Carbon offset

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Carbon offset is the process of reducing the net carbon emissions of an individual or organization, either by their own actions, or through arrangements with a carbon-offset provider.

A carbon offset service is one arranged with such a provider, that achieves net reduction of greenhouse gas emissions through proxies who reduce their emissions or increase their absorption of greenhouse gases.^[1] A wide variety of offset actions are available; tree planting is currently the most common. Renewable energy and energy conservation offsets have also become increasingly popular, including emissions trading credits.

The intended goal of carbon offsets is to combat global warming.^[2] The appeal of becoming "carbon neutral" has contributed to the growth of voluntary offsets, which, under current economic paradigms and conditions, are often a more cost-effective alternative to reducing one's own fossil-fuel consumption. However, carbon offsets are not without controversy, with some environmentalists and economists questioning the overall benefits of the practice.

Contents 1 Tree Planting 1.1 Climate impacts 1.2 Costs 1.3 Types of trees planted 1.4 Avoided deforestation 2 Renewable energy and energy conservation 3 Methane Collection & Combustion 4 Accounting for and verifying reductions 5 Controversies 5.1 FACE-PROFAFOR in Ecuador 5.2 East Africa 6 See also 7 References 8 External links

[edit] Tree Planting

Tree planting includes not only re-creating natural forests (reforestation) and avoiding deforestation, but also monoculture tree farming on plantations for logging, biodiesel production, or other commercial purposes. The term "reforestation" is nevertheless often applied to monoculture tree farming as well as re-creating natural forests. There is also afforestation, which can produce higher carbon sequestration rates because it means establishing forests particularly on land not previously forested, for example on agricultural lands where baseline carbon levels are comparatively low.

Many environmentalists have criticized the use of forestry carbon offsets as an inadequate substitute for long-term fossil fuel use reduction. In addition, many forestry offset projects have been conceived and/or conducted in ways that are vulnerable to criticism, drawing their net benefits into question.

Significant concern arises from the fact that carbon sequestered in the newly planted trees will be again released as CO₂ when the tree dies and decays, thus merely postponing the negative impact of the man-made increase in CO₂.^[3]

[edit] Climate impacts

Trees sequester carbon through photosynthesis, converting carbon dioxide and water into oxygen and plant matter. Hence, forests that grow in area or density will reduce atmospheric CO₂ levels. (Carbon is released if a tree or its lumber burns, but as long as the forest is able to grow back, the net result is carbon neutral.) In their 2001 assessment, the IPCC estimated the potential of biological mitigation options (mainly tree planting) is on the order of 100 Gigatonnes of Carbon (cumulative) by 2050, equivalent to about 10% to 20% of projected fossil fuel emissions during that period.^[3].

However, the global cooling effect of forests from sequestration is not the only factor to be considered. For example, the planting of new forests may initially release some of the terrain's existing carbon stores into the atmosphere. Specifically, the conversion of peat bogs into oil palm plantations has allegedly made Indonesia the world's third largest producer of greenhouse gases.^[4]. Compared to less vegetated lands, forests affect climate in three main ways:

1. cooling Earth by functioning as carbon sinks
2. cooling Earth by evaporating water to the atmosphere and increasing cloudiness
3. warming Earth by absorbing a high percentage of sunlight due to the low reflectivity of forest's dark surfaces. This warming effect is large where evergreen forests (very low reflectivity) shade snow cover (very high reflectivity).

Some näive tree planting strategies have taken only the first effect into account. A study published in December 2005 combined all these effects and found that tropical forestation has a large net cooling effect, because of increased cloudiness and because of high tropical growth and sequestration rates.^[5] Trees grow three times faster in the tropics than in temperate zones; each tree in the rainy tropics removes about 22 kilograms (50 pounds) of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere each year.^[6] However, this study found little to no net global cooling from tree planting in temperate climates, where warming due to sunlight absorption by trees counteracts the global cooling effect of carbon sequestration. Furthermore, this study confirmed earlier findings that reforestation of colder regions—where long periods of snow cover, evergreen trees, and slow seqestration rates prevail—probably results in global warming.

"To plant forests outside of the tropics to mitigate climate change is a waste of time", said Ken Caldeira,^[7] a study co-author from the Carnegie Institution. "To prevent climate change, we need to transform our energy system. It is only by transforming our energy system and preserving natural habitat, such as forests, that we can maintain a healthy environment. To prevent climate change, we must focus on effective strategies and not just ‘feel-good’ strategies." His study indicates that one effective strategy is well-planned and executed tree-planting in the tropics. Although trees planted adjacent to buildings and pavement were not addressed by this study, they may cool Earth to the extent that they shade dark pavement, shade windows and dark building surfaces in the summer, sequester carbon, and enhance cloud formation.

