Talk:Carbon offset

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject Environment
Portal		 This environment-related article is part of the Environment WikiProject to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the environment.
The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on environment-related topics, as well as to ensure that environment articles are properly categorized.
See WikiProject Environment and Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.

Contents

[edit] Arbitary header

Excuse me but the first paragraph of this article contains unwarranted vituperous assertions against carbon offsets. An encylopedia should offer a more balanced definition of a concept/category. While today's carbon offset market is far from perfect (and please by all means point out every flaw the exists later in the article), it is not inherently elitist...or at least no more elitist than any other market/non-market based system. The concept of paying someone else to do something you cannot or prefer not to do has actually become foundational to our way of life. A ton of C02 emitted by Al Gore (the example used) is no different from a ton of CO2 emitted from anyone else, what the world should be concerned with is that global C02 emissions are reduced. As long as many ways to emit and trap carbon dioxide exist, some ways of reducing CO2 in the atmosphere will be cheaper than others. Carbon offsets allow society to pursue the least costly/disruptive methods of reducing CO2.

What the hell is a carbon offset?

   Please see the Wikipedia article on Carbon Offsets. mlhwitz 04:45, 14 September 2007 (UTC)


It's a fraud. Can't you read?

        • 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)

[edit] Certification

One of the big issues when it comes to carbon offsets is whether or not they are third-party certified, if so by whom, if not why the organization could not get or chose not to seek third-party certification, whether governments should regulate certification, etc. A section dealing with this could be useful. Thumbtackz (talk) 19:34, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

[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)

What is this discussion of benefit for the climate? The global climate or local climates? How can a climate benefit from anything? Who is benefiting? Is it meant that this maintains a (the) climate's current state which happens to be beneficial to -us-? This is just sloppy speech. Mintal 18:34, 24 July 2007 (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)
Just removed link to article on Mount Elgon National Park as said article referred to the Mount Elgon National Park (Kenya) not the one of the same name in Uganda. Also added some brackets to remove this ambiguity. 15.50, 11 October 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.114.20 (talk) 14:51, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for removing your update at 87.194.114.20, whoever you are, as your update was not inappropriate as I first assumed. However, it was not the linking article which was amibiguous (Uganda being already stated in that sentence) but the linked article (Mount Elgon National Park). The latter has been amended to indicate that it straddles the border between Kenya and Uganda.Dirkbb 15:20, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

The passage dealing with indulgences fails to address one of Mobiot's main points, which is "To claim a carbon saving, you also need to demonstrate that these projects would not have happened without you -that Mexico would not have decided to capture the methane from its pig farms, or that people in India would not have bought new stoves of their own accord. In other words, you must look into a counterfactual future. I have yet to meet someone from a carbon offset company who possesses supernatural powers." Responding to this criticism with a comment about the analogy of indulgencies being flawed hardly addresses the issue.

In addition, I think this article by businessweek might shed a little light on some of the reasons for carbon offsetting failures... http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/07_44/b4056001.htm?chan=search —Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.112.16.62 (talk) 18:27, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

That quote from Monbiot refers to the additionality controversy, not the indulgence criticism. Additionality is pretty well covered in the entry, including links to five outside articles. Nothing wrong with the Business Week article, but not sure it brings anything new. GreenSarah (talk) 19:56, 6 May 2008 (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)

