Articles by Gar Lipow

Wind: YouTube edition

This ad for Epuron Wind Power is amusing:

Double counting does not legally qualify as fraud

The ENDS Report -- July 2007, issue 390 ($ub. rqd):

ENDS has learned that chemical corporation Rhodia is using carbon credits from the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) to meet voluntary corporate targets -- only to sell them at a profit to be counted again elsewhere. Cement company Lafarge has not ruled out the same practice.

Companies like Rhodia can use CDM credits to comply with mandatory targets under the EU Emissions Trading Scheme. But they can also use them to meet voluntary carbon reduction commitments or to make "carbon neutral" claims, or sell them on the market.

Rhodia and other companies are counting the credits they generate towards their own voluntary emissions reductions and then selling them, thereby enabling other organizations to claim the reductions as well.

This is not a problem of a "few bad apples," or a flaw in the offset market that can be fixed. The fundamental problem with offset trading is that compliance is less transparent than a tax or auctioned permit system or even old-fashioned, non-market regulation. There is more room for deliberate gaming, and more room for honest error. At the same time, a working offset market depends on fewer errors and more precision than other means. An offset that is a formal permit to pollute (like CDM) actually increases emissions if it is implemented less than perfectly. Offsets such as CDM don't make allowances for human imperfection to the same extent other means of controlling carbon emissions do.

[Update] Stephan Singer Head of European Climate and Energy Policy Unit of the World Wildlife Fund claims that if LaFarge in fact does sell their voluntary credits on the CDM market they will be violating their agreement with WWF.

They just keep coming

There is constant drumbeat of accusations of hypocrisy against Al Gore for using offsets. Although the people who do this sort of thing are aiming for the lizard brain, I suppose it is worth pointing out that it is an obviously bogus accusation.

Look, I'm an offset critic. I think offsets are one of the biggest wrong turns we can make in fighting environmental destruction, especially global warming. Al Gore, on the other hand, is a strong advocate of offsets. He helped get them into the Kyoto treaty. If I were to buy offsets, I would be a hypocrite -- acting against my beliefs. When Al Gore buys offsets he is acting according to his beliefs. Regardless of whether those beliefs are right or wrong, no hypocrisy is involved.

Let’s go all the way

When David pointed out that plug-in electric hybrids (PHEVs) can reduce carbon emissions in all possible futures, two main arguments were raised in opposition -- practicality, and the possibility that they will provide too low a reduction, while blocking the path to something better.

The way commercial plug-ins look to be implemented within the next five years is that normal hybrids will be built with large batteries and the ability to plug into a socket in your dedicated parking space. They will travel the first twenty miles or so on electricity and then turn on their gasoline engine around the 21st mile or so. Even with our current grid, they will emit less CO2 per mile than when they switch to their gasoline engine.

Like hobbyists, who manually convert existing hybrids, these will have to be more expensive than a normal hybrid, because they have every expense a normal car has plus the extra battery cost. If gasoline prices rise high enough, I suppose they may pay for themselves in fuel savings, but mostly they will sell on the "cool" factor.

However, there is another way to implement plug-ins, one we could begin now with a large enough investment, which produces savings comparable to a full electric car -- and which, if run on wind, or sun, or other ultra-low-carbon electricity sources, could actually provide a 98 percent emissions reduction.