[edit] Costs

While the benefits of tree-planting are subject to complexities, the costs are low compared to many other mitigation options. The IPCC has concluded that "The mitigation costs through forestry can be quite modest (US$0.1–US$20 / metric ton carbon dioxide) in some tropical developing countries.... The costs of biological mitigation, therefore, are low compared to those of many other alternative measures".^[3] The cost effectiveness of tropical reforestation is due not only to growth rate, but also to farmers from tropical developing countries who voluntarily plant and nurture tree species which can improve the productivity of their lands.^[8] As little as US$90 will plant 900 trees, enough to annually remove as much carbon dioxide as is annually generated by the fossil-fuel usage of an average United States resident.^[9]

[edit] Types of trees planted

Some environmentalists advocate only indigenous trees being planted, to promote the return of forests of native trees. However, the use of other species may slow erosion, return organic matter to the soil, and build up ground water. A practical solution is to plant tough, fast-growing tree species to begin rebuilding the land. Planting non-invasive trees that assist in the natural return of indigenous species is called "assisted natural regeneration." There are many such species that can be planted, of which about 12 are in widespread use, such as Leucaena leucocephala.^[10]

Planting the wrong kind of trees, such as monocultures of eucalyptus where they are not native species, can devastate the lands of the local people.^[11] However, it is often much more profitable to outside interests to plant non-native fast-growing trees, such as eucalyptus or pine (e.g., Pinus radiata or Pinus caribaea), even though the environmental and biodiversity benefits of such monoculture plantations are not comparable to native forest, and such offset projects are frequently objects of controversy (see below).

[edit] Avoided deforestation

Some offsets aim at carbon benefits from avoided deforestation. It may involve training developing-world communities in the production, sale, and use of fuel-efficient stoves. As almost half of the world's people burn wood (or fiber or dung) for their cooking and heating needs, fuel-efficient cook stoves can reduce fuel wood consumption by 30 to 50%, though the warming of the earth due to decreases in particulate matter (i.e. smoke) from such fuel-efficient stoves has not been addressed.^[10]

[edit] Renewable energy and energy conservation

Emissions trading offsets take two primary forms: subsidies for clean energy production, and allowances for carbon consumption. Different versions are available at the level of individual consumers, corporations, and entire nations.

Energy subsidy credits, such as green tags, are available to households and businesses in many developed nations. These credits are primarily used in situations where buying energy directly from a renewable source is not an option.

Renewable energy offsets commonly include wind power, solar power, and biofuel. Some of these offsets are used to reduce the cost-differential between renewable and conventional energy production. Others operate in developing countries, such as training local communities to produce biodiesel from jatropha oil.

Emissions trading markets, such as the voluntary Chicago Climate Exchange, allow companies which have reduced emissions below a specified target to sell their remaining allowances to other companies which did not reach the target. Hence, this increases the monetary incentive for conservation. Systems like the European Union Emission Trading Scheme and the Clean Development Mechanism operate in a similar fashion at the inter-governmental level.

Some offset providers sell in multiple markets, such as the Te Apiti wind farm in New Zealand, a project certified to the CDM Gold Standard which supplies offsets to the Dutch Government, British bank HSBC, and private citizens.

[edit] Methane Collection & Combustion

Some offset projects consist of combusting or containing methane generated by farm animals ^[12] or landfills^[13]. Methane has a Global warming potential (GWP) 23 times that of CO₂; when combusted, each molecule of methane is converted to one molecule of CO₂, thus reducing the global warming effect by 96%. Methane can also be contained using an anaerobic digester, and used to produce electricity or heat.

[edit] Accounting for and verifying reductions

Due to their indirect nature, many types of offset are difficult to verify. Some providers obtain certification that their offsets are accurately measured, to distance themselves from potentially fraudulent competitors. Certified offsets may be purchased from commercial or non-profit organizations for US$1–30 per tonne of CO₂,^[14] due to constant flucuations with the current market price. Annual carbon dioxide emissions in developed countries range from 6 to 23 tons per capita.^[9]

Accounting systems differ on what constitutes a valid offset for voluntary reduction systems and for mandatory reduction systems. Formal standards for quantification of offsets are not in place; differences of opinion between emitters, regulators, environmentalists, and project developers have yet to be resolved.

Accounting of offsets may address the following basic areas:

• Baseline - What emissions would occur in the absence of a proposed project?
• Additionality - Would the project occur anyway—without the investment raised by selling carbon offset credits?
• Redundancy - Are the reductions already required by some other law or regulation?
• Permanence - Are some benefits of the reductions reversible? (for example, cutting trees to burn the wood. Related question: does growing trees for fuel wood decrease the need for fossil fuel?) If woodlands are increasing in area or density, then carbon is being sequestered. After roughly 50 years, newly planted forests will reach maturity and remove carbon dioxide more slowly.
• Leakage - Does implementing the project cause higher emissions outside the project boundary?

