Say what you will about carbon offsets—they went from being a cool new idea to an object of derision in the blink of an eye–there’s no doubt that they are proliferating, as big companies and small ride the green wave.
For those of you who haven’t been paying attention, carbon offsets are way to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions, by taking such steps as financing the planting of trees or renewable energy projects.
Some announcements that have come my way lately:
–The global health care company Abbott announced its fleet of about 6,000 vehicles will go “carbon neutral,†in part by offering hybrids to its sales people but mostly by buying offsets.
–The law firm Arnold & Porter says it will contribute to renewable energy, energy efficiency and reforestation projects to offset the carbon emissions of its business travel.
–Shawn Price, CEO of a Silicon Valley software firm called Savvion, who is also a professional race car driver, says his team (which races in something called the Grand American series) will purchase offsets to counter the carbon pollution generated by the team.
This comes as GE offers its Earth Rewards credit card which provides carbon offsets instead of frequent flier miles, as Dell gives consumers the opportunity to offset the emissions from the computers it sells, and as News Corp. promises to go carbon neutral in large part through the buying of offsets.
Cynics compare them derisively to indulgences flogged to medieval sinners to shorten their time in purgatory. AL Gore’s use of offsets to reduce his carbon footprint—he owns a very big home in a Nashville suburb—has come under attack from the left as well as the right.
The other day, a startup web hosting company called Greenest Host sent me a press release saying its data center will run entirely on solar energy. Its CEO, Mike Corrales, made a point of saying:
It is important to note that this is NOT a green solution because we are buying Renewable Energy Credits or carbon offsets…We are not paying a penance for our emissions sins, we are just not committing the sins in the first place.
It’s not just the idea of offsets that have come under attack. Business Week and the Financial Times published excellent stories showing how they can be manipulated, delivering less than they promise. The FT investigation began with this blunt assertion–”Companies and individuals rushing to go green have been spending millions on “carbon credit†projects that yield few if any environmental benefits”–and then backed it up.
What to make of all this? Here are a few thoughts to help guide a skeptical consumer, employee or company through the world of offsets.
First, look for credible third-party endorsements. Abbott’s announcement includes an endorsement from Environmental Defense. That’s significant. Arnold & Porter, as well as Dell, are working with carbonfund.org, a smaller nonprofit (it’s literally a mom and pop) but one whose partners include Ceres, the Earthwatch Institute, Net Impact and Environmental Defense. (Disclosure: The managing partner of Arnold & Porter, Tom Milch, is a college classmate of mine, a longtime environmental lawyer and all-around good guy.)
Second, understand that offsets are not as good as directly reducing energy or emissions. If a company announces offsets, see what they have done to directly reduce their carbon impact. Do they operate in LEED-certified buildings? Buy recycled goods? Promote tele-commuting? Buy solar or wind power?
If any individual buys an offset, has the person tried first to curb consumption? Drive a smaller car? Eat less meat? I’m an Al Gore admirer but no one needs a house as big as his.
Third, those in the business of buying offsets–particularly big companies—ought to find a way to set up an independent verification system to insure that the offsets do what they are supposed to do. Otherwise the cynics will use the doubts about offsets as an excuse to do nothing.
Recently, I had lunch with a young lawyer named Chris Berendt, who is director of clean energy and environmental markets for Pace Global Energy Services, a global energy consulting firm. “When done right, there’s real value and a real difference made,†he told me. “These are not indulgences.†Sometimes, he said, offsets can help finance a renewable energy project that otherwise would not get built.
Better yet, some well-designed offset programs help people in the developing world trade in dirty kerosene lamps for solar-powered lights or use a solar or biogas cooker instead of burning wood—changes that improve people’s quality of life as well as the environment. The UK-based Ashden Awards for Sustainable Energy highlight the ability of local, sustainable energy to combat climate change and poverty, simultaneously.
Step back a little from the debate about offsets, and you have to be impressed by how fast they have moved from obscurity to the front pages. If they get people to think about climate change, and take a first, small step in the right direction, well, they could turn out to be a gateway to more meaningful change.




