Carbon offsets - a panacea or salve?

CU instructor discusses pros and cons of Kyoto linchpin

by Dale Rodebaugh
Herald Staff Writer

Article Last Updated; Thursday, October 15, 2009 12:01AM

Byrd

Carbon offsets – an effective way to reduce greenhouse gases or a salve for the conscience of wealthy polluters?

The question was posed Wednesday to a Green Business Roundtable lunch crowd by guest speaker John Byrd, an instructor of finance and sustainable management at the University of Colorado-Denver School of Business.

In his presentation and in an earlier interview Byrd defined terms, explained procedures and outlined the pros and cons of the abstruse international treaty aimed at reducing the amount of six atmosphere-damaging gases: carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, sulfur hexafluoride, hydrofluorocarbons and perfluorocarbons.

The Kyoto (Japan) Protocol is a binding agreement on signatory countries that sets goals for limiting greenhouse gases – 5 percent against 1990 levels by 2012 – and lays out ways they can do it. The treaty was negotiated in 1997 and took effect in 2005. The United States did not sign it.

Carbon offsets – the financial investment that polluters make in greenhouse-gas reduction projects elsewhere when they themselves can’t mitigate emissions – have created a global market in which offsets are bought and sold. Offsets are mandatory in Europe, voluntary in the United States.

Greenhouse gases are measured by metric-ton equivalents of carbon dioxide because the weight of gases differ. The general term is “carbon offset” because carbon dioxide is the best known element.

Reduction goals can be met by several methods, Byrd said. For example:
b Reducing energy consumption by replacing incandescent lighting with compact fluorescent or light-emitting diode bulbs that use less energy.

b Avoiding conventional power sources by reverting to solar- or wind-generated power sources.

b Eliminating the high global-warming potential of hydrofluorocarbons. HFC-23 used in making refrigerants is 11,000 times more powerful than carbon dioxide as a greenhouse gas. Eliminating 1 pound of HFC-23 is the same as eliminating five or six tons of carbon dioxide.

b Sequestering greenhouse gas emissions by planting trees. Also, research is being done on injecting carbon dioxide into the ground.

The Kyoto Protocol lays out procedures for offsets, but they have strengths and weaknesses, Byrd said.

Among the strengths: Offsets offer financial support for projects that lead to reduction of gases. They can be purchased in units that correspond to a certain activity. (An airline passenger can compensate for the contribution of his or her flight to the greenhouse gas total.) It’s an easy way for a buyer of offsets to reach a goal.

Among the weaknesses: Offsets are a small part of the overall solution – in 2007, they neutralized only 65 million tons of 40 billion tons of greenhouse gases produced – barely one-thousandth of the total. They can be difficult to verify. They can reward existing or mandatory behavior. It’s an easy way out for wealthy polluters, whom Byrd likened to Medieval buyers of indulgences from the Catholic Church in order to be absolved of their sins.

“Ideally, offsets should not occur without a corresponding payment for the offset because if a project is to occur anyway, it isn’t offsetting any emissions,” Byrd said. “Permanence is a big issue too. Some forestry activities are difficult to justify as an offset because a forest can burn or die, releasing stored carbon.”

Businesses almost certainly have to buy offsets if it’s important to be carbon neutral (canceling the same amount of carbon as they produce), Byrd said. If carbon neutrality is not vital, in-house reductions or a combination of in-house measures and purchased offsets will work.

If individuals want to go beyond neutralizing their own production of greenhouse gases, they will have to consider their budget, Byrd said. Instead of buying offsets, he said, a bigger bang for the buck could be gained from investing in land conservancy efforts or by supporting environmental groups or politicians working toward the same goals.

daler@durangoherald.com

Thursday, October 15, 2009
at 8:43:21 AM

Suggest removal

conopinion@gmail.com says...

#

What a bunch of unadulterated hogwash!! The writer ignores the fact that the reason for this silly rush to throw money at a non-problem (carbon dioxide in the atmosphere) is to completely destroy all industry in the U.S. and to end the existence of the country. The next step is to eliminate the human race - people breathing exhale carbon dioxide.