But I think Joseph Romm is going a bit lightly over the catastrophic failure of the EU-ETS. In fact, the scheme has been the biggest environmental accounting fraud in the history of that word.

Europeans have paid billions upon billions too much for their energy, because of the fraudulent allocations of the first phase. We haven't seen that money back. The companies under the ETS owe me and all other Europeans a lot of money.

And the system is still very much flawed, at the kernel, because it all begins with the national allocation plans and with big lobbies buying over governments.

-Individual EU-member states make up the EU
-Companies lobby their governments
-These governments then write their own allocation plans and let the Commission decide/correct the target
-If the member-state is not in agreement, it either threatens the Commission into obedience (numerous examples of this) or it just grabs tax money and pays the company that threatens the government (see the Arcelor Mittal case in Belgium - the poor Belgians have to pay huge amounts of money to keep the steel maker in their country; Arcelor Mittal threatened to move out if it had to obey the stringent carbon reduction target).
-And so we end up with either too much allowances in the system, once again, in phase 2 this is the case; or tax payers are blackmailed by powerful companies capable of threatening and buying over entire governments.

Worst of all, many companies just buy CERs from the CDM, using the profits to comply with their obligations under the EU Emissions Trading Scheme.

Now the CDM is just the same like the "traditional offsetting" which CarbonRetirement criticizes.

So who pays? Yes, the European consumer, and not the companies who should be reducing emissions.

Certainly, the EU-ETS is the best of all the bad systems out there. But I would first want to see the results from the second phase, before I would want anybody to 'retire' allowances, of which there are probably too many.  Because if there are, once again, too many, then I am paying for people who use this services.

There are just as much uncertainties over the second phase than over traditional offsetting.

In fact, I trust small NGOs who engage in offsetting projects more than huge multinationals who can buy over entire governments.

In any case, the idea of taking allowances out of the market is very good, in theory. But because of the lobying, the fraud and the arbitrary nature of national allocations, I would wait until the third phase kicks off (from 2013 onwards), and first check the results of the second phase.

You -- you are the vegetarian who has bought 100 percent renewable power for your superefficient home that uses a biomass heating and cooling system to replace natural gas, and you bought a negative emissions vehicle for the family car and you telecommute, but you still want to offset some of your carbon emissions -- you, you help one person who suffers from obesity to achieve a healthier diet.

Obesity is a global pandemic, with more than 1 billion people suffering under it. The numbers keep growing rapidly. There are now more obese people on the planet then there are hungry people. The carbon emissions that go with this life-style and diet are disastrous.

You offset your carbon emissions by paying a team of social workers, psychologists, nutritionists and dietitians who help obese people change their diets away from processed sugar, fat, starch and meat, into one of locally produced veggies, fruits and grains.

It should be possible to roughly calculate the carbon emissions you have avoided this way (you are already a vegan locavore, so you have done the calculation). I'm sure the economics of the 'obesity offsets' look very good too, considering the multiple social, ecological, economic and psychological benefits.

Imagine these benefits:

-Obesity is most often a sign of social injustice; there's a strict correlation between poverty and obesity; so your carbon offsetting trick would help the poor.

-If you choose 'Carbon Retirement', you actually punish the poor, because the EU-ETS makes energy much more costly for consumers; and the poor are the first victims.

-The obesity-offsets would lower the burden put on the health care system.

-The current food system helps destroy extremely biodiverse ecosystems, such as the Amazon and the rainforests of Borneo; your carbon offset would help protect these systems by lowering demand for meat and vegetable oils.

-The meat based diet not only spews CO2 into the atmosphere, it also contributes very heavily with methane and N2O emissions; you would be reducing those too.

-Best of all, you would support local farmers, reduce (transcontinental) food-miles, and create more vegetarians.

What are you waiting for?

David Pimentel's recent paper (see previous comment) provides some good numbers on which to base these obesity carbon-offsets.

Complaints about Kyoto's  Joint Implementation and Clean Development Mechanisms seem irrelevant to a program that retires emissions credits in the most industrialized EU countries.  

Many European companies with ETS duties are involved in CDM projects to escape their ETS duty.

Jonas -  
From the page titled:
Why is this better than other types of offsetting?
. . .
Carbon Retirement is based on European industrial efficiency, not reductions in the developing world.

Traditional offsetting projects are designed to make communities in the developing world more carbon efficient, while the developed world continues to produce high levels of emissions. Many people are uncomfortable with this concept.

Offsetting projects in the developing world can make life difficult for local communities because they change they way land is used and prevent communities from using it according to their tradition.

When you use Carbon Retirement, the reduction is made by an industrial company within the European Union.
- - - -

When CR buys EU carbon allowances and retires them from circulation, they're no longer available to be offset with a third world CDM project.  

Therefore the EU polluter must reduce that amount of emissions themselves.  

There is warranted doubt about RECs, but there are those of us who guarantee with our methodology their additionality and quality. Our CEO, Mike Jackson recently guest-contributed to a Huddler question and answer session about the credibility of RECs. Check it out here http://greenhome.huddler.com/forum/thread/478/mike-jackso .... Or just check out our website to found out how Village Green Energy RECs are credible, additional, and why that makes the biggest difference. http://www.villagegreenenergy.com/renewable-energy-certif ...

We are proud to help drive the transition to renewable energy, with honesty and transparency.