Talk:Carbon offset

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 This climate change-related article is part of WikiProject Climate Change, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on Wikipedia related to climate change and global warming. You can help! Visit the project page or discuss an article at its talk page. We are focusing on Carbon offset.


        • Please use the 4~ to sign your name so we can really get a good debate on how to rank these schemes Snozzer 14:51, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Does anyone know enough to do a Comparison of carbon offset companies? - Dan

I suppose the key is to identifying suitable metrics to compare them, some are nothing more than simple tree planting schemes, others are 3rd world sustainability projects. The trouble is, each of the for profits (and the non profit) will all claim to have their unique selling point that makes them totally different from the others, so getting balanced metrics could be problematic. Snozzer 15:08, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
Good point. I think assigning a numerical metric - i.e. a score - would be impossible. A qualattative comparison table - in essence, an overview of the different companies - would still be valuable. Wikipedia has comparison tables for other 'products' (I'm thinking of software products such as Comparison_of_revision_control_software). We could attempt something similar. Columns in the table might be:

Profit/non-profit. What types of project do they support? E.g. energy trading (via the EU or Chicago markets), reforestation, development grants for 3rd world emissions reduction programs, outreach/education projects, etc, etc. Verification: what do they verify, and who stamps the certificates? Supporters: a short list of expert bodies who support the company. Critics: a short list of any expert criticisms levelled against the company. All of the above would need references to verifiable sources in order to prevent abuse.

- Dan
Some sort of quantitative indicator would be useful The daily telegraph (UK) has such a list, and give the equivalent cost of offsetting a return seat on a flight from London to New York. There is a surprising variety (£8.88 - £46.20) (one company has a different value for some reason (the equivalent is £11), but I have pointed that out to the newspaper, so it may change shortly) regards, Lynbarn 16:52, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Accounting

I have added a small subnote that as no formal guidelines or regulations being in place, identifying offset is not achievable. "TheNose | Talk" 10:16, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

One of the bullets in this section used to read:

Permanent - are some benefits of the reductions reversible? (Examples: cutting down trees, finite lifetime of wind-powered generators)

I have removed the wind generator portion of the example; unlike the burning of wood (in which most of the sequestered carbon is returned to the atmosphere), the decommissioning of a wind generator does not nullify the environmental benefit it created over its operational lifetime. Yabbadab 18:23, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Planting tropical forests cools Earth — Planting boreal forests warms earth

I've inserted a piece on the recent research [1] showing that when also albedo and cloud forming impacts of planting trees is considered, planting trees may not benefit the climate at all. It would be useful for this article's editors to keep an eye on further developments, and link to the full report when available. Jens Nielsen 12:18, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

89.240.138.104 rewrote: "... found little or no climate benefit when trees are planted in temperate regions alone. However, the study found that planting all over the planet surface including focus on tropical regions was very beneficial to the climate."

I reverted this rephrasing, which is misleading and conceals the main finding that planting in non-tropical regions may be outright harmful. Jens Nielsen 12:18, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

89.240.138.104 changed quote to the following: "I like forests. They provide good habitats for plants and animals, and tropical forests are good for climate, so we should be particularly careful to preserve them, But in terms of climate change, we should focus our efforts on things that can really make a difference, like improving efficiency and developing new sources of clean energy"

Why use the quote in the above form? It has no direct bearing on tree planting, and seems only an attempt to pick the most tree-positive quote from the report. Let's rather use a quote that conveys the main message of the report: "To plant forests to mitigate climate change outside of the tropics is a waste of time"[2].Jens Nielsen 12:18, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Estimate of emission reduction needed to prevent sea-level rise of > ~5 m

The following in the first paragraph should not be included. Quote: World carbon emission rates would have to be reduced by 60%–-80% to prevent sea levels from eventually rising 7 meters (23 feet) or more[2]

While it is clear to me and the rest of the scientific community that Global Warming is overwhelmingly likely to raise sea levels amongst other terrible economic and ecological travesties, it is unhelpful to pose these predictions as fact, as they are likely to be siezed on by critics as something simmilar to nostradamus apocolypse warnings, and while I am under no doubt that this is not the intention of the author in this case, it is advisable to correct the text to make it clear that this is a subjective estimate and not a known fact.