Update: The offset provider's research showed that the landfill did have to do something to solve a groundwater problem, but that (a) their investment in the methane flaring system far exceeded the amount required to address the groundwater problem, (b) 99% (literally) of the methane captured and combusted comes from that additional area, and (c) the landfill owner invested more money into expanding the system last year, with no regulatory pressure at all. Long story short, buyers are getting what they paid for. Seeing as the allegations in the BusinessWeek article appear to be groundless, I think I'll move them to the TerraPass article for historical context, but take them off of here because there's no real controversy to be had. -- A. 20:18, 27 April 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)
there needs to be a list of the 100,000 providers of offsets.CorvetteZ51 08:32, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
I want to bring this page back. I think this page would, help Wiki readers decide for themselves if carbon offsets are a fraud, or not. comments? CorvetteZ51 10:04, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not a mere link farm; its main purpose is to collect and present information with the intention to create or broaden knowledge and understanding of a topic — I don't see that any knowledge or understanding is gained by having a sundry list of offset providers. A simple list is just an invitation to spam (as it has been in the past), and would take great effort to maintain. The Open Directory in the external links section [7] provides an excellent overview of carbon offset methods and providers that Wiki readers can use as a further resource. Malljaja 10:42, 2 June 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.
I was thinking of adding a separate section but may be this one can be modified to add Biofuels wih Methane. Biofuels, especially from non-edible fuel crops such as jatropha are very attractive to reduce dependence on fossil fuels and GHGs reduction. Jatropha plantation can benefit the environment by the afforestation of marginal lands where it can easily grow and by replacing fossil fuels for transportation and electricity generation. Carbon offset can make these activities economically viable for poor farmers in developing countries who otherwise are forced to abandon their unused wasteland. To the best of my knowledge plantjatropha is the only website that is focussed on supporting poor farmers to carry out such projects from the individuals and companies who volunteer to offset their carbon footprint.

[edit] Rotting trees

Moved this statement from Tree Planting section of article:

Significant concern arises from the fact that carbon sequestered in the newly planted trees will be again released as CO2 when the tree dies and decays, thus merely postponing the negative impact of the man-made increase in CO2.[1]

This is not a valid argument because "it ignores the long-term carbon-neutral cycle of new trees replacing the ones that have died, either by replanting or regeneration. In this carbon-neutral cycle, the new trees re-absorb the same amount of carbon dioxide that the dying trees released." [8] -- Barrylb 07:18, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Typo

There's a typo or two in this sentence -- I'm making it grammatical but somebody may want to tweak my fix: "The project is certified under the Forest Stewardship Council scheme as well managed by SGS Qualfor, the world's largest leading verification and certification company." -- 201.19.40.176 00:39, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Junk Science

User:67.120.51.46 added a vigorous POV section on the 'junk science' of anthropogenic climate change. I removed the section but retained a sentence which links to the CC controversy page. Recording the existence of the opposing viewpoint is very valid for this article's controvosy section (but not the detail), so I felt a brief cross-reference would be useful. Ephebi 13:17, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] critics of global warming

The article states "A minority in the scientific community disagree with the significance of anthropogenic climate change and so do not hold with the usefulness of offsetting on principle." However, this article isn't on global warming, but on carbon offsets. My understanding of the critics (e.g. Lomborg) is not so much that they deny the phenomenon, but they caution that it is overblown in relation to other problems and that some of the proposals are astronomically expensive. Now, if this is a fair summary of most of the criticism, then that would play into how much carbon emissions should be reduced by, and at what cost; not that it's irrelevant to reduce it. E.g. it would translate into a consideration for how much carbon offsetting it's worth doing. That's not the same, however, as saying that those critics are against "the usefulness of offsetting on principle." --Psm 19:10, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] elasticity of demand

As long as carbon offsetting is a small activity, the laws of supply and demand dictate that the most economically efficient offsetting methods will be leveraged first. But they won't suffice for anything significant. So an article on carbon offsets should at least mention the notion of price elasticity. Anybody know of any good references on that? --Psm 19:12, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

  • Your comment is a good one. However offsetting on an industrial scale is just one type of carbon credit activity, and it would be more relevant to have a description of elasticity there. Though I note that it isn't described there either 8-( Ephebi 08:57, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Good point, it's relevant there too. But I would really like to find some mainstream references on it, I don't want to be doing OR here. --Psm 20:36, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Guidance on developing a robust offset strategy

Hi

This article is strong on the science/policy, but doesn't have much in the way of sign-posting guidance for how people should go about offsetting. The UK's Carbon Trust has developed an excellent guide (see http://www.carbontrust.co.uk/carbon/briefing/offsets.htm), and the Sustainable Development Commission have recently updated their website (http://www.sd-commission.org.uk/pages/carbon_neutrality.html). I noticed that the page asks not to post new links, so I thought I'd put this here to see what others think. I'm sure there are other good guides out there.

