Boo: Carbon Offsets and Cap-N-Trade

Sure, carbon offsets and cap-and-trade schemes sound like a really, really great idea. Lots of smart people think so. The idea is we could solve the world's environmental problem if we could only create the right kind of carbon sinks on a grand scale and allow market forces (via the selling and buying of carbon credits) match money to carbon. So, a company in Europe exceeds their carbon cap and they offset the remainder by getting another project in Asia to sink their carbon somewhere.

As always, the devil is in the details, and there is plenty of devil to go around for this one. Summary of the linked article: China builds dam it was going to build anyway (not building coal plants it wasn't going to build anyway) while German company pays for offsets by funding dam project. Net effect? More carbon released, unlikely progress made.

The thing is, this isn't a one time occurance. Indonesian peat bogs are being drained to plant forests to offset European carbon excesses. However, draining the peat bogs releases much more stored carbon than planting trees will ever hope to hold. In effect, the very situation that Europe was hoping improve (carbon reduction) through their funding is being made worse.

Then, we have crackpots running around trying to dump tons of finely ground iron into international waters to promote algal blooms with the optimistic hope of burying carbon and intending to sell carbon credits for it. There "research" is flimsy, at best.

Now, you may ask why turn such a jaundiced eye on these projects? Each of these ignores the Law of Unintended Consequences. The people involved may be well meaning, or perhaps they just want to find a way to fund their project or make a buck or relieve their guilt.

The problem is that the Earth's air and water can't absorb our guilt anymore than it can absorb our carbon emissions. Let's make progress via thoughtful and realistic changes backed by detailed study and science. I'm not arguing for analysis-paralysis, and, Yes, I recognized that perfection is the enemy of the good.

This, however, is not a call for perfection. It is, instead, a call for testable progress. Quite frankly, there may be a fundamental problem with cap-and-trade -- it may never work.

That said, any project purporting to be a true carbon sink project (worthy of offset) must be requried to build a realistic, published carbon offset model. That model must be independently confirmed by a couple of third-parties and those third-parties must disclose their financial funding. The model must be tested over time, and if it fails to perform as expected, the money invested must be returned to those buying offsets. Let the carbon companies buy offset insurance, if they like and leave the insurance companies to investigate offset claims (not a fan of this, but the more watchdogs, the better).

If you're a believer in buying carbon credits to assuage your carbon guilt, do your homework. Don't just take as gospel the offset literature published on your favorite offset website. Dig into their information. Go find counter opinions. Become a skeptic.

I think there's a better way than "Captain Trade" and will blog about this tomorrow.

PS: Some other links on this topic

1. Can technology clear the air?
2. Burying biomass to fight climate change
3. Artist releases CO2 as performance

#1 and perhaps #2 may be methods for real offsetting of carbon. #3 hopes to expose the problems of Captain Trade.