The Unlikely Activist

The ABCs of carbon offsets...

My conversations lately have been turning more and more to sustainability, and more often than not lead to the "So exactly what can we do?" question. This eventually brings us to some discussion of carbon offsets, the topic of this post, and one of the more head-scratching issues on the list. Indeed, much has been written about these potentially beneficial little commodities--but I sometimes wonder how much has actually been communicated?

So I thought I'd take a stab at it--with both a top level view and some jumping off points in case you want to dig deeper. It begins with the acceptance that we all emit carbon dioxide, whether we want to or not, and no matter how hard we work at being green. Remember...

- We emit a full ton of CO2 when we drive about 6,000 miles in our hybrid, or a mere 1,350 miles in our large SUV.

- We emit roughly same amount when we fly 2,000 miles in a plane

- The average American's direct emissions from household energy and transportation amounts to about 10 tons per person.

And after we've put the solar panels on the roof, installed the energy efficient appliances, and tried to conserve our way to salvation, we still have to account for the emissions generated to produce the food we eat and the clothes we wear. There is simply no way to avoid being guilty.

There is, however, a way to take responsibility.

Here's where offsets come in. Offsets allow us to contribute to a reduction of emissions, by helping fund new and ongoing energy efficiency, renewable energy generation (typically from solar, methane, or wind sources), or carbon sequestration projects. (The latter refers to the removal and storage of CO2 from the atmosphere...think trees). More specifically, for every ton of carbon dioxide you inevitably still create, you can eliminate some or all of it through a net reduction you support elsewhere. In an ideal sense, if you were to thus offset all the emissions that you couldn't eliminate through lifestyle changes, you would be able to claim that you had attained the enviable state of zero carbon footprint, or carbon neutrality.

Offsetting CO2 works for individuals (the retail scale), corporations, and institutions. It allows for the offsetting of emissions from manfacturing, transportation, travel, fossil fuel based energy generation, travel, and simple household running. It is a very hot topic in the sustainability arena and, as I hope you will see, a necessity in turning our greenhouse gas imbalance around.

But it is not a silver bullet.

I think green business guru, Joel Makower, sums it up memorably when he writes "...buying offsets for an energy-wasteful home or business and calling it environmentally responsible is akin to buying a Diet Coke to go with your double bacon cheeseburger -- and calling it a weight-loss program. Efficiency (and calorie reduction!) comes first." You said it. Offsets do not preclude conservation and minimization of your emissions per se. Nor do they come first.

In efforts to be smart about emissions within your sphere of control (and this applies equally to businesses as well as individuals), you begin with an assessment of the amount of CO2 you generate--known as your carbon footprint--and address the waste and inefficiencies you can directly. Then comes the time to look at those remaining, and for now unavoidable tons of carbon you emit, and look for offset opportunities.

And you won't have to look far. There are dozens of companies and non-profit organizations who provide easy ways to calculate your footprint, and will offer offsets for any budget, and across a range of projects (see links below). For less than $100, the average American can offset their annual personal footprint--as reported in A Consumer's Guide to Retail Carbon Offset Providers, issued in late 2006 by the nonprofit Clean Air-Cool Planet.There are numerous organizations and web sites that will take you step by step through the process. Here, for example, is one helpful overview provided by the David Suzuki Foundation.

Offsets do raise issues.

Somewhere along the line, your faith will be shaken. Perhaps it will happen when you hear that "Carbon offsets are just like paying for your right to pollute." Or, "You're just paying off your guilt." And you will read that offsets are "counterproductive" and distract from the essential reductions we need to see in the use of fossil fuels. But if you venture into offsets after taking a good, hard look at the actions you can take to reduce your footprint in the first place--eliminate unneccesary trips, switch your lights, buy a hybrid, etc.--you'll be doing a good thing. As for the guilt feelings, I believe that your new and more sustainable practices will speak for themselves.

The experts, too, point out a number of concerns about offsets, which do suggest that we are still in a 'buyer beware' mode. After all, at this point in time, offsets are voluntary, and are not formally regulated, certified, or monitored. This article, from the January 10th Christian Science Monitor gives a nice overview.

