Eschew Obfuscation: Carbon Indulgences

Carbon Indulgences

Max Dunn — Sun, 08 Feb 2009 17:21:00 -0800

In the late thirteenth century, the church came up with the idea of indulgences, which was paying someone else to do the good works demanded of you. Church officials argued that clergy were doing more good works then they needed to, so why not sell them to raise money?

Are carbon offsets like these medieval indulgences? Just reducing our guilt without really helping the planet? Let’s look a little more closely at them.

"Carbon Indulgences" by Max Dunn

Mon, 09 Feb 2009 20:32:50 -0800

Thanks for your comments Erik. You bring up a good point that people that are buying carbon offsets are usually already making big efforts to lower their carbon footprint. I wasn’t trying to make fun of people, and maybe my post was a little harsh, so I will try to re-word it to acknowledge these efforts while still encouraging everyone not to use carbon offsets to indulge needless consumption.

"Carbon Indulgences" by Erik Blachford

Mon, 09 Feb 2009 09:52:03 -0800

Hi Max,

Erik from TerraPass here. You’ve got a better grasp of additionality than most, and I appreciate your helping everyone understand the concept.

On the indulgence topic, though, you might be interested to know that our customers are by and large folks who decide to buy carbon offsets after making huge efforts to lower their carbon footprints through direct reductions. I’m not aware of anyone who has successfully lowered his or her footprint to zero, and am appreciative of the folks who make the decision to balance their remaining footprints using carbon offsets. You can make fun of them if you like, I guess, but the reality is their actions and purchases are making a difference.

In terms of which offsets are most helpful, the reality is that we need offset projects that prevent greenhouse gases from entering the atmosphere AND offset projects that attempt to sequester greenhouse gases already in the atmosphere. All that matters is the total carbon concentration, and both sides of the effort are important in getting it down.

For those intersted, the TerraPass customer profile is posted on our website at http://www.terrapass.com/images/blogposts/terrapass-survey-2008.pdf.

"Carbon Indulgences" by Max Dunn

Mon, 09 Feb 2009 07:45:58 -0800

Hi Harry, I am glad that you brought up the fact that Methane (CH4) has 25 times more global warming potential (GWP) than CO2, because some people might not know that there are other greenhouse gases (GHGs) with higher GWP potential than CO2 based on their radiative forcing and lifetime in the atmosphere.

Some of the other GHGs that have a higher GWP than CO2 are Nitrous Oxide (N2O) – 298 times, Triflouromethane (CHF3) – 14,800 times, and Sulfur Hexaflouride (SF6) – 22,800 times! (Reference: EIA Global Warming Potentials)

However, the IPCC AR4’s radiative forcing analysis does make it clear that CO2 is still the predominant GHG.

My point of this post, however, is that putting in more CO2 into the atmosphere and then supporting an effort that causes less CH4 to be released is not equivalent. While this might balance the radiative forcing, you still end up with an atmosphere with more CO2 and less CH4.

Thanks again Harry, for bringing up this point.

"Carbon Indulgences" by Harry

Mon, 09 Feb 2009 05:49:17 -0800

Your negative comment about carbon credits being used to reduce methane emissions is off target. With a little digging, you will find that methane’s effectiveness as a greenhouse gas is something like 20 times that of CO2, so that each ton of methane avoided is the equivalent of 20 tons of CO2 as far as GHG effect goes.

It could that the use of carbon offsets to decrease methane emissions may be the most effective use of such ‘indulgences’. It could be why some very knowledgeable companies are going into the business of using such offsets in that manner.