Climate Technology

Breaking all the offset rules

[Important update to this post here.]

One reason I began posting my Rules of Carbon Offsets is a dubious program by the California utility PG&E called ClimateSmart, which is supposed to allow PG&E customers to become "climate neutral."

This program actually manages to violate rules zero, 1, and 2 all at once! It really makes clear why offsets are bastardized emissions reductions -- and why trees are an especially dubious offset.

This picture graces the "Our Projects" page of the ClimateSmart website. The caption reads : "Photo of van Eck Forest, courtesy of Pacific Forest Trust." Well, that burns rule 1 and 2 -- no trees, and certainly not trees in a California forest comprising half your offset portfolio. (This forestry offset is particularly outrageous, as we will see at the end of this post.)

Worse, what PG&E is offering to do is offset customer's greenhouse gas emissions generated from their electricity purchases and natural gas consumption.

The $64,000 question is why doesn't PG&E just sell renewable power to its customers? Remember rule zero of offsets:

Before you pay others to reduce their emissions on your behalf, you need to do everything reasonably possible to reduce your own emissions first. As the saying goes, "Physician, heal thyself" before presuming to heal other people.

How does rule zero apply here? Consider what PG&E says:

The fastest, most cost-effective way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions is to use your energy more efficiently -- taking advantage of PG&E's smart energy rebates and programs. After doing what you can to reduce your energy use, make the rest "climate neutral" with ClimateSmart.

OK, energy efficiency is the first thing you do -- I've made that argument myself many times. But after doing what you can to reduce your energy use, the obvious next step is not paying someone else to reduce their emissions, but to purchase green power, directly eliminating any greenhouse gas emissions from your electricity use.

Carbon offsets are tricky business

Joseph Romm has been running a series of "rules of the road for carbon offsets" on these pages. This is a worthwhile endeavor, and as good of an excuse as any for me to provide some shade and color to the frequently misconceived debate over offsets. Although I mostly agree with Romm's conclusions, I don't think he chose the best route to reach them.

My intent is not to rebut Romm's proposed rules -- again, I (mostly) agree with all of the guidelines posted so far, even if they do contain some important errors of fact and emphasis. And more generally, I strongly support efforts to arm individuals with more information about offset quality.

But the rules are framed a bit oddly, offered up as some sort of counterpoint to a lawless industry peddling easy environmental solutions to polluters run amok. The first post announces an "aim to pick a fight with those overhyping offsets."

Michael Kieschnick, president of Working Assets, answers questions

Michael Kieschnick. What work do you do? I am the president of Working Assets, a social-change company that uses the business of wireless and credit cards to achieve environmental and social progress. Over the years, we have also generated over $50 million in donations to progressive groups, many of them working for wonderful environmental causes. […]

Offsets should be the last thing you need to turn to

Before you pay others to reduce their emissions on your behalf, you need to do everything reasonably possible to reduce your own emissions first. As the saying goes, "Physician, heal thyself," before presuming to heal other people.

This rule is so obvious I almost forgot it. And yet many people, including Google and PG&E, don't seem to get it.

The whole point of offsets is not to make you feel good, and it's not to allow you to continue polluting as much as you want (by, say, supporting new coal plants or other dirty forms of power). Offsets are cheap and in some sense bastardized emissions reductions (more on this in a future post).

In general, the point of offsets is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and specifically to allow you to offset any emissions that are left over after you have cleaned up your own act -- or to offset emissions from one-time events such as concerts.

Stewards Jolly

Mega-corporations sign U.N.-sponsored climate compact More than 150 companies, including Ikea, Unilever, and Coca-Cola, have signed a U.N.-sponsored climate declaration that commits them to setting and reporting on emissions-reduction goals, while asking governments to enact a post-Kyoto, market-based plan. OK, it’s a voluntary pact with a touchy-feely name — “Caring for Climate: The Business Leadership […]

Do higher MPG cars mean fewer jobs?

The Chicago Tribune has an article in today's paper entitled "MPG bill could cost UAW jobs; Workers fear SUV plant's fate sealed," although the article itself isn't as shrill as the title suggests.

At first glance, the article looks like the classic "those environmentalists are going to take away your jobs" piece, but the author presents data for the other side, that is, that the problems of the auto industry are the problems of the managers of the auto industry:

Higher fuel standards would affect all automakers but would hit the domestics harder because they sell a greater percentage of trucks than foreign rivals. Trucks account for 56 percent of GM's sales, two-thirds of Ford's and three-fourths of the Chrysler Group's.

Youch! Who's fault is it that they bet the farm on SUVs? The car companies could have analyzed the data on peaking oil, foreign imports of oil, even global warming. Because of their short-term outlook, made much worse by Wall Street's emphasis on the next quarter, not the next quarter of a century, they refused to go down a path that should have been obvious by the end of the 1970s.

That’s a Mighty Full Circular File

Faced with rampant pollution, China reports increase in citizen protests The sorry state of air and water quality in China has led to rising public protests, says a top environment agent there — and citizens and officials alike are urging the country to crack down on polluters. In the first five months of 2007, the […]

Putting the Source Before the Cart

Regional grocery chains seek “organic retailer” certification In some mainstream grocery stores, organic options are shunted to the side, put in a sort of “Food for Freaks” section where only the bravest shoppers dare to tread. But increasingly, regional chains are getting certified as “organic retailers” and even — gasp — shelving organic food next […]

We Always Thought It Was Industrial Strength

McDonald’s to power U.K. delivery fleet with its own grease Proving once again that everything’s cooler in Europe, McDonald’s has announced that it will run all its U.K. delivery vehicles on biodiesel — from its own greasy grills! The chain will convert the 155-lorry fleet to a mix of 85 percent fry grease and 15 […]

Taking ’em to the mat

The first rule of Carbon Offsets is, you do not talk about Carbon Offsets.

Just kidding. This isn't Fight Club, but I do aim to pick a fight with those overhyping offsets.

If a smart company like Google can seriously think it can go green by burning coal and then buying offsets and if a smart company like PG&E is bragging about a new program that allows customers to offset their electricity emissions by planting trees (a dopey program I'll blog about later), then something is very wrong about the general understanding of offsets.

For those who want a basic introduction to offsets, Wikipedia has an excellent entry. I believe the more you know about and think about offsets, the less appealing they are, as these articles make clear.

No rules of the road exist for offsets. Until now. In subsequent posts, I will offer my own rules based on dozens of discussions over the past decade with environmentalists, energy experts, corporations, and would-be offsetters. I'll post the first rule tomorrow, but it can be summed up in two words: No trees!

This post was created for ClimateProgress.org, a project of the Center for American Progress Action Fund.