|
|
 |
|
| |
Some controversy surrounds carbon offsets. A number of concerns have been raised in various sectors about offsets and the role they play in addressing climate change. In some cases these concerns are reasonable and worthy of serious discussion.
1. “Carbon offsets disguise the fact that we must radically alter our lifestyles if we are to meet the challenge of climate change.”
Critics of carbon offsets sometimes argue that offsets simply provide ‘peace of mind’ to consumers while delaying necessary, radical action to deal with climate change.
In other words, offsets simply assuage peoples’ guilt, and are counterproductive in that a comprehensive response to climate change would include such steps as: - A move from consumerism to sustainable lifestyles; and
- A shift from fossil fuels to renewable, non-polluting energy sources.
|
In response to the criticism that offsets are merely “carbon indulgences”, proponents of offsets have observed that, all else being equal, the emission reductions associated with quality offset projects are a step in the right direction.
Many offset vendors emphasize that before purchasing offsets, consumers should take action to minimize their personal emissions. Moreover, many vendors offer concrete suggestions about how consumers can do so. Although offsets alone cannot overcome the challenge of climate change, they are one tool, one part of a comprehensive response to climate change.
|
2. “Many offsets are generated using forestry projects, which are not permanent.”
Critics of offsets have argued that forestry projects are an ineffective and inappropriate means of dealing with climate change for two primary reasons:
- Carbon sequestered in trees will ultimately be released into the atmosphere when trees die and decay or are burned.
- It is exceedingly difficult to accurately measure the extent of carbon sequestration from a given forestry project.
Critics charge that poorly planned or implemented forestry projects have in some cases been merely carbon neutral; in other cases they may have led to a net increase in carbon dioxide emissions (planting trees in some terrains can release existing carbon stores into the atmosphere).
|
In response to the criticism that forestry projects are a poor means of dealing with climate change, proponents of offsets have emphasized that: - Forestry projects, when properly planned and implemented, can generate environmental, economic and social benefits;
- Deforestation accounts for approximately 25% of greenhouse gas emissions, so efforts to deal with climate change must include forestry-related projects; and
- Forestry projects are only one type of offset-generating activity, of which there is a wide range.
|
3. “Offsets rely on a comparison with baseline (“business-as-usual”) emissions, but it is difficult or impossible to accurately estimate baseline emission levels.”
Critics of offsets charge that it is impossible to predict with certainty all the factors that go into emission levels (e.g. demographic changes, international and national policy changes, socio-economic trends, etc.). Therefore, the assessment by “experts” of a hypothetical future scenario in which a project has not taken place is, at best, educated guesswork.
Without an accurate baseline determination, however, vendors cannot really know how many offsets they can reasonably sell, and buyers cannot be assured that they are purchasing anything other than “hot air”.
|
Proponents of offsets respond that while baseline determinations are admittedly complicated, there is a wide range of tests employed to arrive at conclusions. Uncertainty can never be completely avoided when projecting hypothetical future emission levels, but efforts are made to minimize uncertainty in baseline determinations. A number of industry standards (both voluntary and in some cases mandatory) have been created to address this and other concerns about offsets.
|
Next: Concerns About Offsets (Part 2)
|
|
| |
 |
|
|
 |
|