On the other hand, it is unanimously believed by the serious science journals in the United States and elsewhere that serious sea-level changes are imminent due to the climate change phenomenon caused overwhelmingly because of the artificial increase in carbon dioxide and other "greenhouse" gases. It is widely accepted that a sea-level rise of three metres is almost certain to occur before 2100, but estimates in the region of 7 metres are contentious, and no time region is given in the quote above.

I would therefore suggest that the sentence be paraphrased thus:

 Some scientists believe that world carbon emission rates must be reduced by 60%–-80% during the next X years to prevent sea levels from eventually rising 7 meters (23 feet) or more[2].

or

 Failure to reduce world carbon emissions will cause a dramatic increase of sea-levels, although the effects may be at least somewhat offset by a world reduction of carbon emission rates to a more stable level.

Evildictaitor 20:53, 2 January 2007 (UTC)


The 60%-80% estimate is from a Dec2005 presentation by James Hansen at the annual meeting of the American Geophysical Union (http://www.digitalnpq.org/archive/2006_winter/hansen.html), as cited in the version of "Carbon Offset" edited by evildictator on 2Jan07. Not-Actually-Evil Dictator's range of 3 to 7 meters is in broad agreement with the figures presented by Hansen, et al (http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/notyet/2006_submitted_Hansen_etal_lrg.pdf, Section 6.1.1), also cited in the version of "Carbon Offset" edited by evildictator on 2Jan07. Hansen, et al note—based on climatic-geologic historical evidence—that 1°C higher-than-present temperatures have coincided with sea levels at most ~+5 m relative to today, and 3°C higher-than-present temperatures have coincided with sea levels 25 ± 10 m relative to today. Hansen's estimate is that carbon emission rates would need to decrease by about 60-80% to prevent warming of more than 1°C above present.

The estimate of 200 to 2000 years in the current "Carbon offset" is based on the evidence presented by Hansen, et al. that sea level rose 20 m in 400 y during Meltwater Pulse 1A (14k-15k y ago), that "it is unlikely that the response time for significant ice sheet change could exceed centuries," and that "long-term global ice volume changes tend to lag global temperature change by a few thousand years (Mudelsee, 2001), but these changes are in response to weak forcings varying on millennial time scales" whereas "GHG climate forcings in the IPCC BAU scenarios are far outside the range that has existed on Earth in millions of years."

Hansen's estimate of 60-80% is similar to the 70-80% estimate published 9Nov2006 by the Centre for European Policy Studies (http://www.policypointers.org/page_4487.html).

An estimate of around 80% is implicit in recently adopted governmental goals:

Lesikar 04:06, 3 January 2007 (UTC)


I would suggest you actually read your citations. The figure of +1DEG is quoted from the summary from what I can tell, and is in the context of an absolute expected sea level change of approximately (+4.5~5.5 m / +1DEG). This is not the projected temperature rise over the next 100 years. According to the IPCC, who are widely regarded as being on the concervative side of the argument on global warming suggest that over the next 100 years we are guarranteed to see a 1.4 DEG rise in temperature, regardless of emissions, because global warming does not mean that more CO2 today means that it will be hotter today, but that more CO2 today means it will be hotter in two decades time. The concervative realist science lobby in Europe, China and Africa are suggesting that the temperature could easilly get to 3DEG over the next centuary, and there are a number of climatologists who I work with who are suggesting that political inaction over the past five years means that we should expect to see between 7 and 11 metres of sea-level rise.

IPCC (1.4 guarranteed, 5 likely before 2100) http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html#Q11 REALclimate: (4 guarranteed, 6 likely before 2100) http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/03/catastrophic-sea-level-rise-more-evidence-from-the-ice-sheets/ Environmental lobby group in USA: ( http://www.whrc.org/resources/online_publications/warming_earth/potential_outcome.htm

Let's put it like this: Since 1900 CO2 levels in the atmosphere have gone up from approx. 0.5GT to about 7GT, which is a fourteen fold increase. Temperatures went up by almost exactly 0.7°C. Over the next 100 years at current rate of development, projections are that we will be having levels in the region of 25-27GT, which assuming that CO2 levels linearly cause temperature increase, (which isn't far off) and that the major "tipping points" of the ice-caps melting, which will reduce reflection, the sea-absorbtion rate reversing, which would triple effective emissions over a five year period, or sea-level increase which increases the black-suface area absorbtion-rate of high-energy light-waves, we would be looking at an increase of temperature of about 2 - 3DEG, which would correspond according to your citation as about 5.5 - 8.5m of water over the next centuary. This sea-level rise would be during the next centuary (IPCC) which clearly contrasts with your statement of over the next 200-2000 years.

