29 Sep 2008

Carbon Offsets: The Indispensable Indulgence

Despite the potential for abuse, the concept of paying others to compensate for our environmental sins can be a valuable tool in helping reduce carbon emissions. But the world can’t simply buy its way out of global warming.
By richard conniff

The idea of buying carbon offsets — compensating for your own global-warming emissions by paying somebody else to reduce theirs — has provoked a lot of inflammatory rhetoric over the past few years. The standard trope is that it’s like the old practice of buying indulgences from the Catholic Church: You get to commit environmental sin — driving your SUV or living in your McMansion — and still sit at the right hand of God. Offsets are a “get out of a jail free” card, or even, according to one overwrought writer in the Rocky Mountain News, a way of getting away with murder: You shoot somebody, then ease your guilt by holding a bandage on the wound until the ambulance arrives.

Well, OK, tweaking hypocrites can be great fun, and you feel so much better about yourself afterward. I’ve done it myself, mocking forestry offsets in a commentary on NPR. But here’s the hitch: I’m contributing to global warming and so are you, by all the usual means — driving cars, flying planes, heating or cooling homes, and consuming electricity (to write and read this article, among many other things). We can ignore it and just bump up the hypocrisy quota a bit. But if we choose to do something about it, the solution will almost certainly include offsets.

If it has never been clear to you what an offset is, you have plenty of company. Here’s a quick primer: The average American produces about 20 tons of global-warming emissions annually, mostly from burning fossil fuels. Markets now exist that allow you to offset each ton by paying somebody else to reduce their emissions by one ton. In countries that signed the Kyoto Protocol, some companies buy offsets to help meet compulsory emissions limits. The U.S. Congress is also considering such limits in this country, and a regional system affecting utilities goes into operation in 10 Northeastern states on January 1. But for individuals and most businesses, buying offsets is a voluntary choice made for do-good and feel-right reasons.

Offsets make sense because they provide a market-based approach for finding and testing global-warming remedies. They provide pools of cash to reduce global-warming emissions in ways that wouldn’t happen otherwise.
For individuals and most businesses, buying offsets is a voluntary choice made for do-good and feel-right reasons.
In Oregon, for instance, the Earth Advantage Institute, a nonprofit promoting green building methods, wants developers to spend $7,500 per house on a package of energy upgrades, such as putting in a better, more expensive grade of insulated window. The plan, says executive director Sean Penrith, is to reduce annual emissions by about a third, roughly two tons per house. Developers wouldn’t normally be interested, since the investment might not translate directly into a higher sales price. But Penrith’s plan is to sell a 15-year package of reductions into the offset market at perhaps $1,000 per house. By combining offset income with Oregon’s existing incentives for high-performance houses, the developer could come out $6,500 ahead on the deal. “I can take Joe Blow Builder. He can’t even spell ‘green,’” says Penrith. “But if I can present a value proposition on why he should move to an upgraded HVAC system, he’s going to get it.”

There are, of course, grounds to quibble about whether any offset adds up to a genuine reduction in emissions. (If the homeowner knows he’s got a high-performance house, will he be tempted to set the thermostat at 70 degrees instead of 68?) Moreover, the offset business can be insanely complicated. (Should the builder get credit for the reduction? Or does the utility get to claim it?
There are, of course, grounds to quibble about whether any offset adds up to a genuine reduction in emissions.
And how do you avoid double-counting?) The unregulated nature of the offset market in this country has also produced opportunities for misrepresentation and even fraud over the past few years. In one case, farmers were selling offsets based on no-till practices they had undertaken years before. So the offsets didn’t do anything new; they just rewarded existing good behavior. In another offset deal, it turned out that the methane-destruction project was required by law.

Still, the offset business is growing up fast, with the U.S. voluntary market now worth about $100 million a year and likely to grow to $1 billion in the next few years. The effort to make offsets honest amounts to an “age of substantiation,” says one market watcher. Companies investing in offsets are becoming more demanding about what they buy, if only to avoid a Coldplay-style public relations debacle. (The British band claimed to have rendered a concert tour carbon-neutral by planting 10,000 mango trees in India. Then the trees died.) Two organizations — the Gold Standard Foundation and the Voluntary Carbon Standard — now screen investments and set standards for qualifying projects. Another nonprofit, Clean Air-Cool Planet, has posted a useful “Consumers’ Guide to Retail Carbon Offset Providers” on the Internet, and a web site,, provides a regularly updated checklist of whether offset providers meet certain criteria.

The standards for honest offsets are complicated: To be credible, they need to be transparent, meaning the seller tells you exactly what project you’re buying. They must also produce a real, measurable, and permanent reduction in global-warming emissions. For instance, destruction of methane from a coal mine or landfill may qualify as a high-quality project in part because it’s easy to quantify. Forestry projects, on the other hand, are likely to be low quality, because it’s too difficult t0 calculate the rate at which a given forest pulls carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere and into storage, especially when the climate happens to be changing. Forestry offsets have also been tainted because some businesses have used 30 or 50 years of future tree growth to offset the global-warming emissions from fossil fuels being burned now. Credibility also dictates that reductions be monitored and verified by an independent third party, and that the offsets be logged with a registry to prevent double-counting.

Finally, the project must be additional, meaning that it goes beyond what would have happened otherwise, for financial, regulatory, or other reasons. For instance, paying to insulate an underfunded public school building might qualify because it wouldn’t happen without the money from offsets. “Additionality” is the hardest standard to meet, and studies suggest that even projects developed under the stringent terms of the Kyoto Protocol’s Clean Development Mechanism often turn out not to be additional. But “additionality” is key, says Mark Trexler of EcoSecurities: “If we start rewarding all these good deeds without focusing on making real things happen, you could spend an infinite amount of money without changing anything.”

The other requirement for making offsets honest hasn’t gotten as much attention so far, because it involves a change in the behavior of buyers: If we accept that global warming is a serious threat, then the use of offsets makes sense only within the context of a carbon cap. Not a national or regional cap, but a self-imposed cap on the individual or organization buying the offset.
The other requirement for making offsets honest hasn’t gotten as much attention so far, because it involves a change in the behavior of buyers.
Otherwise, the critics are right, and buying offsets is like buying indulgences, so we can continue to sin in peace. Or even sin a little more. Having a cap means knowing your carbon footprint for a baseline year — 2008 will do — and having a plan to shrink it by a set amount each year. (Web sites like can help with the calculations.) If you accept the premise that the U.S. must reduce its carbon emissions 80 percent by 2050, that means eliminating about 2 percent of your baseline footprint annually, hardly a radical goal. You could achieve the entire reduction in a single year by stunt eco-living (like the family whose list of banned products included toilet paper), or alternatively, by dropping dead. But a more practical approach is to hit or exceed your targets each year, then use offsets for the balance of emissions that you cannot immediately avoid.

All this is clearly daunting, particularly for people who are not true believers. Offsets are “such a noncompelling product,” says Gideon Greenspan, who runs We’d be better off, he argues, if the offsets were incorporated directly into the products we purchase. “The classic example is cage-free eggs: It’s not like you buy eggs for $3 and then spend another $2 to free chickens.” The extra cost and the feel-good label are part of a single transaction. Similar products aimed at carbon-sensitive consumers are already in development. The British supermarket chain Tesco is putting a carbon footprint label on 20 test products, from potatoes to orange juice. (In global-warming terms, frozen turns out to be better than fresh.) British brewer Adnams has launched a carbon-neutral beer by combining a small amount of offsets with more efficient methods, including development of a lighter bottle.

But it’s a long way from a carbon-neutral beer to a carbon-neutral economy. For now, individuals and organizations wanting to use offsets, and use them honestly, still need to sharpen their pencils and do some hard calculating.


Richard Conniff, a 2007 Guggenheim Fellow, is at work on a book about the discovery of species. He is a National Magazine Award-winning writer, and his articles have appeared in Time, Smithsonian, The Atlantic, The New York Times Magazine, National Geographic, and other publications. A frequent commentator on NPR’s Marketplace, Conniff is the author of six books, including The Natural History of the Rich: A Field Guide and Spineless Wonders: Strange Tales of the Invertebrate World. His most recent article for Yale e360 examined the concept of “clean coal.”

SHARE: Tweet | Digg | | Reddit | Mixx | Facebook | Stumble Upon


I'm never comfortable framing action on the environment exclusively in moral terms. While it is true that polluting or harming the environment does hurt others, we can't fall into the trap that such actions "only" hurt others. Clearly, we individuals are part of the ecosystem too and so when we pollute we hurt ourselves as well. In others words, action on the environment is BOTH a moral issue (about justice and not hurting others) and a personal issue (about personal health and survival).

So instead of the confession booth analogy, I like the swear jar one better. Imagine you have a compulsivity disorder where you swear and insult others in fits of anger you can barely control. You'd love to just stop doing this but you can't always and the drugs and therapy are presently too expensive for you. Unfortunately, you know with time the outbursts are going to get worse, harming both others and your own social prospects of all kinds. If every time you had a fit you put a little money in a swear jar you would not only motivate yourself to do this less but you would also build up a fund for the drugs and therapy.

This model of behaviour-based saving is helpful for another reason -- it can reframe the debate in non-moral terms as well. Meaning, if you don't trust the offsetters or their projects, maybe you should be doing this yourself. Maybe we could all be building our carbon piggy banks and internally offsetting our way to carbon neutrality with time. Pulling ourselves up by our own carbon bootstraps for our own sakes with the moral or social benefits being a nice bonus.
Posted by Col on 29 Sep 2008

Nice to see an article that gives a fair and balanced perspective on this tool. Offsets are not a panacea, but they are a useful tool and they embed the positive notion of carbon being saved out of the atmosphere among a much broader spectrum of stakeholders. Just FYI, Mark Trexler works for EcoSecurities, not EcoSystem Securities - might want to edit that..
Posted by marc stuart on 01 Oct 2008

Do people really think they are going to pay someone for something for which they will never see a result?

