does carbon offsetting work?

Question

I am looking to find out the truth behind the Corporate feelgood factor of offsetting carbon emmissions. Is there some real evidence of this working.

Answer 1

It works in the sense that it does absorb CO2 from the atmosphere, but this is only a temporary pass for emitters to get out of their responsibility, namely they believe that reforesting a part of a third world nation will cost them less money than the extra cut in emissions would. This is a great benefit for the advertising and financial positions of the firm.

However, these new forests are monoculture stands and become a real problem in creating a habitat that would normally exist in the region. Besides this, the formula they use to offset their emissions is heavily-industry biased, and in no way "sequesters" the carbon equivalently. Usually much of this land was cleared originally by local communities for agricultural/fuel/housing purposes. These poorest of individuals are forved to cede unassigned territories to the government with no say in their new purpose.

I do think it is a corporate feelgood action, but even more so a consumer feel good factor.

Answer 2

Look at it this way. If we pump oil and dig coal out of the Earth - and this is used for fuel, then we are putting CO2 into the atmosphere. If carbon trading/offsetting etc reduces the amount of oil/coal we extract from the Earth, then it can be said to work.

However, there is no evidence to say we are taking less oil/coal from the ground. So it is a feelgood factor and gives the impression that we are doing something when we actually are not.

Answer 3

Carbon offsetting is a step in the right direction, however; what we really need is Carbon Rationing.

Carbon rationing is necessary because we cannot continue consuming at current levels. Developed countries such as the UK and the US must cut their carbon emmissions by 90%, if we are to avoid radical climate change in our own lifetimes.

With carbon rationing, all the remaining carbon stocks in the world are divided up equally between all the peoples of the world. We cannot divide the carbon in any other way. Can you imagine India or China sitting back while the West happily plunders what few resources we have left?

If Mwesi in Zambia does not need his ration, he can sell it to Adam in America who does. Everybody benefits, while carbon emmissions are reduced fairly. The overall goal is the same - to reduce CO2 emmissions in our atmosphere.

Time is up, people. We must act now.

Answer 4

there is no evidence yet that it works. Plus if you take carbon out of the centre of the earth and try to store it on the surface in another form, eventually it will get released and cause additional green house gases.

We won't see the effects from todays events for another 100 years... so every little bit helps. If it makes the folks up in the boardroom feel good to plant trees... let em do it!! That's great!! I feel this is the first step to getting on the right track for reducing the effects of global warming. We have to start somewhere...

Answer 5

Offsetting is the proper, economic solution to a problem that is both economic and environmental; it is as environmentally effective as any other solution but immeasurably more economically effective.

The idea is that the overall level of carbon emissions needs to be reduced, and it doesn't matter where those reductions come from; a kilo of carbon in the atmosphere is still a kilo of carbon whether it came from the exhaust of my car or from a chinese coal-burning power plant.

Some carbon emmissions are made in circumstances where we clearly derive a large benefit from them; if I have the option of walking 5 miles to work through torrential rain in near-freezing temperatures or taking the car, i'll take the car. But if I can offset the carbon produced by paying a chinese energy company to scrub their output gases, that will mean the amount of carbon stays the same as if i'd walked. It might only cost £0.40 to save that amount of carbon; an amount i'm more than happy to pay to stay warm and dry.

It's all about saving carbon from the places where it won't cost too much in money or inconvenience to do so. It's an immeasurably more efficient way of saving the same amount of carbon, compared to loony green suggestions like banning all air travel, or requiring all cars to have 5 people in them before they go anywhere.

The greens usually don't like it, because it feels like "buying" your way out of a moral responsibility. But keeping the planet inhabitable ISN'T a moral responsibility, it's a collective practical responsibility, and undoubtedly for our own good. If mandatory carbon offsetting, with a system of limited quotas, was brought in worldwide tomorrow, the effects would be both more environmentally healthy and far less obtrusive than all the "how you can reduce your own carbon footprint" suggestions so far suggested, combined.

Medicine doesn't taste bad BECAUSE it's good for you, it's an unwanted side-effect. If we can give ourself a dose of okay-tasting medicine in the form of offsetting, that's got to be preferable if it's as good as the rancid stuff.

Answer 6

I think to a point, but if we all do it to try and justify our selfish disrespect for our environment, pretty soon, the only way to off-set carbon emissions will be to start murdering people. These ideas need thinking through to the end.

I think you are on the right track, it is essentially nothing more than a feel-good factor, and not just a corporate one either!

Answer 7

No, there are too many companies willing to buy and sell your carbon quota.

It just makes the boardrooms feel better.

Answer 8

Buying / selling hot air.