{ 12 comments… read them below or add one }
Another thoughtful post – thanks Marc!
Kevin
htp://www.21st-century-citizen.com
Interesting and well-balanced post. Thank you. Here at The Trust for Public Land (www.tpl.org) we are working on several carbon offset projects. One idea that is gaining traction is for private companies to purchase forestland that would otherwise be logged heavily. Instead of buying carbon credits or renewable energy certificates, these companies are literally taking more ownership over offsetting their emissions by buying a section of forest we have under option. Preserving natural, un-evenaged forests have many co-benefits: carbon sequestration, air filtration, water quantity and quality, habitat preservation, recreation, aesthetics, etc. Plus, owning timber has many benefits from a business standpoint–there are tax deductions for conservation easements, depreciation allowances, and lower property taxes. Timber values are less volatile and move counter-cyclical to stocks. In my opinion, buying regular offsets is usually okay, but “active offsets” where the company takes a direct role in the project, are much more beneficial due to the co-benefits beyond carbon sequestration.
You raise some excellent points here, Mark. Thanks for bringing some clarity to such a complex and controversial issue. If your readers want more guidance, they may be interested in Business for Social Responsibility’s new report, “Getting Carbon Offsets Right” (http://www.bsr.org/CSRResources/Environment/ResourcesDocs/BSR_Getting-Carbon-Offsets-Right.pdf), which includes an overview of the key business benefits and costs, criteria for assessing providers, and a profile of the 50 top players.
[Full disclosure: I work for BSR.]
The full URL is:
http://www.bsr.org/CSRResources/Environment/ResourcesDocs/
BSR_Getting-Carbon-Offsets-Right.pdf
Hi Marc, I work for the “mom and pop” non-profit Carbonfund.org. Our motto, “Reduce what you can, offset what you can’tâ„¢”. Carbon offsets shouldn’t be treated as indulgences either. Businesses and individuals alike should do everything within their capacity to reduce their carbon footprint. Offsets step in once it is no longer possible to do so, enabling businesses and individuals to become carbon neutral.
Mike Corrales is right: “It is important to note that this is NOT a green solution because we are buying Renewable Energy Credits or carbon offsets…We are not paying a penance for our emissions sins, we are just not committing the sins in the first place.”
I second the thanks for a clear discussion of a complex subject.
For individuals looking for offsets they can trust, here’s a list of companies that met Environmental Defense’s criteria. (And no, we don’t get any money from these companies.) http://fightglobalwarming.com/page.cfm?tagID=270
Thanks to all for your helpful comments and links.If BSR or Environmental Defense or TPL vouch for an offset, that’s as trustworthy as the Good Housekeeping seal, as far as I’m concerned.
Mark —
I also think that when companies choose to pay offsets, they are rehearsing for the future. They are getting ready for a taxation that will eventually come for carbon usage. Those companies that thoughtfully offset today will glide into the taxed-capped future, while those that don’t will face an unforseen spike in operational costs. I compare this to 2001-2002, when companies voluntarily expensed stock option purchases even before it was required. They coasted through the changes, while others suffered from the shock of regulation.
Mark, I just stumbled across this blog and it is fantastic. Thanks for posting with such good content. I certainly agree with your assessment that offsets verified independently by trustworthy organizations can be very effective and should not be discouraged, though direct (verified) emissions reductions are an even better route.
To those who commented, thanks for posting such useful resources on the subject.
Charitable giving (aka buying carbon offsets) is good but not sufficient. Giving money also needs to be accompanied by behavioral change toward life cycle thinking and continuously looking for opportunities to reduce environmental impacts wherever practical. And as with any charity, you need to know whether the money is truly being spent to meet the need through third party verification. It’s offsets that are treated only as part of the PR budget that make me cringe.
Marc not sure why your defending offsets…(see the rest of the response on the Seventh Generation blog – http://www.inspiredprotagonist.com)
you forgot to add that al gore buys carbon offsets from a company that he owns- “Generation Investment Management LLP”
i find him hypocritical.