Note that the level of reduction proposed by political bodies should not be taken to be a scientific consensus on the matter. Neumann (author The Skeptical Environmentalist) suggests that we reduce CO2 levels to the levels we had in 1970, or should get a job in real estate buying up inland property. Neumann has studied climate change since 1965, and has advised the Clinton and Bush administration on their climate change policy, as well as effecting change in France, the UK, Ireland, California, Germany and China).

Another little point. When you use this quote:

 "long-term global ice volume changes tend to lag global temperature change by a few thousand years (Mudelsee, 2001), but these changes are in response to weak forcings varying on millennial time scales"

you forget that since then maps have had to be redrawn of the Antarctic regions due to a substantial section of it slipping into the sea, which on its own raised sea levels by 0.078m. It is also suspected that the greenland central glaciers are due to slip into the gulf stream during the next hundred years, and indeed, have already started doing so. Suspecting that global warming is a thing which will affect us in the long term but not the medium term does no longer apply.


My whole point in introducing the idea of a 60-80% reduction into this article is to stimulate a realizatiion that now is the time for very strenuous action to mitigate global warming.

I think we're in basic agreement here, because what I see from Hansen et al is that a 20 m rise is sea level could happen in as little as 200-400 years. I know that the projected increase in temperature is 3°C or more over the next 100 years. The sources referenced by Hansen et al in Section 6.1.1 indicate that if temperature held steady at 3°C above present, then the consequent sea-level rise would be 25 ± 10 m. The hope is that if the rate of carbon emissions were reduced 80% over the next 20 to 50 years that the increase could be held to 1°C or less, which—based on paleoclimatogeologic findings—would result in a sea level rise of at most 5 m.

In my prior posting, I was trying to make the point that not only could a 20 m rise in sea level happen in as little as 200-400 years, but also that historical global ice volume changes lagged global temperature change by a few thousand years only because they were in response to weak forcings varying on millennial time scales, whereas expected human-caused GHG climate forcings are far above the range that has existed on Earth in millions of years. In spite of this, I felt it was prudent—in light of the uncertainties—to indicate that it might take 200-1000 years for a 1°C rise to raise sea levels by up to 5 meters. Lesikar 06:49, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Intriguing as the discussion of required mitigation effort is, it belongs in other articles, such as Mitigation of global warming and Sea level rise. This article is about carbon offsets and while no discussion about the required mitigation effort is in its place here, we could perhaps include a single sentence with an uncontroversial statement. See article for my suggestion and please bring your insights to bear on those other articles. Jens Nielsen 10:08, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

It is wrong to state that there is unanimous agreement in serious science journals that serious sea-level changes are imminent. See S. J. Holgate; published in the American Geophysical Union. [http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2007/2006GL028492.shtml On the decadal rates of sea level change during the twentieth century] Goggsie 08:46, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bottom line: "60-80%" and friends do not belong here

I agree with Jensbn. The purpose of this article is to describe a concept, NOT to "stimulate a realization". Global warming is the main impetus for buying offsets; that (and the bit about boreal forests) is all it needs to say about climate. Frankie 20:16, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Link farming for offset providers?

There is a tendency for offset providers to add themselves to the external links. Wikipedia is not a platform for commercial purposes, and I think it fair that either we include a comprehensive list of providers, or we include none at all. My proposal is removing all providers from this page to the page with the list (in See Also).Jens Nielsen 09:52, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV dispute