Thanks,

Oliver —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oliver.knight (talk • contribs) 14:36, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Trees Grow Faster in the Tropics

This sentence seems suspect.

"Trees grow three times faster in the tropics than in temperate zones; each tree in the rainy tropics removes about 22 kilograms (50 pounds) of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere each year.[8]"

The citation is from the webpage of an organization that will take your money and plant trees as an offset. The webpage offers no evidence to support this. More importantly, the source does not directly make the claim. The organization claims that per dollar the organization can plant 5 times as many trees and remove 15 times as much CO2 in the tropics.

Also, I don't think the sentence really adds anything either. I am tempted to remove it. Any objections? Josh 76.102.138.25 (talk) 06:03, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Structural and factual issues

New here, so getting a feel for how this works. I know a fair amount about offsets (work in a related field), and I can't help notice that there are some pretty basic structural issues with this page. These are just the first that occur to me:

  • Carbon offsets are never defined. The term "carbon offsetting" is defined, but carbon offsets themselves are never defined. There are some very basic features of carbon offsets (such as the fact that they have a "vintage," or date) that simply never get mentioned.
  • The article doesn't really distinguish between the voluntary and compliance offset market. This is an important distinction, particularly as the compliance market is much larger and better developed. The general mixing of statements about the two markets also leads to a lot of somewhat questionable assertions, such as, "carbon offsets generally refer to acts by individuals or companies that are arranged by commercial or not-for-profit carbon-offset providers." This describes only the voluntary market, which, again, is much smaller and arguably less important than the compliance market.
  • The article tends to focus overly much on somewhat shallow "controversies" (the Oscars?) and completely ignores huge controversies, such as the use of HFC-based offsets to satisfy Kyoto obligations. This was a really big deal, but it gets no mention here at all.

So, I'd like to try to fix some of these things, particularly as I think this topic is going to get more important over time. But I thought I'd alert people first. Any questions/comments?

GreenSarah (talk) 22:02, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

  • You are right - though the article on carbon credits is the better place to major on the features of the CDM/compliance market. This article attempts to cover the general theory, which is much more woolly when you address the voluntary sector, IMHO, as it covers the both ideas of industrial & personal offsetting. The lead-in paragraphs here are also not very encyclopedic & could do with a bit of re-focussing. Ephebi (talk) 22:45, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
  • OK, I'll take a look at the carbon credit article as well, although I'm not sure the credit/offset distinction is all that meaningful. They're used fairly interchangeable, although credit could also refer to allowances. Also, when I mention compliance markets, I'm not really limiting my comment to the CDM. RGGI will incorporate offsets, the WCI will likely incorporate offsets, etc. It's a big topic. I'll start making some edits. GreenSarah (talk) 23:06, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
  • OK, inserted a definition up top, and started to flesh out a clearer distinction between the voluntary and compliance markets (with actual numbers!). The article is still overly focused on trees, which are really a very minor area of project activity. And there's no mention at all of the industry standards under development. And the controversy section is still sort of a hodgepodge of small-picture stuff. I'll take a whack at some of that stuff next. GreenSarah (talk) 16:33, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
  • This has come along a bit further. I reorganized the controversy section so it highlights the issues involved better than it did previously. I also pulled some of the info from the tree-planting section down into the controversy section, and I added a few new controversies. There's still too much about trees in this article. I'm trying to see whether it makes sense to pull some of the stuff into one of the reforestation or treeplanting articles. And there's nothing on offset standards yet. I'll probably take that on next. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GreenSarah (talk • contribs) 21:54, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Moved some of the tree stuff to the treeplanting article, although it could have gone in the LULUCF article as well. I also reorganized it a bit to make more clear that treeplanting is subset of LULUCF, not vice versa.
  • I just noticed that the external links section has been entirely taken over by commercial web sites that rate carbon offset vendors. As a decision has already been made to exclude the vendors themselves, these other commercial services also seem inappropriate. Removing them all.GreenSarah (talk) 22:33, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Self-editing?

