Alice Kenny on the increasing carbon offset deals in the market:
The voluntary carbon market surged 1000 percent over the past two years, according to recent reports. It racked in sales of over $100 million last year and is set to double again by next year. Yet no single standard exists to appraise the quality of marketed carbon offsets, forcing consumers to rely on advertisements for much of their education. In the short term, this could prove a bonanza for businesses marketing carbon offsets. But in the long term, it could compromise this consumer-driven market’s credibility, threatening inroads made in the battle against global warming.The voluntary carbon market is not only just a first step; it is also a baby step. Voluntary offsets can lead the market but cannot solve the problem of global warming. Most scientists agree that seven billion tons of carbon emissions must be prevented from entering the atmosphere over the next 50 years to make a dent in global warming. The voluntary market can only deliver about 1/10,000 of these emissions cuts, Trexler estimates. Its strength, then, lies in its potential to spur massive government efforts to limit carbon emissions from large-scale emitters. If consumers lose confidence in their ability to fight global warming, they may be less likely to agitate for these reductions.
The carbon offset or sale of carbon credits along with reduction in fosil fuel use are not to be given the snub. They show awareness of the foolishness in using the atmosphere as a C02 landfill.
The problem is our economic model is wrong. We run manufacturing for profit as if it was ordained that our species do this. Manufacturing will not go away. Koyoto agreements are ignored and environmentalists protests, although quite correct, are not going to change anything.
It just keeps getting warmer. Sooner the word will be hotter.
So here we have two facts. We better work with them.
I know what this model needs to look like and if you read this, write me. I will elaborate.
It starts with a scientific mind experiment.
I think the key issue with voluntary, project-based offsets is that the reduction in emissions they produce is impossible to measure. The fact that they are often complex projects that have many elements and suppliers (lots of who are not included in the measurement methodology) doesn’t help, but the core reason is that you can’t prove their additionality (would the reduction, or part of the reduction, have happened without the extra money provided by the offset?).
In the future, I suspect that some of the kind of projects being funded by voluntary offsets will be seem more like normal charity donations (rather than connected to a specific, measurable reduction), while others will just seem silly.