn from internet users to a national average that might include people who belong to a completely different demographic. You have to remove most other possible explanations for their answers.

Show me the numbers.

If GE, Exxon, or Ford were trying to persuade me that their marketing efforts raised awareness of the environment and encouraged green behavior, I would want to see the numbers indicating it.

A progressive business "on our side" working to reduce CO2 emissions, offset emissions, encourage green behavior must be held to the same standard. Even if I fully agree with their goals and believe in their product, I'm obligated to find out for sure that it is accomplishing what it is designed to accomplish. Progressives don't get a free pass. Still have to provide evidence.

Please show me the numbers.

Now it seems to me that these same enviros are legitimizing a limited and flawed offset concept which I believe is integral to giving credibility to the whole emissions trading agenda.

I think there's a major paradigmatic outlook associated with offset approach which is at odds with other approaches, but that alternate paradigms are too difficult to ponder since the proponents of the offset/trading approach are major players with lots of money to cultivate warmth and promote themselves.

Sadly, I fear the offset/trading regime will prevail and in our old age we will look back and ponder whether we should have done more now to raise concerns.  Imagine if the global warming agenda of the "Enron Enviros" turns out to be as disastrous as electric utility deregulation in California.

Just saying . . .

PS.  There's alot more to be said about grassroots concerns and conflicted if not corrupted and coopted enviros and the historical record, but these issues need to be taken to broader arenas than Gristmill.  

bernardo issel - http://www.NonprofitWatch.org - bernardo (at) NonprofitWatch.org

"The best reason to support carbon credits is that they support a 'bait-and-switch' maneuver which better supports the environment in the future.

People who buy carbon credits have implicitly admitted that CO2 emission is a problem, but perhaps are not willing to undergo much hardship to abate their own emissions. Thus, they have attached themselves to the most pain-free apparent solution. Once it is made clear to them that these credits are ineffectual, these people will undergo cognitive dissonance, as they discover they are not as environmentally friendly as they thought. They are likely to alleviate this dissonance by finally undergoing actual abatement."

Can you see Limbaugh and others speaking out in favor of global warming to protect us from planetary freeze?

http://www.int.iol.co.za/index.php?set_id=1&click_id= ...

bernardo issel - http://www.NonprofitWatch.org - bernardo (at) NonprofitWatch.org

Years ago Environmental Defense (Fund) polled its members about an effort by its spinoff Environmental Resources Trust (ERT) to legitimize a self-chilling beverage can by marketing it with carbon offsets -- trees or maybe nuclear power credits;  but their membership didn't take well to this idea regarding a product that promiscuously released a potent greenhouse gas -- a refrigerant;  even some chemical and beverage companies did not support this product.  One of these self-chilling cans was described as comparable to driving 100 miles.   Did ERT put this data out?  No.  But its internal memo regarding this matter got leaked.  Fortunately the product died.  But seems like an obscene example of offsetting.

Perhaps there'll be academic or other studies in the future.

bernardo issel - http://www.NonprofitWatch.org - bernardo (at) NonprofitWatch.org

Dave makes a statement.

Dave tries to present numbers to support it.

The numbers are meaningless.

Even if I fully agreed that carbon indulgences are valuable, I would want to point out the flaws in the numbers presented. If someone commented on my favorite issue, GMOs, supporting their value but presenting bad numbers, I would want to point it out.

It is not useful to support an argument with irrelevant data, especially if you happen to be in the business of selling something. You undermine your desire to persuade others because someone will notice the bad numbers and constantly point them out, discrediting you and those who might actually have good statisitics.

And I'm not looking for redemption (interesting choice of word, odograph). I'm not looking for support for my view. I'm not even saying my view is accurate.

But that does not mean I have to accept the view of someone else who does not do the research and does not present useful information. If that were the case, then we could all just start making shit up, making numbers up, and telling others, even if the numbers don't not make sense, to just STFU. Is the first party to present information, any information, to be believed until someone else conducts a full investigation?

