Debate - aurimasmb/carbonoffsets GitHub Wiki

This page is about the debate over whether carbon offsets are an effective way to combat climate change.

It is important to be clear that this debate concerns only the merits of individual, voluntary carbon offsetting. National or international-scale compliance-based carbon offsets are different in many ways. We're interested in establishing whether carbon offsets are an effective means for individuals to voluntarily reduce their contribution to climate change.

Arguments for Individual Voluntary Carbon Offsetting

1. The Carbon Offset Market Funds Low-Hanging Fruit Emissions Reductions

Argument:

Certain carbon reductions are really cheap to implement. Monetising these can help us assign a market value to these, and to fund them in the absence of political will and organisation to do so.

Counter-argument:

The carbon offset market reduces pressure on governments and industry to develop the expensive carbon emissions reduction technologies which are needed to reduce emissions in the developed world. (See Argument 3 in Arguments against carbon offsetting.)

2. Offsets are for Emissions Which We As Individuals Can't or Won't Reduce

Argument:

Certain types of emissions are really hard to avoid. For example: if you live far away from family or friends, it would be very difficult to avoid flying to visit them ("love miles"). Offsetting provides a way to reduce the impact associated with emissions which are really hard to avoid.

Counter-argument:

Carbon offsetting simply allows people to keep their impact at the same unsustainably high levels. We should be encouraging people to change their lifestyles.

Arguments Against Individual Voluntary Carbon Offsetting

1. Rich People Pollute, Poor People Suffer

Argument:

Carbon offsetting essentially allows rich people in developed countries to pay poor people in developing countries to reduce their emissions, potentially reducing their quality of life.

Counter-Argument:

In the individual voluntary carbon market, individuals can choose projects which clearly provide co-benefits to local communities. Clean cook stove projects, for instance, provide benefits beyond carbon reductions, by improving indoor air quality. Assigning a market value to the carbon emissions reductions associated with these projects provides a way for them to be funded more easily and an on a more continuous basis.

2. It Is Very Difficult to Accurately Calculate Emissions Reductions

Argument:

Calculation of carbon offsets depends on being able to accurately compare real emissions with hypothetical "baseline emissions" that would have taken place had an offsetting project not taken place. This "baseline" scenario is very difficult to model, as by definition, it does not take place. A key concern is that reductions which may already be economically profitable, and thus would have likely been pursued anyway, can be monetised through carbon offsetting schemes.

Counter-Argument:

Yeah. This is definitely a concern - particularly for large projects which are very unique (i.e. do not have many other examples to study to provide an accurate baseline model), for example large hydro-electric plants. For small-scale projects with many baseline scenario examples, like cook-stove projects, emissions reductions / sequestrations may be more clear.

3. The option to "offset" reduces market pressure to develop truly low-carbon technologies

Argument:

If people think that they can just "offset" their emissions by paying for other people to make reductions elsewhere, then there will be less market pressure to develop the truly low-carbon technologies to prevent the emissions which we are trying to offset, (i.e. more effective video conferencing tools, more efficient transportation networks.)

Counter-argument:

When implemented with the necessary regulation, carbon offsets provide the market mechanism to incentivise the development of carbon emissions reduction and sequestration technologies - particularly ones which have the greatest reductions per funds invested. (See Argument 1 in Arguments for Carbon Offsetting.).

Our Conclusions

The most significant concerns regarding individual voluntary carbon offsetting appear to the quality of offsets sold. Offsets may not be real, permanent or additional, and may have negative impacts on local communities and ecologies.

Our Recommendation: Because of these concerns, it is important that individuals ensure that they are purchasing offsets from high-quality projects which are most likely to produce real, permanent, and additional emissions reductions or sequestrations, and have positive impacts on local communities and ecologies. We've recommended purchasing offsets from projects listed on Cool Effect.org. Cool Effect claims to be highly selective in choosing projects, providing some assurance that projects are likely to be selling high-quality offsets with well-documented co-benefits.

Note: we feel that the benefits associated with offsetting outweigh the potential negatives associated with the perception that offsetting gives one a "free pass" to pollute, particularly when offsets are used primarily to offset hard-to-avoid emissions, like flying to see loved ones.

Debate - aurimasmb/carbonoffsets GitHub Wiki

Arguments for Individual Voluntary Carbon Offsetting

1. The Carbon Offset Market Funds Low-Hanging Fruit Emissions Reductions

2. Offsets are for Emissions Which We As Individuals Can't or Won't Reduce

Arguments Against Individual Voluntary Carbon Offsetting

1. Rich People Pollute, Poor People Suffer

2. It Is Very Difficult to Accurately Calculate Emissions Reductions

3. The option to "offset" reduces market pressure to develop truly low-carbon technologies

Our Conclusions

Further Reading