carbon offsets

Planktos may be a bad idea, but innovation is good

The green blogosphere generally reacted with chuckles or consternation to Planktos' announced plans to dump tons of iron into the ocean to, you know, see what happens. Gar Lipow took the article as another excuse to bash carbon offsets.

To follow the logic, you first have to know why anyone would want to dump several tons of iron into the sea. Planktos hopes to demonstrate that seeding the oceans with certain nutrients is a credible way to stimulate plankton blooms. It further hopes to demonstrate that these blooms are a credible way to sequester atmospheric carbon. Carbon markets provide the incentive for this quixotic undertaking. If the experiment is successful -- a big if -- Planktos could one day tap into the many billions of dollars available for carbon reduction projects.

Manufacturing a schism

Carbon offsets, which let you pay some money to help fund climate-friendly projects, got the love-hate treatment in Monday's New York Times.

At issue: are they for real, or just some sort of gimmick? By contributing money to an offset program, are you really expiating your climate sins, or are you just buying meaningless indulgences?

The article finds lots of quotes from people who are skeptical about offsets. But to me, this is mostly a manufactured controversy -- an attempt to find a green schism where none really exists.

As far as I can tell, there's a middle ground on the issue that most people already agree on: namely, that carbon offsets are simultaneously worthwhile and a gimmick. A worthwhile gimmick, if you will.

Putting iron in the ocean

The risky idea of dumping iron into the ocean to promote plankton growth has been around for a long time. The reasoning: more algae blooms, more CO2 absorbed. But many scientists think that by the time the algae dies, rots, and release methane and nitrous oxide, it will worsen the greenhouse effect. Even most supporters think it should be studied before being tried. The IPCC is expected to dismiss this particular idea as speculative and probably counterproductive.

But Planktos corporation, backed by Silicon Salley, has decided to go full speed ahead experimenting with it -- to hell with possible side effects. They are simply going to dump iron into a 10,000 square kilometer patch in the Galápagos -- one of the most delicate and important ecosystems on the planet.

How to reduce your household energy consumption, easy-like

Last Sunday's New York Times honed in on the dubious practice of Americans buying carbon offsets to brand themselves carbon-neutral. Andy Revkin, the paper's global-warming reporter, quoted me saying, "There isn't a single American household above the poverty line that couldn't cut their CO2 at least 25 percent in six months through a straightforward series of fairly simple and terrifically cost-effective measures."

My claim has hit a nerve. Despite the absence of a link, already a dozen readers have tracked me down on the web and written to ask what measures I have in mind. This article is for them and anyone else who might be interested.

First, a confession. As often happens, assertion preceded analysis. But my claim didn't come from thin air -- I have experience in energy analysis and a feel for the numbers. With a bit of figuring, I made a list of 16 energy-saving (hence carbon-reducing) steps that together should do away with a bit more than one-quarter of a typical U.S. household's carbon emissions.

The top five:

Some students don’t want to go carbon neutral

As an undergrad at Brown University and a veteran organizer with the Sierra Student Coalition, Nathan Wyeth has his ear to the ground on campus sustainability issues. In this occasional column for Grist, Wyeth will report on what's afoot at the campus grassroots level and how he and his fellow students are making their voices heard.

As of today, 202 colleges and universities have pledged to move toward climate neutrality, or net-zero global warming emissions, with the American College and University Presidents' Climate Commitment. I've been part of a student group pushing Brown University to do the same.

But debate over the legitimacy of the "carbon offsets" that make climate neutrality possible is growing as fast as the number of companies, institutions, even countries that have committed to buying them. Are carbon offsets legit? And what does climate neutrality really mean?

For the past few months, I've been considering a phrase tossed out by my friend and fellow student organizer Billy Parish: climate positive. Consider it a step beyond climate neutral (which never had a very inspiring ring to it anyway) -- when institutions or individuals not only take responsibility for their own impact on the climate and our future but go beyond this to have a positive climate impact on the community around them.

Dueling assumptions

Kudos to Andy Revkin for giving some exposure to (occasional contributor) Charles Komanoff of Carbon Tax Center fame. Komanoff articulates a common fear about carbon offsets: Charles Komanoff, an energy economist in New York, said the commercial market in climate neutrality could have even more harmful effects. It could, by suggesting there’s an easy way […]

Wax on, wax offsets

Gristmill’s sizable contingent of carbon offset hataz will find the latest from Joel Makower music to their hatin’ ears.

Video … on the interwebs!

Hey kids, are you hip to the steez on carbon offsets? Well, check this shizzle out! Here, Christie Todd Whitman talks about Bush and Cheney “flipping the bird” at the rest of the world (probably the first time this blueblood has ever used that phrase): Here, Frank Luntz continues to fail to realize what a […]

Among bad deals, TerraPass’s methane offset project?

In the new issue of BusinessWeek: "Another Inconvenient Truth?" It warns: