President Barack Obama's announcement that the U.S. will offer an unprecedented pledge to reduce overall greenhouse gas emissions by 17 percent by 2020 at the Copenhagen climate talks in December may seem impressive at first blush. But look closely, and you'll see the "cuts" he has offered are, at least in the short-term, essentially meaningless. The reason is twofold. First: The cuts start from a 2005 baseline, when the baseline the scientific community has put forward is 1990. As a result, these cuts translate to a mere 4 percent below 1990 levels by 2020, when what we need is a 25-40 percent cut in U.S. emissions below 1990 levels by 2020.
Reason number two: Even these measly cuts could all be met by the buying and selling of an invisible, unverifiable, entirely manmade commodity: the carbon offset.
Obama's offer of cuts is based on the cap and trade proposals that have passed the House and are moving through the Senate. Both versions allow polluters to meet their pollution targets by actual cuts or by trading excess pollution with another polluter who has exceeded his targets. Carbon offsets go one step further and allow polluters to carry on polluting so long as they pay a small penance for every ton of CO2 they emit above their cap. Carbon offsets are attractive to polluters because they are, in general, a cheaper price to pay than actual cuts or traded emissions. However, buyer beware: cap and trade proposals now on the table will open up a whole new derivatives market in carbon, a market open to gaming, corruption, and the creation of a new "carbon bubble" that, when it bursts, could take down far more than just our economy. Furthermore, the quality of carbon offsets within the cap and trade program are, according to the U.S. Government Accountability Office, virtually impossible to verify.
Nevertheless, the U.S. cap and trade bills on the table now allow for 2 billion tons of carbon offsets per year -- roughly equivalent to 27 percent of all U.S. greenhouse gas emissions. Initial calculations suggest that allowing for 2 billion tons of offsets per year would mean that polluters in the U.S. could use cheap carbon offsets to avoid curtailing their own significant greenhouse gas emissions until 2026. Yet current climate science tells us we must begin investing directly in new low-carbon energy infrastructure now to avoid runaway climate change.
Carbon offsets aren't being purchased just by those focused cynically on their bottom line. Many people sincerely concerned about climate change have been hoodwinked by carbon offset providers. Case in point: In 2007, Pope Benedict XVI decided that action on climate change was a matter consistent with the Bible's teachings, and declared that the Vatican would become "carbon neutral."
To assist the Vatican in meeting its goals, one Hungarian corporation, KilmaFa, stepped forward with an offer the Vatican couldn't refuse: free carbon offsets. The offsets, in this case, came in the form of a pledge to plant trees in the 37-acre Tiszakeszi Park north of Budapest. KlimaFa even offered to change the name of the park to "Vatican Climate Forest." The Vatican was told that an entire year's worth of its emissions would soon be secured in those trees -- making the Holy See the first carbon-neutral sovereign state.
Or would it be? Well, sadly, probably not. First, the trees have yet to be planted. Second, forests are notoriously non-linear storage banks for carbon: they can go up in flames, blow down in storms, get diseased and die, and even, as temperatures rise, respire more CO2 than they inhale.
But tree-planting scams such as these are relatively benign compared to other larger carbon offsets underway. For example, KlimaFa's parent company, San Francisco-based corporation, Planktos, has em erged as one of the most infamous actors in the stranger-than-fiction emerging field of geoengineering -- the attempt to find a "techno-fix" to our growing global warming problem. One of Planktos's best-known carbon offset schemes was a plan to dump tons of small particles of iron in the ocean near the Galapagos Islands, thereby fertilizing the phytoplankton to grow faster and absorb more CO2. The problem is this: no one knows for sure if the plankton, once they've gorged themselves on iron, would fall to the bottom of the ocean, and a) stay there, thereby storing the CO2 they've inhaled underwater permanently; b) decompose, and bubble to the surface as methane--21 times more potent than CO2 as a global warming agent; or c) be so effective at rapid growth they would create "dead zones" in the ocean. The scheme encountered massive opposition and Planktos filed for bankruptcy.
Bizarre as these schemes may sound, they are not unique. There are even more bizarre schemes: some carbon offsetters sell toxic fly-ash -- turned into cinderblocks -- from coal burners as carbon offsets. Others offer up carbon offsets in the form of fast-growing (and water-sucking, soil-destroying) eucalyptus trees, trees which displace landless farmers trying to grow food crops in Brazil. In China, Stanford professors David Victor and Michael Wara found that a majority of the large hydropower plants and gas burners that went online in recent years have cashed in on the carbon offsets market, making a hefty profit on projects that would have happened anyway.
To help clarify the complicated world of cap and trade, we have joined forces with The Story of Stuff Project and Free Range Studios to produce a short, 10-minute film called The Story of Cap and Trade, which attempts to simplify the flaws in this approach and suggests better ways of moving forward.
The Story of Cap & Trade from Story of Stuff Project on Vimeo.
Bradley Whitford: Join The Hopenhagen Ambassador Contest
I'd like to invite you to join Huffington Post's Hopenhagen Ambassador Contest.
However, as written in the House passed bill, current so called "giveaways" to industry are really just to level the playing field for manufacturing industries in this country, until a true, enforceable global agreement can be reached.
For example - Should these "giveaways" to industry not be included in a law that Congress passes, then manufacturing for products such as packaging that you use everyday would be made in China, Brazil or India. The companies would move overseas.
These countries have little to no enforced environmental regulations. And - as Americans - you cannot go day to day without purchasing basic food and other containers. You can recycle them (which indeed helps reduce emissions), but you do need to have them in order to have food.
So, these products are now being made in factories and in countries that pollute more, not less (for the exact same product). Plus, you need to factor in the GHG emissions that would be released in order to transport all of those same products, here to the U.S. The problem of GHG emissions is now worse, not better. It is just being done elsewhere.
I don't even need to mention the job loss in this country that would occur.
Something to think about.
Because it does not have to be, it can be a very useful tool to leverage what we desperately need to do on this planet to make the change necessary to avoid serious climate change and civilization destruction! With some agreed upon standards and systems for certifying projects and activities this would be a very positive and powerful system.
You don't have to throw the baby out with the bath water.
This reminds me of a debate I got into awhile back with some Green bloggers about the new Green Barbie. People were up in arms over what they viewed as green-washing by Mattel. It was so crazy and I called out those that were jumping up and down calling the move fowl then as I am now. Just like this example people did not recognize and support the effort of a company to begin making changes in the way the were doing business. While they are certainly not perfect yet ... NO ONE on this planet is ENTIRELY green either.
Are you expecting these carbon reducing projects to be funded on the backs of taxpayers with our current economic crisis?? The video refers to the negative outcome of the subprime market like our whole economic market system has been shady. While it is by far not perfect, and needs some more oversight and regulations for sure, it is an incredible engine for supporting innovation. Do you think your ability to blog or Annie's to get out that video on the internet would be happening right now if that same evil market had not so brilliantly created and funded the technological revolution that made it so simple for you to easily to reach your audience or to upload the video on the Internet and potentially reach millions?
I happen to be working on a project and seeking grant funding right now for a project that will be revolutionary and bring economic development to any community that models it while dramatically making an impact on climate change. It will actually be a paradigm shift from the Environment serving the Economy... to the Economy serving the Environment. It will be a game changer and a model many who have seen it think it will change the world. No exaggeration...but it will rely on the fact that people do not somehow think carbon offsetting is bad or wrong.
First off I want to say that I STRONGLY DISAGREE with the Devil #2 Carbon Offsetting argument in the video. I think the video casts a dangerous shadow over MANY very worthy projects that are being funded across the world. They are able to do so primarily because their project has a measurable economic value that can be sold and receive money to fund these IMPORTANT projects. In the video Annie makes it seem like all of these projects are somehow designed to be shady schemes because one project did something that was not credible. Generalizing like this is just plain ignorance. If we don't have economic incentives in place, just how do you think important projects will get financing and completed exactly? Do you know how strapped non-profits are right now?
The video points a lot of fingers, but offers no concrete solutions.
I am sorry, but the level of carbon reducing projects and activities that has to happen in a very short time, needs to be positively incentivised.
cont. next post...
The world can not afford false solutions - so it is vital that everyone interested in environmental issues (including Levi above and some of the big environmental NGOs) stop being apologists for carbon trading and be part of a widespread movement demanding real solutions. There is a whole list in chapter 5 of the Carbon Trading booklet that offer a good starter: http://www.tni.org/carbon-trade-fails
p. 92 of the report, is where alternative solutions or "Different paths" forward are suggested. It is basically a bullet list that includes points like "shift subsidies away from fossil fuels to help keep them in the ground," "advance the public debate on climate change and ecological debt," and "undertake legal action against climate off enders." Yes, there are several more pages of detailed
description, but this does not in my opinion constitute a plan for moving forward with concrete actions.
It's great to have people like yourself articulating a pure undiluted perspective about what we need and what is right. While protesting what we dislike about what is happening is important, if those protests don't come with anything more than bullet points, you can't win me entirely to your side.
Want it to pass WTO? Apply it to domestically produced items as well.
Cap and Trade Is a bankster bill, not an energy bill!
a simple 1$ per ton emitted carbon equivalent pollution tax is the way to go.
Simple clear, and no fun for Banksters.
Invest that money in 3 cent rooftop pv solar and waste biofuels.
clean, safe, cheaper and forever. wee my profile.
http://www.us-cap.org/
Isn't it about time we start thinking for ourselves on this and so many other issues? We absolutely cannot trust Big Enviros, Big Industry or our elected (bribed) officials to watch out for our best interests.
What we need is a vastly expanded point of use energy conservation and generation policy that gets solar panels, efficiency upgrades and other non-deadly, democratically-owned solutions into place immediately. It is outrageous that Sierra Club, Schwarzenegger and others advocate killing wilderness for Big Solar and Big Wind when the REAL solution is shovel ready and WAY, WAY CHEAPER and INFINITELY BETTER FOR THE PLANET.
With "upstream" controls on fossil carbon, at or near the point where oil, coal or gas is extracted from the ground, the picture is completely different. The problems that have been described largely disappear.
There is more detail on http://www.kyoto2-support.org.uk/reports/carbon-trading .
http://www.kyoto2-support.org.uk/carbon-trading
Now let us turn to the prospects of meaningful action on climate change/carbon reduction. Nearly every business in the land would be adversely affected in the short term by a strong bill that made a real difference, and in the long term, we'll all be dead. The chances of a strong bill that actually goes some distance toward reducing carbon emissions in a Congress bought by and beholden to business interests of every stripe is nil.