And then there is the issue of additionality, namely, did your offset contribution fund emission reductions beyond those that were already in place (in a business-as-usual sense)? This, in fact, was one of the questions that prompted the comprehensive, independent study and the report mentioned above.

Further concerns are evident in debates about which categories of offsets are most effective, notably in the finding that carbon sequestration through reforestation may have significant downsides--i.e., the release of large amounts of carbon from the soil during planting.

The picture keeps changing...stay tuned.

Clearly, carbon offsets are not a panacea. But the bottom line message is clear: offsets today represent one of the most viable mechanisms for taking responsibility--personal as well as corporate--for one's contribution to global warming. They are increasingly easy to access, relatively economical, and very useful in helping the shift away from fossil fuel consumption. Just remember--don't offset what you can conserve or otherwise reduce. Do them both, and your eConsciousness meter will go up a notch or two. Guaranteed.

Even as I'm writing this, the world of offsets is changing. Here's a sampling of what's to come...

Joel Makower reports in climatebiz.com that U.K. retail giant Marks & Spencer announced a plan that will lead to the company becoming carbon neutral by 2012. That DHL is planning to become the first company to offer carbon-neutral delivery. And that Dell Computer launched a carbon initiative that plants trees to allow customers to offset the carbon impact of using their computers.

Carbon offset provider TerraPass just announced a partnership with Sam's Club and manufacturer Karcher to bundle offsets with the company's pressure washer product--a first for TerraPass.

And another offset provider, ClimateSure, has introduced the first insurance product that comes with carbon offsets built in--at no higher cost to consumers than traditional plans.

Interesting and helpful links...

Carbon footprint calculators--on line and very quick and simple to use, for household as well as travel calculations. Also great for giving the gift of offsets to you friends:

ClimateCare.org

Sustainable Travel International

The CarbonNeutral Company

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Personal Greenhouse Gas Calculator

Offset providers--a sampling to get you started. All provide additional help and background information:

TerraPass

NativeEnergy

ClimateCare

The Climate Trust

The Carbon Neutral Company

Questions?

All of a sudden I feel like I'm going out on a limb...but here goes. I suspect some of you may have questions. And although I'm no climate expert, I'll do my best to answer them or direct you to places where you can find clarity. So step up, and log yours by clicking on 'Comments' below. It's quick. It's easy. And it's anonymous, if you insist.

Convenient facts, misused...or, Be careful what you read

One of the beauties of the blogosphere, beyond self-publishing bliss, is that I can reach out to you real fast. I mean real, real fast. No editor. No print schedule. Just drop everything and post.

Which is why I'm writing now. I just happened to catch up with a 1.18.07 Wall Street Journal op/ed piece titled "Will Al Gore Melt?". And while I have no problem with the WSJ per se--I do with the authors of this piece, Flemming Rose and Bjorn Lomborg, the Culture Editor of Jyllands-Posten in Copenhagen, and Professor at the Copenhagen Business School, respectively.

So I have to respond. Why? Because I would hate to see the deceptive spinning of facts regarding Climate Change cast doubt on the overwhelming evidence behind its human origins. I'm not worried about Al Gore's ability to defend himself and counter the 'facts' laid out by Rose and Lomborg. But I am worried about you. When confronted with arguments against An Inconvenient Truth that seem to make sense, what do you say? How far will you sway?

With a little help from my sources (linked and referenced as best I can) here's a little point and counter-point...

First, a point the authors make about the dangers of following Gore's path toward an "environmentally obsessed society"...They write, "If we slowly change our greenhouse gas emissions over the coming century, the U.N. actually estimates that we will live in a warmer but immensely richer world."

Now, I don't know which U.N. report they are referring to (and there are many), but consider the fact that in two weeks, the very same institution's Intragovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) will present an updated, and long awaited 4th Assessment Report, Climate Change 2007--and it is very unlikely that it will support their contention. How can it, with pre-release review already prompting headlines like "UN climate panel to step up warnings on climate" (Reuters), and "Report has 'smoking gun' on climate" (USA Today). Sounds like it's going to be hard to find allusions to a warmer and richer world in this report.

Second, a point intended to convince us that the cooling of some areas of the world are conveniently "ignored" by Gore...they write "He considers Antarctica the canary in the mine, but again doesn't tell the full story. He presents pictures from the 2% of Antarctica that is dramatically warming and ignores the 98% that has largely cooled over the past 35 years."