[Hmmm... GWB said there were WMDs in Iraq and they were about to attack us. He must have been right since I cannot, with any degree of confidence, personally prove otherwise. His evidence was kind of suspect, but, hey, it is evidence and it is better than my evidence against his view. I best just shut up unless I'm willing to investigate the matter myself.]

It is up to TerraPass, the marketer, to prove their point. They are presenting a claim. Let's see the evidence. They have not yet done so.

If a large evil corporation were presenting claims about the habits of its customers, showing their products were of enormous value and helped preserve natural resources, I suspect the first reaction of "environmentalist"s would be to question whether the corporation was polishing the numbers so they look particularly good.

Yet, we are suppose to accept a "green" business's numbers, not worrying about even major flaws.

One more reason I'm not calling myself an "environmentalist". I cannot follow the self-appointed leaders of the movement, accepting every "green" idea as the correct view and not questioning the wisdom of those who are most powerful or most vocal. If it comes down to that, the left or whatever they are calling themselves are no better than the fools who launched the war in Iraq.

Has anyone conducted an INDEPENDENT study of the value of voluntary carbon offsets?

I don't understand where in the data you find this information. I mean... duh: people who care about the environment show it in many different ways (many of them listed). The survey asked what people did to preserve the environment, not why they purchased offsets. If you want to know the latter, then you have to ask that question.

There ARE respected professionals who do this sort of thing.

Good question, mihan!

I'm embarrased not for the reasons odograph suggests, but for not thinking of the most obvious question. It would clear up this conflict in no time at all.

Seems like one could qualify them to lead the answers in a certain direction.  Perhaps we could here describe a set of questions that address both the pro-offset agenda as well as one that is hesitant about offsets?  Especially in case anyone reading this discussion is moved to go about getting an "independent" pollster to examine the question.

It would seem from the high number of comments regarding this matter on a Thur. leading up to Labor Day Weekend that in the view of various folks, this matter is not settled.  

Just saying . . .

bernardo issel - http://www.NonprofitWatch.org - bernardo (at) NonprofitWatch.org

Terra Pass is a business based on trust for the company and that the money you give it goes to where it says it goes and that giving them money is beneficial to the offsetting of carbon. The company risks complete loss of its entire customer base if it was found to be fraudulent. So why would it be fraudulent about a side survey not central to its core success?

Now the ins and outs of their offsetting of carbon is not what we were originally arguing and I think needn't be looked into here. The original statement was about their customers and their survey which found out that their customers were above average in offsetting carbon personally and not just buying themselves a green shine. I am someone who has spent time as a fundraiser for environmental issues and I can tell you from personal observation and experience, that the people who gave me money where usually the one's driving the Prius, growing a garden or supporting many other environmental groups. Terra Pass will not appeal to non-environmentalists, only the ones who care, that doesn't need a survey to be true.

Do they do more than environmentalists who don't offset carbon? Maybe not, but probably a little. Do they do more than the general public at being green? Oh hell yes! We could throw this customer survey out because the answer is obvious to everyone but you!

The Black Car Project Killing cars before they kill us!

Sorry, couldn't resist. Yes, I am like many others suspicious of indul offsets because of how easily they can play into our profound capacity to rationalize activities that we know to be bad (for the environment, for our health, for our souls, whatever) and continue with them.

But the indulgence parallel, while entertaining, is not the key issue. A more relevant question is this: how well does the voluntary offsets market fit into an effective set of global strategies to curb CO2 emissions and avert major climate trauma? Judging from its miniscule impact to date, not so much.


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

FOR JUST $159.90 PER YEAR YOU CAN DRIVE YOUR 2007 HUMMER H3 4WD 30,000 MILE PER YEAR GUILT-FREE! THAT JUST 44 CENTS PER DAY. You spend more on Ann Coulter books and can't... uhhh... I mean don't... even read them.

