Carbon Offsets are BS

I figured it would be a while before our house is carbon neutral, if indeed we can even get to that state at all without spending too much money. So, I started looking into carbon offsets. What are they? How much do they cost? Will it really help eliminate my carbon emissions and thereby reduce global warming?

The answer I found was surprising. I came to the conclusion that they are basically BS. They do not eliminate carbon emissions, and may even help produce more of them!

What are Carbon Offsets?

The basic idea behind carbon offsets is that you pay someone else to either reduce their emissions or to recapture carbon from the atmosphere so that it will offset the emissions caused by whatever it is you are doing. For example, when you book a trip on a plane with Travelocity, you can buy carbon offsets from a non-profit company called The Conservation Fund to offset the carbon emissions from burning all that jet fuel. The fund then uses the money for various environmental projects that will better the environment.

What do They Cost?

The actual amount depends on which company or organization you are buying offsets from. It can range from a dollar and change for that flight you booked, to a few tens of dollars.

Will it Really Help Eliminate my Carbon Emissions?

The answers is NO. You are still taking that flight, aren't you? That flight is on a jet powered by kerosene, which is derived from crude oil, and therefore a fossil fuel. You are still contributing that carbon to the atmosphere. Yes, the organization will be funding green energy projects elsewhere, but that does not mean your carbon emissions are removed.

Well, What are the Problems With it Then?

You may be thinking why is Edwin arguing against funding green energy projects elsewhere? Well, I'm not. I'm advocating against you thinking that buying an offset will reduce your carbon guilt!

Here are the problems with offsets:

First and foremost, the name. Wiktionary defines the word "offset" as

"Anything that acts as counterbalance; a compensating equivalent."

A carbon offset does not counterbalance your carbon emission. If you produce 2 units of CO2, and you pay someone to produce zero units by let's say funding a wind farm, then on average the two of you have produced 1 unit of CO2 each. Even worse, 2 new units of CO2 have been contributed to the atmosphere that weren't there before. ie. this is "business as usual".

The second problem is that the offsets do not remove carbon from the ecosystem, as the word "offset" would imply.

Some of these organizations plant trees or plants to capture carbon and turn it into plant matter via photosynthesis. The problem is that you haven't removed the carbon from the ecosystem. When the plant dies or gets eaten or some human kills it, the carbon is returned to the atmosphere again. Animals or micro-organisms eat the plant matter (ie. it decays) and the whole cycle starts again. All you are doing by growing new plants is moving the carbon from one place to another. Well, this shell game doesn't work! The new carbon is still there!

The idea can be understood in the context of biofuels. Carbon is captured from the atmosphere by plants using sunlight to power the reactions. Then later when the plant is turned into a biofuel and I burn that fuel in my car or boat, all I am doing is releasing the same carbon back into the air again. I am not adding any extra. It is just being recycled again and again.

Alternately, let's say the organization decides to fund a wind farm. This wind farm produces no carbon and electricity consumers can then purchase this clean energy to avoid burning fossil fuels. Net effect: zero carbon emissions... and zero carbon capture as well.

But isn't funding these sort of projects a good thing? Yes, it is, but this brings us to the third problem. The problem is "guilt". When you take that flight you booked earlier, you are producing carbon emissions. 'But,' you reason, 'It's okay because I bought carbon offsets.'

Carbon offsets are a way to prey on people's feelings of guilt about producing carbon emissions. All they end up doing is encouraging people to continue behaving the way they were behaving before because their guilt is assuaged by buying offsets. Some people will now feel free to emit EVEN MORE carbon because all they have to do is buy offsets to make it okay.

Well, guess what. It's not okay.

We all have to stop these emissions, and it starts at home and with your own behaviours.

Another aspect of this is that it takes the focus away from making stricter laws and/or governmental subsidies for encouraging green projects. Carbon offsets are not "pay as you go" because only those people that feel guilty about it are buying offsets. The worst offenders are not. We need to mandate that everyone reduces their emissions, and encourage better behaviour via tax incentives and rebates for green technologies and projects. The government will see this money back again later because the coming boom in green companies is going to produce lots of new tax revenues.

This brings me to the fourth problem, which is financial. When I buy an offset, I don't really get anything out of it except to feel better about myself. So offsets are basically charitable contributions to organizations that does good things with them. Except, it's not a real charitable contribution. You don't get a receipt and you can't write them off on your income tax.

'Hey wait a minute! Why can't I write them off?' you think.

The reason is that many of these organizations are for-profit companies, and others are non-profits that are not registered charities. To me, this seems deceptive.

If you book your flight with Expedia, for example, you can contribute to a company called Terrapass. Terrapass' web site has carbon offsets for sale right there on its home page and even implies that it will "reduce and balance your impact". "Reduce" maybe by averaging your impact and theirs together, but "balance"? That's deceptive because they are not removing carbon from the air.

Another problem, according to this USA Today article, is that Terrapass declines to disclose its finances, including its profits, citing competition. What? What kind of non-profit is this that does not have such transparency... oh wait... I see. It's a for-profit company. Who knows how much of this carbon offset money I just paid goes to lining executive's pockets and how much actually goes to green projects? They won't tell us.

So where does that leave us? Well, that carbon offsets don't offset your emissions and may even encourage more emissions. They are often purveyed by deceptive companies. You don't make any financial gain from them. And worst of all, they don't solve the problem they are trying to solve, which is global warming.

So to me, this means they are BS. I would not recommend buying them.

Now, the thing is that green projects should still be funded. It just shouldn't be via this deceptive means. If an organization said I could make a charitable contribution to help fund green projects without attaching any "offset" idea to it, that would at least be more honest.

I personally would rather invest in a company doing green projects rather than contributing something to a deceitful organization that is doing unknown things with that money. This way, I see some of that money back. In fact, I can even make lots of money on it! Heck, someone is going to... why not me?

I bought shares of First Solar and Sunpower a few ago, and both have done very well up until this recent mortgage crisis thing. I have already seen the returns on those shares, and I am helping these companies with their green projects by funding them. I will be looking for more such green companies in which to invest in the future... but that is a topic for another blog post.

Now if some company does come up with viable carbon sequestration, which is the act of capturing CO2 out of the air and storing it somewhere permanently outside of the ecosystem, then I will be golden. I could buy offsets that are really and truly offsets.

On second thought... nah. I'll just going to try to not emit the carbon in the first place.