By Bart King
In an effort to reduce my personal contribution to greenhouse gas emissions, I try to restrict my travel. However, my wife and I have wanted to visit Costa Rica for several years, and earlier this spring we flew into the capital San Jose and then on to the small Pacific Coast town of Montezuma.
Despite the fact that I encountered only one recycling bin in the country, Costa Rica is considered an international leader on green issues. More than a quarter of the country’s territory is under federal protection, and government initiatives have led to a 10% increase in forest lands over the last decade to a current level of 51%. In addition, Costa Ricans generate roughly 97% of their electricity from renewable resources, and they are in a race with the tiny island nation Maldives to be the first carbon-neutral country.
Costa Rica’s primary industry is tourism, for which it maintains a certification system for sustainable practices, and it felt good spending our second honeymoon in a country that values its pristine beaches, rainforest canopy and howler monkeys. Nonetheless, I wanted to attempt to offset the carbon emissions created by our travel.
I understand the moral dilemma associated with carbon offsetting, and I agree that I cannot buy absolution from my carbon sins. Critics argue that offering carbon offsets for an international flight, road trip or extravagant wedding is just an easy way to allow consumers to continue living guilt-free, carbon-intensive lives. And they’re right. It is easy.
An Internet search revealed a list of 24 organizations selling carbon offsets ranging from $2.15 to $99 per metric ton of carbon dioxide (CO2). I clicked into the website of one of the non-profit organizations, which directed me to choose from among offsets for my home, car, flight or event. Next I entered my departure and arrival cities and opted to triple my cost by accepting radiative forcing–a theory that suggests high-altitude emissions contribute more to climate change than those at ground level. I then proceeded to checkout where I was quoted a total of $15.97 for 1.6 tons of CO2, payable by credit card–all in under two minutes.
If I was not making other eco-friendly lifestyle changes, paying this fee would make me guilty of greenwashing in the same way that some companies use offsets to cover up environmentally irresponsible products or business practices. From the car company that offers to offset a driver’s first year of mileage to the dairy producer who claims to operate on 100% wind power (despite the fact that they own no wind turbines), carbon offsets as marketing tools are misleading and even damaging. We should not condone the message that carbon emissions can be bought back, or that we can opt out of dirty energy sources, because neither are true.
However, when combined with choices to use less energy, offsets do have moral validity. And to their credit, most companies offering carbon offsetts are clear about the importance of reducing energy consumption as much as possible before choosing to offset the rest.
But even then, it’s not as simple as we would like. There are
essentially three types of carbon offsets: reforestation projects to
absorb carbon dioxide from the atmosphere; renewable energy projects to
support the development of clean energy; and energy efficiency projects
to reduce the use of fossil fuels.
Reforestation projects are troubled by numerous controversies, the
foremost being that carbon emissions are not actually removed from the
biosphere, only the atmosphere–meaning that the carbon that was once
below the ground in fossil fuels is still part of our ecosystem. It is
just temporarily being held in trees. Keeping these trees alive for the
decades needed to absorb and hold CO2 is not always easy. If they are
cut down or die from drought, the carbon returns to the atmosphere.
Also, there are issues with biodiversity and invasive plant species,
and some reforestation programs have been accused of coercive methods
that have deprived indigenous groups of their land rights.
Offsets from renewable energy or efficiency projects are perhaps more
effective, but the market is currently unregulated. The carbon offset
business has exploded in recent years, with middlemen taking large cuts
of the millions of dollars paid by corporate and individual do-gooders.
There have been numerous instances of credits being sold for projects
that did not exist or were less than advertised, and critics note that
many of the offsets being sold are for projects that would have taken
place regardless, and so the funds are not actually creating additional
offsets.
The industry has responded to these problems over the last couple of
years, working with third-party verification systems to provide more
transparency. In January 2008 the Federal Trade Commission said it
intends to begin monitoring the market, though they likely have their
hands full since the meltdown in the financial sector.
Ultimately, the offset market is still extremely young, and is
undoubtedly being put to use by legitimate and shady interests. I
believe additional funding in the right hands can make a difference in
reducing overall emissions, but one would be advised to spend more than
two minutes on research before putting a donation in the plate.
Ultimately I decided not to go with a carbon off-setter, but
rather to give my money to the Adirondack Council. It’s a non-profit
organization in New York that is buying carbon emissions allowances
through the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) and permanently
retiring them. The RGGI is the United States’ first mandatory carbon
cap and trade program founded by 10 northeastern states. Beginning last
fall the states began auction off permits that power producers must buy
in order to legally produce carbon emissions.
The average selling price in the last auction was $3.51 per ton of
carbon emissions. The Adirondack Council is the only environmental
group in the country that is actively buying and retiring these actual
pollution allowances, resulting in guaranteed emissions reductions.
They have so far bought 3,000 allowances and for a $25 donation, they
will retire three tons of emissions just for me. That’s a pretty hefty
mark-up on $3.51, but I like their way of thinking.
++++
Bart King is News Editor of SustainableBusiness.com. This column is available for syndication.
Contact bart@sustainablebusiness.com.
Loading...