Ummmm. A bunch of very specific changes were just made, all with the result of presenting a single carbon offset retailer in a more flattering light. For example, the following was a brief but factual summary of some of main points of an article critical of offset retailers, in line with the other summaries of similar articles:

An article in the Baltimore Sun criticized retailer Carbonfund for claiming reductions based on tiny donations to large energy projects. For example, Carbonfund contributed $8,000 to an $81-million wind farm in Nebraska. One organization that received money from Carbonfund, the National Arbor Day Foundation, objected to their project being cited as a source of carbon reductions, and denied that trees purchased by Carbonfund had been planted.

The paragraph was changed to this:

An article in the Baltimore Sun criticized retailer Carbonfund for claiming reductions based on tiny donations to large energy projects. Carbonfund's purchase and claim were in fact proportionate, paying for and receiving a share of the project's renewable energy certificates (RECs), not the entire amount, an important element of the carbon offset and REC market goal of pooling resources to support large-scale clean energy investment

There are few things wrong here:

  • The changes are suspiciously selective. There are other changes sprinkled throughout article praising the business model of a specific vendor.
  • The new paragraph is poorly written. I'm not even really sure what it means, but it doesn't seem to relate to the section's focus on lack of regulation in the carbon offset industry.
  • The change presents unsourced assertions as fact.

The changes aren't major, but they do seem to have been made with an agenda. What's the appropriate recourse here? Should I just revert them?

(oops forgot to sign my changes) GreenSarah (talk) 21:03, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, under advice of RyRy5, I kept the changes that seemed factually accurate (for example, I kept the reference to the fact that the Voluntary Carbon Standard includes tree projects), I removed stuff that was either unsourced opinion or just redundant, and I reverted the excisions of factually accurate info after confirming its accuracy in the referenced sources. Hopefully the info sticks this time. GreenSarah (talk) 22:12, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Sarah, there was no agenda other than to correct the facts. I made these edits because the original story in the Baltimore Sun was inaccurate. First, the story acknowledged a senior person had corrected the story that the trees had been planted before print (it is in the story). Second, senior Arbor Day officials also confirmed with reporter that they do in fact quantify carbon in their work, but the reporter did not use it and instead used a quote from an uninformed junior staffer. View ArborDay's relationship with Memorex, which came out at the same time as the Sun story and you can see they absolutely plant trees to offset carbon. http://www.memorexelectronics.com/renew/plant.html The reporter had a POV, I am just correcting it. Removing piece until this is clarified. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.15.63.27 (talk) 01:23, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. This still seems problematic, though. The question isn't whether the reporter had a POV. All of the other articles cited have POVs as well -- they're critical of the carbon offset industry. The question is do the articles cite credible sources. If you can provide references that make counter-claims, by all means please include them in the entry. Press releases, letters to the editors, that sort of thing. But just declaring that the story is inaccurate doesn't seem to wash. (By the way, I updated the Arbor Day info to indicate that the article gave conflicting accounts of whether the trees had been planted.)

Regarding the offset claim from the project: the situation is somewhat confusing, but it doesn't appear that Arbor Day is involved with offsets in any way. I searched their entire web site, and found no reference to selling carbon offsets. After a lot of googling, I did locate this forum page in which the Arbor Day moderator says:

Our organization is just beginning to address the complex issues surrounding tree planting and carbon sequestration. I can say the Foundation's mission is and will remain focused on tree planting & care, and the celebration of the tree planter's holiday - Arbor Day. The Foundation has always worked to spread the word about the many benefits that trees provide us. Sure trees are able to store carbon, but don't lose sight of the bigger picture.

That's dated October 11, 2007. I also found this, on their global warming FAQ page:

What are carbon credits? Carbon credits are quantified, verified and certified reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, typically expressed as metric tons of CO2 equivalents (source: EPA). Calculating carbon credits for planting trees is very complex because of the diversity of tree species and growing conditions. The earth needs many trees, and whether we plant one tree or thousands, each one helps create a healthier planet.

