The proliferation of voluntary carbon offset programs seems like a great way for individuals to help fight climate change. But do carbon offset programs really work? That’s the question for Bill Stanley, Science Lead for Carbon Strategies, Climate Change Team at The Nature Conservancy.
Lawrence Hamilton, of Charlotte, VT, asks:
“Are carbon offset programs and forest protection efforts providing real solutions for reducing global carbon emissions? And how do these programs help reduce pollution from mercury, arsenic and other “baddies” that often accompany carbon emissions?”
Bill Stanley, Science Lead for Carbon Strategies, Climate Change Team, replies:
To answer the first question, yes — well-designed carbon offset programs can have a meaningful impact on reducing the carbon emissions that cause climate change.
Deforestation and land-use changes contribute approximately 20 percent of global carbon emissions. Rigorously-designed, forest-based offset programs can make a real dent in that number.
To be effective, any offset program needs to meet high standards. These standards include:
- Permanence. The most desirable carbon sequestration projects are those where the restored forests are likely to remain intact indefinitely.
- Additionality. The project should only include activities that wouldn’t have taken place normally, therefore keeping more carbon dioxide from reaching the atmosphere.
- Leakage. When sequestration at a site leads to land clearing elsewhere, it is referred to as “leakage.” Offset programs should account for and minimize leakage.
- Measurement and monitoring. Periodic field measurements of forest growth and associated capture and storage of carbon are essential.
- Standards of verification. Throughout the life of a project, standards should be maintained and measured to ensure the project meets its intended carbon sequestration goals.
Remember Acid Rain?
While sequestration projects do not significantly impact pollution from mercury and arsenic, they can indirectly help cut down on these pollutants when implemented as part of an effective cap-and-trade system. What we need now is a new cap-and-trade system that focuses on carbon emissions, reducing those gases that are causing global warming.
Under such a system, industries are given a hard emissions cap. Companies that come in below that cap are given credits that they can trade with those who are not able to meet this cap. A cap-and-trade system is widely credited with drastically reducing factory emissions of the sulfur and nitrogen oxides that cause acid rain. The same kind of program will work to reduce carbon emissions.
Support a Cap-and-Trade System
The Nature Conservancy strongly believes that credits from forest carbon projects and activities in the United States and in developing countries should be included in a cap-and-trade system.
Including incentives for land conservation and restoration in a cap-and-trade program can help lower the overall compliance costs of such a system, increase support for the program and allow for more aggressive emission reduction goals.
The Conservancy recently began its own voluntary carbon offset program that will help reduce the impacts of climate change and restore critical wildlife habitat.
Photo: Bill Stanley, Science Lead for Carbon Strategies, Climate Change Team at The Nature Conservancy. © Erika Nortemann/TNC
There is a growing scientific opinion that reforestation, particularly rainforests, is our greatest tool to sequester excess carbon from the atmosphere.
Obviously the standards of additionality, verification, leakage, etc. must be stringently adhered to but,
I disagree with Eddy. In my opinion NGOs and non-profits are not designed to support the large scale of projects that are required to address climate change.
Socially conscious entrepreneurs and businesses will take the lead in the climate change mitigation industry. They will develop clean technologies, proudly display their ethics and invite public scrutiny.
As climate changes begin to affect the public in meaningful ways, they will demand change in government and business.
They will steer the market with their wallets. Their cry will be “Change or be changed”
The winds of change are blowing through the business world and only the green will survive.
See you in the Bright Green Future.
Gus de la Torre
The down-side to a cap-and-trade system is that as we develop new methods of offsetting carbon we require refined analysis to determine how much carbon is offset in order to value to the offset for trade. A better solution might be a flat carbon tax, as long as enough countries can get on board to avoid creating carbon havens. The tax would provide penalties for over-producing carbon as well as benefits for not producing carbon, and the implementation would be very straight-forward requiring only occasional adjustments to the flat tax as the global industrial environment changes.
Eddy De Clercq
I do think that carbon offsets do work as long as they are non commercial NGO based ones. As mentioned in http://www.grumpyoldman.be/a-aventura-calculada/ finding such a fund is not easy (in Belgium, I only found one) but my feeling is that they do what’s really needed: invest in projects where one suffers the most from these problems.