Great article. It’s certainly clear that voluntary carbon offsets won’t solve climate change, which is exactly why they should not be voluntary. People are required to pay for the proper disposal of other waste products (e.g. household garbage, sewage) that would pose a public nuisance if simply dumped on the street. We don’t consider that a tax or some kind of unfair imposition. Why should this not apply to CO2?
While I think we can all agree that we need to be more conservation minded, travel, transportation and living on the gird are all part of our economy, infrastructure, and way of life. But while we work on long term carbonless solutions, the only real short term solutions are conservation and offsetting. Should we all strive to reduce our footprints? Absolutely. But if you fly, as I suspect even Mr Kotchen does, then you are contributing to the climate change problem.
Not all offsets are “snake oil”, and we should not throw the baby out with the bathwater. Offsets, when they are transparent and offer measurable/verifiable third party certification, allow those who are concerned about climate change to resolve this dilemma and…yes…feel good about it. My organization ClimatePath (http://www.climatepath.org) is bringing transparency into the voluntary market, specifically to remove the information asymmetry referenced in this piece.
As far as behavior, offsets put a price on the cost of GHG emissions, and raises awareness about activities contributing to our carbon footprints. Raising awareness almost certainly will lead to more thoughtful consumption in this case, as it has with Fair Trade. There will always be free riders, but there will also always be those with a higher sense of moral obligation. Paul Hawken would say that it is these pioneers that convince others to do what is right, and are catalysts of change.
I produce CO2, but I also offset what I can not reduce…and am proud of it. My offset portfolio and statement about climate change is at http://www.climatepath.org/dave
Another point to add to this article is the concept of protocol. The CDM has a strict protocol. For VCS, consider the CarbonNeutral company’s protocol, which takes away carbon neutral status if their client doesn’t show how they have tried to reduce their emissions. This extra effort as an environmental advisor rather than just a reseller is why their offsets cost so much more.
Great Article. Of course carbon offset is not the solution, but it is still better than nothing. I’m sure that parts of that money will be well spend and also help to create new eco friendly business ideas.
Fantastic article. I work with a carbon offset provider (http://www.carbonadvicegroup.com) that integrates carbon offsets into existing websites and business strategies. I appreciate the depth of your research and the awareness you bring to the market.
To your observations I want to add the idea that VCO’s not only raise awareness and result in people creating lower carbon emissions, but the money they generate often funds projects that will continue to benefit the earth even after they neutralize the emissions they were purchased to offset. For example, offsets that fund wind turbines will generate clean energy for years to come, and the more wind turbines that are built, the better the technology will become.
I look forward to reading more and engaging with other entrepreneurs who feel that carbon offsets are part of a positive, effective strategy for businesses in the new green economy. Find us at @carbonadvicegrp
Global warming is a religion to promote higher taxes and wealth redistribution. Similar scams worked for the church quite well. History is repeating itself. The story goes like this…Mankind’s sin (burning oil) against the Divine (Gaia/mother earth/Nature) will make the Divine destroy civilization with great storms, floods from sea level rise, acidic oceans and burning skies as punishment unless we repent by paying money to the high priests (Al Gore) or buy a Prius. The priests proclaim this is Truth and selectively cite authoritative Scripture (science papers) that support their dire prophecy while crucifying the heretical scientists that disagree. Wake up people, you’re being hoodwinked once again. This isn’t a scientific debate, it’s a religious phenomenon.
COMMENTS
BY Mark Watson
ON March 5, 2009 03:37 PM
Great article. It’s certainly clear that voluntary carbon offsets won’t solve climate change, which is exactly why they should not be voluntary. People are required to pay for the proper disposal of other waste products (e.g. household garbage, sewage) that would pose a public nuisance if simply dumped on the street. We don’t consider that a tax or some kind of unfair imposition. Why should this not apply to CO2?
BY Dave Rochlin
ON March 5, 2009 07:51 PM
While I think we can all agree that we need to be more conservation minded, travel, transportation and living on the gird are all part of our economy, infrastructure, and way of life. But while we work on long term carbonless solutions, the only real short term solutions are conservation and offsetting. Should we all strive to reduce our footprints? Absolutely. But if you fly, as I suspect even Mr Kotchen does, then you are contributing to the climate change problem.
Not all offsets are “snake oil”, and we should not throw the baby out with the bathwater. Offsets, when they are transparent and offer measurable/verifiable third party certification, allow those who are concerned about climate change to resolve this dilemma and…yes…feel good about it. My organization ClimatePath (http://www.climatepath.org) is bringing transparency into the voluntary market, specifically to remove the information asymmetry referenced in this piece.
As far as behavior, offsets put a price on the cost of GHG emissions, and raises awareness about activities contributing to our carbon footprints. Raising awareness almost certainly will lead to more thoughtful consumption in this case, as it has with Fair Trade. There will always be free riders, but there will also always be those with a higher sense of moral obligation. Paul Hawken would say that it is these pioneers that convince others to do what is right, and are catalysts of change.
I produce CO2, but I also offset what I can not reduce…and am proud of it. My offset portfolio and statement about climate change is at http://www.climatepath.org/dave
BY Mike
ON March 9, 2009 12:19 AM
Another point to add to this article is the concept of protocol. The CDM has a strict protocol. For VCS, consider the CarbonNeutral company’s protocol, which takes away carbon neutral status if their client doesn’t show how they have tried to reduce their emissions. This extra effort as an environmental advisor rather than just a reseller is why their offsets cost so much more.
BY Manuel
ON March 9, 2009 07:36 PM
Great Article. Of course carbon offset is not the solution, but it is still better than nothing. I’m sure that parts of that money will be well spend and also help to create new eco friendly business ideas.
BY Scott James
ON March 17, 2009 02:44 PM
Fantastic article. I work with a carbon offset provider (http://www.carbonadvicegroup.com) that integrates carbon offsets into existing websites and business strategies. I appreciate the depth of your research and the awareness you bring to the market.
To your observations I want to add the idea that VCO’s not only raise awareness and result in people creating lower carbon emissions, but the money they generate often funds projects that will continue to benefit the earth even after they neutralize the emissions they were purchased to offset. For example, offsets that fund wind turbines will generate clean energy for years to come, and the more wind turbines that are built, the better the technology will become.
I look forward to reading more and engaging with other entrepreneurs who feel that carbon offsets are part of a positive, effective strategy for businesses in the new green economy. Find us at @carbonadvicegrp
Thank you!
BY mark
ON September 6, 2013 12:34 PM
Global warming is a religion to promote higher taxes and wealth redistribution. Similar scams worked for the church quite well. History is repeating itself. The story goes like this…Mankind’s sin (burning oil) against the Divine (Gaia/mother earth/Nature) will make the Divine destroy civilization with great storms, floods from sea level rise, acidic oceans and burning skies as punishment unless we repent by paying money to the high priests (Al Gore) or buy a Prius. The priests proclaim this is Truth and selectively cite authoritative Scripture (science papers) that support their dire prophecy while crucifying the heretical scientists that disagree. Wake up people, you’re being hoodwinked once again. This isn’t a scientific debate, it’s a religious phenomenon.