I came here to get a summary of the skepticism concerning this topic (please google 'carbon neutral myth' or 'carbon offset myth' for verification). My NPOV dispute comes from the fact that this article makes no mention of such a myth. The criticisms section has been entirely neutered. This article needs a summary of the logic which myth proponents use. Thanks.Yeago 03:58, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeago-
At your suggestion, I've taken a look at some of the articles found via google 'carbon neutral myth' or 'carbon offset myth', and I see that those arguements have validity in themselves.
Right up in the top of the second paragraph, Wikipedia "Carbon offset" indicates that the most important goal is "efforts to reduce [actual] emissions by the 60–80% necessary to prevent dangerous levels of global warming. The second pargraph also indicates that carbon offsets are directed toward those "who want to compensate for their carbon emissions that remain after their best efforts to reduce their emissions."
As to permanance of carbon sequestration in forests—as it relates to concerns about carbon added to the active carbon pool from the fossil carbon pool—the Wikipedia article "Carbon dioxide sink" notes that "Mature forests, made up of a mix of various aged trees as well as dead and decaying matter, may be carbon neutral above ground. In the soil, however, the gradual buildup of slowly decaying organic material will continue to accumulate carbon, but at a slower rate than an immature forest." It was through processes like this that fossil fuels formed over the millenia, and it is through processes like this that we can begin to partially undo the damage done by carbon already released from the fossil carbon pool. Here's a link from "Carbon dioxide sink" to a scientific article that analyzed carbon pools and the role of forest carbon sequestration[3], which is limited by the fact that a massive global forestation effort would run out of available land sometime in this century and the rapid growth phase of newly planted trees lasts only 40 to 50 years: Drastic reduction in emissions by mid-century is the imperative.
As an aside, it seems that the majority of currently offered carbon offsets support not forestation, but renewable energy or energy conservation[4].
The content of the Criticisms section (which has never been more than two sentences long since this article was created in July 2005) is still in this article: The intro contains a statement taken from the Criticisms section: "many environmentalists have criticised the use of forestry carbon offsets as a substitute for the fossil-fuel use reductions that are the essential longer-term solution." The intro continues: "In addition, many forestry offset projects have been conceived and/or conducted in ways that are vulnerable to criticism, drawing their net benefits into question."
In addition, the New Internationalist special issue (July 2006) that outlines major criticisms of carbon offsetting that was cited by the Criticisms section is now in the External links section.
I look forward to your further contributions of verifiable information to "Carbon offset."-Lesikar 05:51, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Hey there. Thank you very much for your illustration of the issue, its very helpful. However, I'm not sure how it illustrates the logic of critics. There is a slight implication of fraudulent or incompetent methods on the part of forestry offset projects. Is this the extent of Criticisms? I ran into a quote by either Philip Stott or Patrick Moore (environmentalist which stated that the offset of forests was actually negative. Since I have not yet researched this topic (its for a research paper), I cannot provide any verifiable information at this time. I simply noticed a void. You say that the criticisms are outlined in New Internationalist, and I think that the we need more than simply a link to it, but an illustration.Yeago 21:16, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Yes, the negative to neutral offset of trees outside of the tropics is a large problem, which is addressed in the "Climate impacts" section of Wikipedika "Carbon offset".Lesikar 05:21, 14 February 2007 (UTC)


I just looked for links—in the "carbon offset" Google search—that are critical of carbon offsets. The top-ranked such link was "You feel better, but is your carbon offset just hot air?" [5]. The gist of it was that although "There are plenty of projects out there that are rigorous and have no problems at all", some carbon offset providers are misleading or fraudulent. So, I've added a caution to the second paragraph to beware of misleading or fraudulent offset providers.
I'll incorporate more criticisms (except for any criticism in which I can't find any validity) as I have time. I intend to look further into your leads into Google 'carbon neutral myth' and 'carbon offset myth'.Lesikar 05:25, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Carbon Neutral Myth

