RE: FW: Carbon Offsets

[VanDeveer, Stacy]

I think I speak for all of us with Catholic a upbringing when I say that
this selling of indulgences language is worrying... :)
  

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Stefan
Jungcurt
Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2007 2:14 PM
To: gep-ed@listserve1.allegheny.edu
Subject: Re: FW: Carbon Offsets

Here is another report on carbon offsets.

Best,

Stefan


NEW PUBLICATION: "The Carbon Neutral Myth - Offset Indulgences for your
Climate Sins"

Carbon offsets are the modern day indulgences, sold to an
increasingly
carbon conscious public to absolve their climate sins. Scratch the
surface, however, and a disturbing picture emerges, where creative
accountancy and elaborate shell games cover up the impossibility of
verifying genuine climate change benefits, and where communities in the
South often have little choice as offset projects are inflicted on them.

This report argues that offsets place disproportionate emphasis on
individual lifestyles and carbon footprints, distracting attention from
the wider, systemic changes and collective political action that needs
to be taken to tackle climate change. Promoting more effective and
empowering approaches involves moving away from the marketing gimmicks,
celebrity endorsements, technological quick fixes, and the North/South
exploitation that the carbon offsets industry embodies.

Download the report here
<http://www.carbontradewatch.org/pubs/carbon_neutral_myth.pdf>





VanDeveer, Stacy wrote:
> Interesting article from Boston Globe:
>
> ***
>
> Carbon confusion
> Buying emission offsets is a challenge for consumers
> By Beth Daley, Globe Staff  |  March 12, 2007
>
> This is the second in a series of occasional articles examining
climate
> change, its effects, and possible solutions.
>
> BARNET, VT. -- Sara Demetry thought she had found a way to atone for
her
> personal contribution to global warming.
>
> The psychotherapist clicked on a website that helped her calculate how
> much heat-trapping carbon dioxide she and her fiance emitted each
year,
> mostly by driving and heating their home. Then she paid $150 to
> e-BlueHorizons.com, a company that promises to offset emissions.
>
> But Demetry's money did not make as much difference as she thought it
> would. While half of it went to plant trees to absorb carbon dioxide,
> the other half went to a Bethlehem, N.H., facility that destroys
methane
> -- a gas that contributes to global warming. The facility has been
> operating since 2001 -- years before the company began selling offsets
> -- and Demetry's money did not lead the company to destroy any more
> methane than it would have anyway.
>
> Moreover, the project received a "dirty dozen" award from a New
England
> environmental group in 2004 because it burns the methane as fuel to
> incinerate contaminated water from the landfill, emitting tons of
> pollution each year in the process. This method of destroying methane
> can emit more pollution than other burning methods.
>
> "I really thought I was doing something good," Demetry, 42, said after
> being told what became of her money. "I thought if I contributed this
> much money it would be helping the environment that much more."
>
> Demetry's $150 purchase is part of the fast-growing world of voluntary
> carbon offsets -- an unregulated, largely on line marketplace.
>
> Although specialists say some of the money is well spent, it can be
> difficult for consumers to figure out if they are buying any new
> environmental benefit.
>
> Sales of voluntary offsets skyrocketed worldwide from $6 million in
2004
> to $110 million last year, according to Abyd Karmali of ICF
> International a consulting firm.
>
> Everyone from the Dixie Chicks to Prime Minister Tony Blair of Britain
> now invests in greenhouse gas-reduction projects to offset personal
> emissions. The projects can include planting trees, destroying
methane,
> or harnessing wind, solar, or other types of renewable energy that
> reduce demand for fossil fuels. The trend is so hot that the New
Oxford
> American Dictionary declared "carbon neutral" -- the balance between
> producing and reducing carbon -- the 2006 word of the year.
>
> The Globe found more than 60 websites that sell offsets to US
consumers,
> but there is no government oversight of these sites, nor is there a
> uniform standard for what constitutes a legitimate offset. Price and
> quality vary greatly.
>
> Some websites provide scant information about the criteria they use to
> pick projects and how much they charge for overhead, making it
difficult
> for consumers to sort out effective offsets from projects that have
> little true environmental value.

Re: FW: Carbon Offsets

[Stefan Jungcurt]

Here is another report on carbon offsets.