This is like the indulgences Catholics pay to atone for their sins. Just give the Church some money and Father Flooty will put in a good word with God. Do you think people will really feel better about burning fossil fuels if they have to make a sacrifice? And all for what? Less than a degree of global warming that is projected by a computer model somewhere around 2050? If carbon credits aren't a scam, I don't know what is.
Posted by Jim Black on 02 Oct 2008

Good thinking, Richard. You provide an interesting and perceptive analysis. I especially admire your ability to acknowledge the validity of points made in opposition to yours.

The depth of your thinking reflects the growing importance that carbon trading is achieving in our economic lives. But the fact that it adds not a jot or tittle to our economic productivity is disastrous, for it means we all pay extra while some harvest (plunder) cash from truly productive activities.

You say: "If we accept that global warming is a serious threat". So, why is it, again, that we accept that threat?


1. CO2 constitutes only about 0.04% of the atmosphere.

2. CO2 provides only about 3.6% of the global greenhouse effect, which is caused overwhelmingly by water vapour.

3. Every year, about 200 billion tonnes of CO2 moves between air, earth and ocean; man contributes only about 3% of this.

4. Man's global contributions to the greenhouse effect is only about 0.28% of the total effect.

5. Global temperatures have not risen for several years; the present temperature seems to match the 1940s; CO2 continues to rise.

6. Sea levels are not rising; no Tuvaluan refugees have yet been detected in New Zealand.

I find it unreasonable to believe that our minor contribution to a minor atmospheric gas could have a major effect on the temperature. Anyway, there is still no evidence of it (and it's going down).

There are proper concerns to be addressed over our damaging influences on our surroundings, but they are being neglected while we tilt at the carbon windmills.

Nobody seems to be listening to arguments or entreaties from the other side, since global warming has become a matter of belief, not science.

I cling to the hope that people might look at the thermometers, for that doesn't involve having to listen.

Richard Treadgold,
Climate Conversation Group.
Posted by Richard Treadgold on 03 Oct 2008

Thank you, Richard Treadgold, for your informed and extremely sensible comments. It's very heartening to see these sort of scientifically literate comments appearing more and more frequently on the net, although, regrettably, still not in the print or TV media. Will check out your climate conversation group.
Posted by ian aitken hilliar on 06 Oct 2008

We have a little volunteer project in Berkeley that's been working with school districts to reduce energy consumption and install renewable energy systems. We've found that districts really don't need to raise too much upfront capital to make the solar systems affordable (systems are paid for from avoided utility costs).

We considered verifying traditional offsets from the school projects as a way of generating the revenue we needed to make future projects cost-neutral, but abandoned the idea because of the complexity and cost of complying with the standards established by organizations like the Gold Standard and the Kyoto Protocol's Clean Development Mechanism.

Instead, we are putting the finishing touches on what we are calling a "community climate fund" - where local residents and businesses can make a tax deductible donation loosely tied to their individual carbon production - that will be used to enable a solar project in a local school.

The donor can take advantage of the tax benefits and can actually see the project that he or she is supporting. The school district retains for its purposes any environmental attributes, e.g renewable energy credits, that are easier (and less costly) to quantify than a traditional offset.

We can also quantify the local economic, health, and environmental benefits that the school projects produce which helps us to demonstrate why these projects are valuable.

We hope that our idea is responsive to the average person's concern about climate change and that it will give people a tangible way to contribute to the overall reduction in carbon emissions.

Posted by Tom Kelly on 16 Oct 2008

I want to understand the monetary value of , say 1000 standing fruit trees at Haryana state India . What should be the procedure to selltheir carbon offsets value from India .
Sincerely yours ,
Posted by BBSharma Ph.D. ( Horticulture ) on 04 Mar 2009



Republican Who Led EPA Urges Confronting Trump on Climate
William K. Reilly, a Republican and one-time head of the EPA, is dismayed that a climate change skeptic has been named to lead his former agency. But in a Yale e360 interview, he insists environmental progress can be made despite resistance from the Trump administration.

The Legacy of the Man Who Changed Our View of Nature
The 19th-century German scientist Alexander von Humboldt popularized the concept that the natural world is interconnected. In a Yale e360 interview, biographer Andrea Wulf explains how Humboldt’s vision helped create modern environmentalism.

A Drive to Save Saharan Oases As Climate Change Takes a Toll
From Morocco to Libya, the desert oases of the Sahara's Maghreb region are disappearing as temperatures rise and rainfall decreases. Facing daunting odds, local residents are employing traditional water conservation techniques to try to save these ancient ecosystems.

An Unusually Warm Arctic Year: Sign of Future Climate Turmoil?
This year will almost certainly go down as the warmest on record in the Arctic, with autumn temperatures soaring 36 degrees F above normal. In a Yale e360 interview, climatologist Jennifer Francis explains why a swiftly warming Arctic may have profound effects on global weather.

How Warming Is ThreateningThe Genetic Diversity of Species
Research on stoneflies in Glacier National Park indicates that global warming is reducing the genetic diversity of some species, compromising their ability to evolve as conditions change. These findings have major implications for how biodiversity will be affected by climate change.


Donate to Yale Environment 360