Earth system science: Saving the planet
Mike Raupach, of the ESSP’s global carbon project, confessed today that while he bought carbon ‘credit’ to offset his trip here for the conference, and he’s sure that the group he bought it from is legitimate, he doesn’t really, actually know how the carbon is counted up or if his trip is truly offset. I must admit that having recently bought my brother carbon credits for his birthday I faced the same problem. I’m pretty sure my money is going to the greater good of the planet, but exactly how I don’t know.
But if I don’t know, and he doesn’t know, then who does know? “Good question,” says Mike. Perhaps we all need some guidance on this.
Comments
I made the arrangements for offsetting the return trip from Australia to China for Dr. Raupach and two colleagues. We chose a project that is independently verified which uses the same criteria as the Kyoto protocol.
Posted by: Liese Coulter | November 12, 2006 06:34 AM
That's encouraging, but not completely transparent. It would be interesting to know a little more about the project, and how it's verified. Would that cause problems? You could be setting a precedent here!
Posted by: Tim Roberts | November 13, 2006 05:34 PM
I believe the carbon offset system being offered may need to be more stringent - especially with respect to informing purchasers of exactly how the money is being used. There is a group called Terrapass which has a number of companies involved in renewable energy listed on their site but there are no active links and absolutely no information given about what the money has been used for. I contacted one of the companies listed, a farm, who explained that they had had money for operational costs of their bio-digester or methane digester. They also said that they were no longer working with Terrapass but with the Chicago Climate Exchange 'auction' (see: http://www.chicagoclimatex.com).
For myself, I would definitely prefer that any group working with conscience-driven people about climate change, offering them a rectification of their carbon emissions lifestyle, needs to specify in full what the money is being spent on. We would benefit from being fully informed, instead of being virtually uninformed. I believe that to be fully credible, there has to be a healthy transparency - all the way down the line.
What do other people think?
Posted by: Caroline Webb | November 13, 2006 05:44 PM
Hi all,
Good questions. I'm a co-founder of TerraPass, and I can attempt to shed some light on these issues.
First, we do specify in full where the money is spent. Every single carbon purchase we make is listed on our web site, including the date and amount of carbon purchased.
Second, we don't provide links or contact info to the projects themselves because projects typically don't have web sites or customer support operations. Many of these project developers, such as the one you got in touch with, are working farmers. Not only do they not have the resources to field customer questions, they also frequently don't have the necessary information. For example, all TerraPass transactions are executed on the Chicago Climate Exchange, so it's not really clear from the comment above whether TerraPass is continuing to support that particular project.
However, I do recognize that it would be great for consumers to be able to get additional information on these projects, and we plan to enhance the project information available on our web site over time.
Third, verification happens in accordance with whatever regime the offsets are certified under. The wind energy credits that TerraPass buys, for example, are verified under the Green-e standard (http://www.green-e.org), which is the leading certification program in the U.S. for renewable energy. The carbon offsets we buy are verified in accordance with the Chicago Climate Exchange protocols, which you can read more about here: http://www.chicagoclimatex.com/environment/offsets/index.html
Regards,
Adam
Posted by: Adam Stein | November 14, 2006 05:49 PM
Nature later wrote a special report on these 'carbon credits'.
see: http://www.nature.com/news/2006/061218/full/444976a.html
Posted by: nicola jones | May 3, 2007 05:12 PM