Best,

Stefan


NEW PUBLICATION: "The Carbon Neutral Myth - Offset Indulgences for your
Climate Sins"

Carbon offsets are the modern day indulgences, sold to an increasingly
carbon conscious public to absolve their climate sins. Scratch the
surface, however, and a disturbing picture emerges, where creative
accountancy and elaborate shell games cover up the impossibility of
verifying genuine climate change benefits, and where communities in the
South often have little choice as offset projects are inflicted on them.

This report argues that offsets place disproportionate emphasis on
individual lifestyles and carbon footprints, distracting attention from
the wider, systemic changes and collective political action that needs
to be taken to tackle climate change. Promoting more effective and
empowering approaches involves moving away from the marketing gimmicks,
celebrity endorsements, technological quick fixes, and the North/South
exploitation that the carbon offsets industry embodies.

Download the report here






VanDeveer, Stacy wrote:

Interesting article from Boston Globe:

***

Carbon confusion
Buying emission offsets is a challenge for consumers
By Beth Daley, Globe Staff  |  March 12, 2007

This is the second in a series of occasional articles examining climate
change, its effects, and possible solutions.

BARNET, VT. -- Sara Demetry thought she had found a way to atone for her
personal contribution to global warming.

The psychotherapist clicked on a website that helped her calculate how
much heat-trapping carbon dioxide she and her fiance emitted each year,
mostly by driving and heating their home. Then she paid $150 to
e-BlueHorizons.com, a company that promises to offset emissions.

But Demetry's money did not make as much difference as she thought it
would. While half of it went to plant trees to absorb carbon dioxide,
the other half went to a Bethlehem, N.H., facility that destroys methane
-- a gas that contributes to global warming. The facility has been
operating since 2001 -- years before the company began selling offsets
-- and Demetry's money did not lead the company to destroy any more
methane than it would have anyway.

Moreover, the project received a "dirty dozen" award from a New England
environmental group in 2004 because it burns the methane as fuel to
incinerate contaminated water from the landfill, emitting tons of
pollution each year in the process. This method of destroying methane
can emit more pollution than other burning methods.

"I really thought I was doing something good," Demetry, 42, said after
being told what became of her money. "I thought if I contributed this
much money it would be helping the environment that much more."

Demetry's $150 purchase is part of the fast-growing world of voluntary
carbon offsets -- an unregulated, largely on line marketplace.

Although specialists say some of the money is well spent, it can be
difficult for consumers to figure out if they are buying any new
environmental benefit.

Sales of voluntary offsets skyrocketed worldwide from $6 million in 2004
to $110 million last year, according to Abyd Karmali of ICF
International a consulting firm.

Everyone from the Dixie Chicks to Prime Minister Tony Blair of Britain
now invests in greenhouse gas-reduction projects to offset personal
emissions. The projects can include planting trees, destroying methane,
or harnessing wind, solar, or other types of renewable energy that
reduce demand for fossil fuels. The trend is so hot that the New Oxford
American Dictionary declared "carbon neutral" -- the balance between
producing and reducing carbon -- the 2006 word of the year.

The Globe found more than 60 websites that sell offsets to US consumers,
but there is no government oversight of these sites, nor is there a
uniform standard for what constitutes a legitimate offset. Price and
quality vary greatly.

Some websites provide scant information about the criteria they use to
pick projects and how much they charge for overhead, making it difficult
for consumers to sort out effective offsets from projects that have
little true environmental value.

"It really is anything goes," says Anja Kollmuss, outreach coordinator
for the Tufts University Climate Initiative, which published a detailed
consumer guide to offsets last month.


Simple concept 
The concept of carbon offsets is simple. Individuals can calculate how

much carbon dioxide they emit using one of the many online carbon
calculators, or they can pick the US average -- about 20 tons a year per
person, according to the US Energy Information Administration.

On offset websites, consumers can pay for the emissions they produce
when commuting to work, flying on planes, heating homes, or even
celebrating weddings. Shoppers then decide what project they want to
fund, to absorb, avoid the production of, or dest

FW: Carbon offsets

[VanDeveer, Stacy]

Ronnie asks me to circulate this:

-Original Message-

Dear All:

Apropos the article just circulated by Stacy V., is anyone interested in

assembling one or more panels on carbon offsets for next year's ISA?

Ronnie Lipschutz

P.S.: Stacy--in case this gets bounced back to me, could you circulate
the 
question to the GEP list?