[edit] Controversies

Many environmentalists disagree with the principle of carbon offsets. George Monbiot, an English environmentalist and writer, has compared carbon offsets to the practice of purchasing Indulgences during the Middle Ages, whereby people with money could purchase forgiveness for their sins (instead of actually repenting and not sinning anymore). Monbiot also says that carbon offsets are an excuse for business as usual with regards to pollution.^[15] To date, no authoritative studies have been performed concerning offset buyers' behavior (e.g., whether they take other measures to reduce their CO₂ output.)

In addition, some economists have questioned if carbon trading schemes are delivering the expected benefits. These questions result from a collapse in the price of carbon credits at two of the major carbon trading schemes.^[16] There are also concerns that using carbon offsets actually increases demand for polluting sources of power since overall power consumption is not being reduced.^[17]

Other controversies surrounding carbon offsets have brought to light the current absence of adequate market regulation or standards. This has resulted in a number of offset projects being questioned over their supposed benefits. However, offsets provide an additional cost to energy users that reduces the payback period for installing energy efficiency measures^{[citation needed]}. In March 2007, BusinessWeek investigated the carbon offsets given as gifts to 2007 Academy Awards presenters and performers. BusinessWeek inquired of project managers regarding the impact of offset revenue; their findings suggested that offsets merely provided additional revenue to CO₂ reduction projects that would have happened anyway, and that offset funding did not play an important role in either the existence or the scale of the projects.^[18][19] However, the article weighed additionality by interviewing alone; testing for compliance with CDM additionality criteria requires deeper analysis.

Given the present uncertainties about the benefit of current measures for carbon offsetting and the current lack of stringent regulation in this area, some critics have argued that the net effect to the environment of buying carbon offsets may prove to be negligible and not worth the investment^{[citation needed]}.

[edit] FACE-PROFAFOR in Ecuador

In Ecuador, the Dutch FACE Foundation has an offset project in the Andean Páramo involving 22,000 hectares of eucalyptus and pine planted, of which 20,000 hectares certified under the Forest Stewardship Council system (by SGS). Following an investigation, the NGO Acción Ecológica criticised the project for destroying a valuable Páramo ecosystem by introducing exotic tree species, causing the release of much soil carbon into the atmosphere, and for harming local communities who had entered into contracts with the FACE Foundation to plant the trees.^[20]

[edit] East Africa

A Norwegian firm called Tree Farms (or Fjordgløtt, as it was then called) started operations in Uganda and Tanzania (and later in Malawi). In Uganda, it obtained a very cheap 50-year lease on 5,160 hectares east of the town Jinja in the Bukaleba Forest Reserve on Lake Victoria. Tree Farms planned to plant the land mainly with eucalyptus and fast-growing pines. The project has been criticised for forcing people in five communities off their lands and paying too low rent for the land.^[21]

In another project in Uganda, the aforementioned Dutch FACE Foundation in 1995 entered into an agreement with the Ugandan authorities to plant trees on 25,000 hectares inside Mount Elgon National Park. The project involves planting a two to three kilometre-wide strip of trees (including eucalyptus) just inside the 211 kilometre boundary of the National Park. The project is certified under the Forest Stewardship Council scheme as well managed. However, the project was investigated by the World Rainforest Movement who charged among others that communities had been evicted brutally from their land and that workers are paid well below subsistence rates for tending the trees.^[22]

[edit] See also

• Mitigation of global warming
• Action on climate change
• Carbon dioxide sinks

[edit] References

[edit] External links

• [1] 2007 Tuft's Climate Initiative study on voluntary carbon offsets and choosing providers. Also [2] 2006 consumer guide on air travel offsets.
• The Carbon Neutral Myth - a critical analysis of carbon offsets by the Transnational Institute.
• Buying a stairway to heaven? An analysis by RealClimate of offsets in general and Carbonfund.org in particular.
• David Suzuki Foundation website on how individuals and businesses can go carbon neutral.
• Ecobusinesslinks.com Monthly survey of carbon offset providers using key industry criteria: price, certification, project types, choice, non-profit v. for-profit, location
• Guide to Carbon offsetting An overview of Carbon offseting in general and example projects.
• Carbon Offsets Demystified Study of end user options for purchasing carbon offset credits from retailers.
• Guide to CO2 offsetting An overview of CO2 offseting in general, the projects and details of some of the UK and USA companies that sell offsets.
• New Internationalist Magazine Special Issue on Carbon Offsets Provides a critical summary of issues relating to carbon offsets.
• Sinkswatch Brussels based NGO critical of carbon offsets.
• How Coldplay's green hopes died in the arid soil of India

• Carbon Offsetting: All Credit To Them A look at where the money from carbon offsetting schemes actually goes.