The NPOV flag has recently been removed, however, the tone of the article doesn't really push the division that exists over Carbon Neutrality. I am glad to see more of the "feel good" perspective. However, can someone acknowledge this perspective in the opening paragraphs, since it is by no means a minority or one-party-bias opinion?Yeago 23:47, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Could you describe in more detail what you're looking to see? IMO the second paragraph of the intro covers what you seem to be asking. There is no serious dispute that replanting tropical forests and reducing the use of combustion will decrease CO2 levels. The only question is whether buying offsets actually induces those steps. If you have a specific choice of words in mind, please say so. Frankie
Google 'carbon neutral myth'. Its rather extensive and can say more than my unknowledgable self can. But the sources seem to come from all over... right, left, indifferent.Yeago 15:02, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Nope. The entire first page (and more) of Google results are all green-left sites discussing either of two works with that title, an essay by Jutta Kill and a book by Kevin Smith. They all offer the same pair of complaints:
  1. More trees aren't as good as burning less oil.
  2. Many tree projects go bad, through either malice or incompetence.
Both of these concepts are addressed in the article. Perhaps more could be said, but they're there. Frankie
I feel like you're not really reading what I'm saying. I revert to my previous comment, that while the information is contained in the article, it is not presented with any weight. The consensus seems to be that Carbon Neutrality is a 'feel good' exercise as a rule and not an exception. The fact that this is coming from green-left only underlines is importance. Yet one must dig deep into this article to discover that point.Yeago 17:47, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeago, I think you're begging the question here. There is an emerging consensus that certain types of offsets (viz. boreal or temperate forest reforestation) are based on a faulty premise (i.e. they don't actually offset anything), but there is no such agreement on other types of offsets such as alternative energy sources or methane capture. While the approaches are certainly still evolving, these latter approaches do seem to have validity (even if they are only a modest interim step; the ultimate solution to reducing anthropogenic gas emissions will have to involve a wholesale shift in sources and deployment of energy systems). Not sure if you are still working on this but thought this might help clarify. Cheers. Arjuna 06:56, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] CCX

A few of the offset providers that I've seen rely almost solely on the Climate Exchange for their reductions. They pool funds from their contributors, purchase carbon credits, and sit on them until they've expired. Some, such as Carbonfund.org, suggest that ultimately, contributors' actions will make the credits more scarce, and thus more expensive, forcing companies to make reductions of their own. It seems to me that the article concerns itself with criticizing tree-planting projects more than anything else, and more or less skips over renewable energy & carbon credits. Are there any plans to expand this area? Akbeancounter 04:20, 27 February 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Controveries section

I've just expanded and renamed the controveries section. While I see the previous work to remove the POV issues with the article, it still lacked a comprehensive look at the criticisms some people raise on this issue. Best, --Alabamaboy 21:26, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

This is more or less what I was looking for in this article. Thank you very muchYeago 04:38, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Accounting for and verifying reductions - citations needed

The assertion, "After roughly 50 years, newly planted forests will reach maturity and remove carbon dioxide more slowly, if at all" in particular is a powerful statement that could be interpreted in many different directions(Then shouldn't all trees be chopped down every 50 years?) and needs validation in context. I modified the post to reflect the need for a citation.

Digitalsmear 16:26, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Additionality Investigation

As I wrote in the main article, BusinessWeek wrote an article questioning the additionality of offsets, specifically those given to presenters and performers at the Oscars. FYI, the provider of said offsets, TerraPass, is conducting a follow-up review of the project primarily discussed in the article, to ensure that their pre-investment review came to the right conclusions. They're putting a wiki together [6] to chronicle the investigation. The results of this investigation could have significant implications for the offset industry. -- A. 18:57, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] list of carbon offset providers up for deletion

The List of carbon offset providers is nominated for deletion and will soon be deleted unless it is made more fit for an encyclopdia. Take quick action if you wish to keep it. Jens Nielsen 09:43, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Eh. I could take it or leave it, as long as somebody patrols the article for commercial links. Maybe one day when there are a few clear leaders in the industry, they'll earn their own pages. -- A. 02:02, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
It'll soon go, and it also means the commercial providers will flock to this page instead. I propose we keep out offset providers (commercial and otherwise) from the external links section, maybe except one link to an overview page like the soon defunct List of carbon offset providers. Jens Nielsen 09:42, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Methane

I still think that this article is mildly obsessed with tree planting, so I added a section regarding methane capture and combustion. I know TerraPass, Carbonfund.org, and NativeEnergy fund such projects♦, but I can't speak for others, so I kept it short for now. In the not-too-distant future, I want to add to the wind and solar power sections, and probably a small section regarding the secondary benefits (e.g., clean power in impoverished countries is often cheaper, too).-- A. 02:00, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
♦ These are links to the offsetters' project summaries, not intended as advertisements.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../c/a/r/Talk%7ECarbon_offset_88ad.html"