*
Ronnie D. Lipschutz, Professor of Politics, Dept. of Politics, 234 Crown

College
University of California, Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz, CA  95064
Phone: 831-459-3275/Fax: 831-459-3125; 
http://people.ucsc.edu/~rlipsch/home.html

*  

FW: Carbon Offsets

[VanDeveer, Stacy]

Interesting article from Boston Globe:

***

Carbon confusion
Buying emission offsets is a challenge for consumers
By Beth Daley, Globe Staff  |  March 12, 2007

This is the second in a series of occasional articles examining climate
change, its effects, and possible solutions.

BARNET, VT. -- Sara Demetry thought she had found a way to atone for her
personal contribution to global warming.

The psychotherapist clicked on a website that helped her calculate how
much heat-trapping carbon dioxide she and her fiance emitted each year,
mostly by driving and heating their home. Then she paid $150 to
e-BlueHorizons.com, a company that promises to offset emissions.

But Demetry's money did not make as much difference as she thought it
would. While half of it went to plant trees to absorb carbon dioxide,
the other half went to a Bethlehem, N.H., facility that destroys methane
-- a gas that contributes to global warming. The facility has been
operating since 2001 -- years before the company began selling offsets
-- and Demetry's money did not lead the company to destroy any more
methane than it would have anyway.

Moreover, the project received a "dirty dozen" award from a New England
environmental group in 2004 because it burns the methane as fuel to
incinerate contaminated water from the landfill, emitting tons of
pollution each year in the process. This method of destroying methane
can emit more pollution than other burning methods.

"I really thought I was doing something good," Demetry, 42, said after
being told what became of her money. "I thought if I contributed this
much money it would be helping the environment that much more."

Demetry's $150 purchase is part of the fast-growing world of voluntary
carbon offsets -- an unregulated, largely on line marketplace.

Although specialists say some of the money is well spent, it can be
difficult for consumers to figure out if they are buying any new
environmental benefit.

Sales of voluntary offsets skyrocketed worldwide from $6 million in 2004
to $110 million last year, according to Abyd Karmali of ICF
International a consulting firm.

Everyone from the Dixie Chicks to Prime Minister Tony Blair of Britain
now invests in greenhouse gas-reduction projects to offset personal
emissions. The projects can include planting trees, destroying methane,
or harnessing wind, solar, or other types of renewable energy that
reduce demand for fossil fuels. The trend is so hot that the New Oxford
American Dictionary declared "carbon neutral" -- the balance between
producing and reducing carbon -- the 2006 word of the year.

The Globe found more than 60 websites that sell offsets to US consumers,
but there is no government oversight of these sites, nor is there a
uniform standard for what constitutes a legitimate offset. Price and
quality vary greatly.

Some websites provide scant information about the criteria they use to
pick projects and how much they charge for overhead, making it difficult
for consumers to sort out effective offsets from projects that have
little true environmental value.

"It really is anything goes," says Anja Kollmuss, outreach coordinator
for the Tufts University Climate Initiative, which published a detailed
consumer guide to offsets last month.


Simple concept 
The concept of carbon offsets is simple. Individuals can calculate how
much carbon dioxide they emit using one of the many online carbon
calculators, or they can pick the US average -- about 20 tons a year per
person, according to the US Energy Information Administration.

On offset websites, consumers can pay for the emissions they produce
when commuting to work, flying on planes, heating homes, or even
celebrating weddings. Shoppers then decide what project they want to
fund, to absorb, avoid the production of, or destroy an equivalent
amount of heat-trapping gas elsewhere.

There are scores of projects, from paying for solar energy in the tiny
south-Asian Kingdom of Bhutan to investing in a wind farm on a South
Dakota Native American reservation. Most companies say their offsets are
independently verified, but because there is no one standard, those
claims can have little meaning for consumers.

The price for offsetting a ton of carbon varies greatly, from $5 to $25.
Some companies don't clearly state on their websites how much of the
purchase price actually goes to the offset and how much to transaction
costs, salaries, other overhead and profit -- nor, in fact, whether they
are for-profit.

Broader criticism of the concept of offsets is also growing as some
environmentalists accuse consumers of trying to buy the right to
pollute, instead of taking the more difficult step of reducing their
energy consumption by buying smaller cars and homes. One website --
cheatneutral.com -- pokes fun at offsets, comparing them to trying to
compensate for infidelity.

"If people really want to offset their emissions, they first should
insulate their home," said Michelle Manion,