You might not believe in global climate change, but imagine the look on those greenies' faces when you cruise down the street proudly displaying your TerraPass sticker. If driving the HUMMER is like giving them the finger, driving the HUMMER with a TerraPass sticker will give you 10-fold the satisfaction! And they won't be able to complain... because you paid for the right to drive that HUMMER by reducing CO2 emissions. Heck, if it wasn't for your enormous wealth and power, reflected by that HUMMER, there would be fewer wind farms, fewer methan digesters, fewer jobs for Americans.

So, HUMMER drivers, err on the side of caution -- it IS the conservative thing to do -- protect American independence from terrorists, help fund American energy projects, give something to the community (even if you know environmentalists don't have a clue... wink wink).

Worried about that $159.90 per year? A waste? Just imagine how much attention you'll get when you put that TerraPass sticker on your HUMMER! Imagine the enhanced status among your friends and co-workers! Just 44 cents per day. Giving greenies the finger... PRICELESS!

Isn't that something of a personal attack?  Along the lines which resulted in a request of me from you to "quit with the personal attacks" regarding comments I had made in response to "naturescene".

http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2007/8/13/114918/975

Just asking . . .

bernardo issel - http://www.NonprofitWatch.org - bernardo (at) NonprofitWatch.org

Priest offers festival-goers the chance to confess their green sins
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article234 ...

also, the Free Republic site picked it up:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1888423/posts
check out their comments as an example of how the right looks at this

bernardo issel - http://www.NonprofitWatch.org - bernardo (at) NonprofitWatch.org

Regarding survey design: this is not, as some have pointed out, an independent study. Conducting independent surveys is expensive, and though we probably will commissions independent research at some point, it wasn't in the cards right now. However, the sample size of several thousand respondents is easily enough to achieve statistical significance. There is a possibility of sample bias -- perhaps only the greenest customers elected to respond -- although I can't think of any particular reason to assume this would be the case. Survey question design is obviously crucial to getting meaningful results, but please note that we did not, as some have suggested, ask people why they buy carbon offsets. It would be hopeless trying to get a good answer to this question. Rather, we asked people about other concrete behaviors that they engage in, which is far easier to survey.

Regarding the fact that this survey was conducted by an interested party: well, yeah, so of course you'd be wise to exercise judgment in interpretation of the results. I can assure you, though, that we have accurately presented the results and that we have never conducted any other surveys that yielded discomfirmatory results. It is the case that some of the behaviors we asked our customers about yielded less dramatic comparisons than the ones we presented, but none of the results presented our customers as less green than average.

Regarding the lack of a control sample: The national averages seem to me to do the trick. Of course TerraPass customers skew towards regions that have higher green awareness, but how could it be otherwise, given these results? It would be really weird (although certainly interesting) if our customer base skewed really green and also exactly matched the population distribution of the rest of America.

Regarding "little green lies": I'm sure there's some element of this in the survey responses, although not nearly enough to entirely account for the results. Most of the questions we asked would constitute fairly big green lies. Might someone stretch the truth about biking to work? Possibly. About having solar panels on one's house? That would be a bit pathological.

Concluding thought: this survey is not the last word on the subject, but it presently represents some of the only real data in what has otherwise become a religious discussion.

www.terrapass.com/blog

"...  this survey is not the last word on the subject, but it presently represents some of the only real data in what has otherwise become a religious discussion."

Interesting selection of words... a "religious discussion". It does seem that those pushing the value of carbon offsets want us to accept their value as a given unless WE can prove otherwise. Just have faith. And if offsets are really just a fantasy, they do comfort people and help them do the right thing. So who cares if they really exist? One person in this thread indicated that Al Gore endorses offsets and that is good enough reason to believe in them -- no need for independent thinking or verification. And the priests have to resort to trying to turn the table and accuse the skeptics of being irrational.

Thank you, Mr. Roberts, for bringing this up again.

I did not realize that there was more to this religious fervor than the slight parallel with indulgences. I hope greenies can stop this slide toward faith-based environmentalism. If it does become a faith-based religion, detached from reality, it will make a mockery of and undermine sincere efforts to preserve Earth's biodiversity and natural ecosystems.