Basically, it seems Arbor Day is aware of offsets, but doesn't sell them. The Memorex announcement does refer to efforts "to help offset the carbon footprint" through a partnership with Arbor Day, which is confusing. But Memorex doesn't make any real claims here. It just talks about how Memorex is planting trees, and trees absorb carbon. It's pretty generic.

Perhaps I'm missing something. If you can provide any program info from Arbor Day, please post it here. GreenSarah (talk) 16:53, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Memorex's announcement and website clearly show they are "help[ing] offset the carbon footprint" by planting trees, and that, according to Arbor Day, "over the course of its lifetime, a single mature tree may remove more than one tone of CO2 from the atmosphere. By planting trees, we are able to help offset the carbon footprint from these products." It's clear Arbor Day is planting trees on behalf of Memorex, not necessarily selling credits, to offset the carbon footprint of these products. Under "products" it shows how many trees per product. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Greencanoe (talk • contribs) 17:21, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Ummm...I'm not sure what to do here. This doesn't seem that complicated. Arbor Day doesn't mention carbon offsets anywhere on their web site, and has made several statements indicating that they don't sell offsets. What am I missing? I understand that the Memorex site confuses the issue, but if Arbor Day sold offsets then it would be pretty easy to tell, wouldn't it? You'd be able to find more info about their offset program than one line on an external web site, right? GreenSarah (talk) 18:57, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

By way of an external opinion: This is a tricky one. I don't think the article cited gives a neutral point of view, therefore without a counter from Carbonfund, it would be unfair to cite only the article itself. In all honesty, this bullet point is somewhat trumped by the one coming before it, and as the section reads something like a list of trivia, I'd argue that we could avoid this discussion by simply axing this point. By the by, the section would read a lot better if the lists were incorporated into the flow of paragraphs. Verisimilus T 20:03, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Point taken. The laundry list is pretty unnecessary in the context of the whole article. And the financial times article provides a decent round-up of issues, so I'll just collapse the whole section. I confess that I'm not really seeing the POV issue. This section is about criticisms of the industry. Criticisms are bound to be, well, critical. But maybe we can sidestep the whole thing. GreenSarah (talk) 20:43, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Great stuff. I've trimmed it a little further to improve the flow. By the way, thought I should congratulate your efforts on this difficult article - barely a check of the watchlist seems to go by without you fighting off more vandalism or bias! Keep it up. Verisimilus T 21:10, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Additionality & Fraud

I have moved this subsection text here:

  • Fraudulent accounting of offsets

A May 26, 2008 article in The Guardian reported on a study of carbon offsets by Stanford University. The article refers to "the UN's clean development mechanism (CDM), an international system established by the Kyoto process that allows rich countries to meet emissions targets by funding clean energy projects in developing nations." David Victor, a law professor at the university, was quoted as saying, "It looks like between one and two thirds of all the total CDM offsets do not represent actual emission cuts." Billions wasted on UN climate programme, The Guardian, May 26, 2008

The problem with the above piece is that it is misrepresenting the research. The Stamford research was into applications for CDM funding, not for projects that have actually been approved nor for reductions that have been actually achieved. If, as the newspaper article claims, a project would be undertaken regardless of CDM funding, then the CDM executive board would reject it as failing its additionality criteria. There are no underlying claims that 2/3 of approved projects fail this criteria. This point is already made in the previous section on additionality. Ephebi (talk) 15:23, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] This article is biased against nuclear power

I noticed that the article mentioned solar power and wind power, but not nuclear power. That is odd, because nuclear power generates far more carbon free energy than wind and solar power combined. So I added some stuff about nuclear power, with sources. But then someone ereased it. That's bias. Grundle2600 (talk) 12:43, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

For the record, here is what I added:


Since the earth has enough uranium to last until the sun blows up in 5 billion years, some scientists consider nuclear power to be a form of renewable energy. [2]

Global Power Usage in Successively Increasing Detail
Global Power Usage in Successively Increasing Detail[3][4]
The Vattenfall study found Nuclear, Hydro, and Wind to have far less greenhouse emissions than other sources represented.
The Vattenfall study found Nuclear, Hydro, and Wind to have far less greenhouse emissions than other sources represented.

