[Pen-l] Offsets: Pissing the earth away

[Gar Lipow <gar.lipow@xxxxxxxxx>]

http://www.grist.org/article/offsets-pissing-the-earth-away
Offsets: Pissing the earth away by  Gar Lipow  9 Jun 2009

More than 2 and half years ago I wrote:

>    “Mommy, where do carbon offsets come from?”

>    “Well, you see sweetheart, when a major polluter and a consultant love money very, very much, they express that love in a special way. Nine months later, the consultant produces an extremely large paper packet.”

Offsets, the idea that big corporations can pay someone else to cut
emissions on their behalf still fails as badly today as when that was
written.  Polluters still pay money to an offset project. In turn the
offset project pays a share of polluter money to a consultant who
constructs a really convincing narrative explaining why that project
emits fewer greenhouse gases than if the money had not been paid. The
difference between the consultant’s story and actual emissions is the
emissions reduction available for sale. The polluter buys this instead
of actually reducing pollution. It is a difference between reality and
what unprovably might have been.

The Friends of the Earth new report Offsetting: a Dangerous
Distraction [PDF]  documents that this continues to be true.
Scientific American agrees.  The Economist reports on a scandal in
Papua New Guinea, which many offset opponents think is a good example
of what we can expect should large scale forestry offsets be included
in a trading scheme.

Offset supporters have new arguments:

One is that we need to support offsets as part of the total
Waxman-Markey package, because Waxman-Markey is our last chance for a
U.S. climate bill. But there is no reason to believe that this IS our
last chance. McCain-Lieberman was beaten back, and this new bill is on
the table around a year later.

Further, the current bill gives away one of the great levers to get a
climate bill passed - the current regulatory authority of the EPA.
While that authority is not structured optimally for greenhouse gas
regulation, it is strong enough to allow regulations that will produce
larger cuts sooner than this awful bill can net. If the EPA chose,
these new rules could be a major inconvenience to the same forces who
have extracted all sorts of concession in the current bill to win
their support.  That would put pressure on some of the utilities and
industries to support a decent climate bill as an alternative.  Giving
up that leverage in return for a bill that may actually increase
emissions is a really foolish and un-pragmatic choice. At least it is
if emission reductions are the point.

Another claim is that we can count on the EPA, under the tougher
offset standards Waxman-Markey requires, to only approve valid
offsets.  It seems unlikely, simply because the EPA does not have the
resources to set up anything but a consultant based system. Under such
systems the EPA only validates a project after most of the work of
justifying it or not is done by consultants. And that same lack of
resources will make the EPA no match for clever consultant narratives.
Joe Romm gives an example of CH4 and N2O reductions in wastewater
plants as difficult offsets to fake. However, states, counties,
municipalities and special districts tend to regulate CH4 because
methane stinks, and N2O because it increases eutrophication.  It will
be very tempting for regulators to let wastewater facilities
informally know they face such requirements, but then hold off on
formal rulemaking (or order-giving in the case of publicly owned
facilities) to let the plants “voluntarily” set up reduction projects
partially financed by selling offsets.

Recent domestic offsets convert Joe Romm has faith that offset use
won’t be widespread in the U.S. because the Waxman-Markey climate bill
sets standards so low industry won’t bother to buy offsets. They will
just make cheap and easy cuts instead.  This is not the most ringing
endorsement of a climate bill I’ve ever encountered, but it also makes
me wonder: why does Romm think even the cheapest real opportunity can
be cheaper than the paper reductions counterfeit offsets represent?
As my counterexample to Romm’s own chosen example above shows, there
is no real way to guarantee this type of offset will be real. Also,
why does he not remember the experiences he has described many times
over the years about how difficult it can be to persuade companies to
adapt money saving technology? Doesn’t it seem likely that the same
irrationality that leads companies to miss money-saving opportunities
now will also lead them in many cases to buy new cheap counterfeit
offsets over technology purchases that cost more upfront, even if
those real reductions save money in the long run? Romm is right that
many cheap ways to comply with a tougher bill exist, let alone this
one. But the same market failures that lead companies to overlook
profitable energy saving opportunities now will lead them choose
offsets over real reductions.

A last argument: the extreme right makes some of the same criticisms.
The problem with this is that the really far right is opposed to doing
anything about climate change.  If mainstream environmentalists decide
to require that everyone to drink their own unfiltered urine as part
of the fight against global warming, both the loony right, and
non-insane environmentalists will oppose this. Sensible
environmentalists will be against this, because drinking unprocessed
urine is a bad idea. Loony rightists will oppose this because it is
not their idea. (If Rush Limbaugh advocates urine drinking, much of
the far right will respond “mmm mmm good”.)  But the loony right and
sensible environmentalists are not forming a block. It just happens
that the mainstream has decided to do something so nuts that people
from very different parts of the political spectrum notice that it
makes no sense. And if the Daily Mail opposes forcing people to drink
their own unfiltered urine, it does not automatically become a good
idea. I know that many who argue for offsets are deadly serious. But
sometimes I can’t help but wonder if offset support is not some
elaborate hoax, and offset supporters are just taking the piss.

==========================================================
References

Carbon trading: a carbon tax, blindfolded and handcuffed, with its
shoelaces tied together. Grist, December 11, 2006 By Gar Lipow

Offsets are still counterfeit carbon credits: Clapping louder; Zcom;
Gar Lipow, June 1, 2009.

Simon Bullock, Mike Childs, Tom Picken; A dangerous distraction:Why
offsetting is failing the climate and people: the evidence. Friends of
the Earth (England, Wales and Northern Ireland)  June-2-2009

Madhusree Mukerjee; Is a Popular Carbon-Offset Method Just a Lot of
Hot Air? A popular carbon-offset scheme may do little to cut
emissions; Scientific American; June 2009.

Papua New Guinea and carbon trading: Money grows on trees. Irregular
carbon credits cause upheaval in the government of Papua New Guinea.
The Economist (economist.com), Jun 6th 2009.

Joe Romm; How I learned to stop worrying and love Waxman-Markey, Part
2: In praise of domestic offsets; Climate Progress. May 12, 2009.

Nadene Ghouri; The great carbon credit con: Why are we paying the
Third World to poison its environment?; The Daily Mail; June 1 2009
_______________________________________________
pen-l mailing list
pen-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l