The Swedish utility Vattenfall did a study of full life cycle emissions of Nuclear, Hydro, Coal, Gas, Solar Cell, Peat and Wind which the utility uses to produce electricity. The net result of the study was that nuclear power produced 3.3 grams of carbon dioxide per KW-Hr of produced power. This compares to 400 for natural gas and 700 for coal (according to this study). [5]

Claims exist that the problems of nuclear waste do not come anywhere close to approaching the problems of fossil fuel waste.[6][7] A 2004 article from the BBC states: "The World Health Organization (WHO) says 3 million people are killed worldwide by outdoor air pollution annually from vehicles and industrial emissions, and 1.6 million indoors through using solid fuel."[8] In the U.S. alone, fossil fuel waste kills 20,000 people each year.[9] A coal power plant releases 100 times as much radiation as a nuclear power plant of the same wattage.[10] It is estimated that during 1982, US coal burning released 155 times as much radioactivity into the atmosphere as the Three Mile Island incident.[11] In addition, fossil fuel waste causes global warming, which leads to increased deaths from hurricanes, flooding, and other weather events. The World Nuclear Association provides a comparison of deaths due to accidents among different forms of energy production. In their comparison, deaths per TW-yr of electricity produced from 1970 to 1992 are quoted as 885 for hydropower, 342 for coal, 85 for natural gas, and 8 for nuclear.[12]

[edit] This article is biased against tree farming

While it's true that trees absorb carbon as they grow, it's also true that dead, decaying trees release that carbon back into the air.

I added this to the article, but someone else took it out. I think it deserves to be included. Grundle2600 (talk) 19:00, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

A May 19, 2008 article in Wired magazine stated, "A tree absorbs roughly 1,500 pounds of CO2 in its first 55 years... Left untouched, it ultimately rots or burns and all that CO2 gets released... A well-managed tree farm acts like a factory for sucking CO2 out of the atmosphere, so the most climate-friendly policy is to continually cut down trees and plant new ones... Plant seedlings and harvest them as soon as their powers of carbon sequestration begin to flag, and use the wood to produce only high-quality durable goods like furniture and houses." [13]

I'd say that this article is biased in favor of tree-planting projects, which aren't very well-regarded by practitioners. Wired Magazine isn't a great source for this sort of stuff. Carbon offsets and carbon offset projects are a technical topic. Wired is written for a popular audience and tends to focus on speculative or flashy technology. So far as I know, no credible organization is putting forth wooden furniture as a solution to climate change (or a source of offsets). TinyHelmsman (talk) 12:45, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Carbon credit merge suggestion

Carbon offsets and carbon credits are quite different things, and since I see no discussion to warrant the label which is present on the article, I am removing the merge suggestion. Andipi (talk) 13:20, 7 June 2008 (UTC)


The article does not properly differentiate or define carbon offsets and carbon credits. In fact it gives a misleading portrayal that equates carbon credits and carbon offsets. However, they are different stages of the same thing.

Carbon credits are the tradeable instrument that represent an amount of CO2e/GHG removed or prevented from entering the atmosphere. They do not offset or reduce anyones carbon footprint until they are retired (used up). If this were not the case, everyone who touches the carbon credit as it's traded from person to person (on an exchange, etc) could claim a reduced carbon footprint and it would end in severe double counting.

Carbon offsets are the non-tradeable and retired version of a carbon credit. Once a carbon credit is retired, it has the effect of reducing the carbon footprint of the person who had last purchased and retired that carbon credit. Ie, when a carbon credit is retired, it offsets the holder/retirer of that credit, and at that retired point becomes known as a carbon offset. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.159.131.34 (talk) 04:45, 12 June 2008 (UTC)