Gotcha?

At first blush, Rose and Lomborg would appear to have dealt a blow to the unfortunate truths Gore would have us believe...but again, their contention is readily dismissed by the facts. Scientifically, while there are data suggesting that the East Antarctic ice sheet is showing some growth, it is far from conclusive, compared to the mass of data on rapid melting elsewhere. Moreover, there are known ocean currents that act as a buffer to the transport of heat (via warm water from the tropics) to the South Pole--and even if temperatures did warm on the order of, say, 10 degrees Centigrade (shifting from roughly -60 to -50 degrees Centigrade) some increase in ice would be consistent. (There's lots on this, with good backup, on Coby Beck's How to Talk to a Global Warming Skeptic.) Bottom line, it's most important to remember that "a rise in the global mean temperature does not imply universal warming." (RealClimate.org) When you hear otherwise, there's no need to back off of global warming.

I think you get the gist of it. So beware: a few well placed spokespeople, or articles, or studies can disproportionately color (colour, for my friends at futerra) an otherwise overwhelming body of truth. Especially so when the truths are supported in a language--namely, science--which for most of us is not a native tongue. But you don't have to get a degree, memorize the book, or otherwise become an expert. You do have to take what you read and hear, and think before being moved off course. You do have to let science and scientists do what they do best--that is, challenge, and challenge, and challenge again their assumptions--and recognize when those challenges are being exploited.

And, you do have to trust your eConsiousness. Climate change is far too broad in its impact and implications to be a slam dunk in anyone's book. If you're engaged at your core, you will find the true story line, and future op/eds will be...well, just that.

P.S.: For any of you who are interested, here's a bit of homework. Can you help counter two additional contentions made in the WSJ piece? If so, please drop a comment here (click 'comments' below) for all to see. I, for one, would like to have the answers in my back pocket.

1. Rose and Lomborg write, after being rebuffed in attempts to interview Gore, "It would have been great to ask him why he only talks about a sea-level rise of 20 feet. In his movie he shows scary sequences of 20-feet flooding Florida, San Francisco, New York, Holland, Calcutta, Beijing and Shanghai. But were realistic levels not dramatic enough? The U.N. climate panel expects only a foot of sea-level rise over this century." (I would definitely like to research this U.N. statement.)

2. Further, they challenge him elsewhere, as in "Mr. Gore says that global warming will increase malaria and highlights Nairobi as his key case. According to him, Nairobi was founded right where it was too cold for malaria to occur. However, with global warming advancing, he tells us that malaria is now appearing in the city. Yet this is quite contrary to the World Health Organization's finding. Today Nairobi is considered free of malaria, but in the 1920's and '30s, when temperatures were lower than today, malaria epidemics occurred regularly." (WHO reports, here we come...)

I'll take a pound of CO2 with that cheeseburger...

Somewhere along the line you've probably heard it too. It goes something like this...for every umpteen miles we drive our car, x pounds of carbon are released into the atmosphere. "What?", you say. "Pounds of carbon? Not dropping out of my tailpipe, but rising up into the atmosphere?"

To think about it, it doesn't really make much sense, does it? How can all those tons of carbon stay up there? And how can the stuff that comes out of my tailpipe, which I think of as being a 'gas' (vs. gasoline), actually weigh that much? Which brings me to one notion behind this post. You see, for all the information we're getting nowadays on greenhouse gases--and how they're created, what they're doing up there, and how they can be reduced both on the front and back end of things (through reabsorption by trees, the oceans, etc.)--I worry that it's the little things that can trip us up on the road to eConsciousness. Things like just not getting the concept of--well, how carbon can 'float'.

So before we turn to dietary issues, let's take a minute to defuse this potential stumbling block. It's not even that complicated. The principle is captured in the diagram above (and in the larger, more detailed version you'll see by clicking on the visual below). Numbers aside for the moment, what essentially happens is:

Combustion breaks apart the components of gasoline, namely hydrogen and carbon, and recombines them--the carbon, that is--with oxygen. "So..." Well, here's the important part. Each component has a molecular weight: hydrogen being 1, carbon being 12, and oxygen being 16. So, when the carbon from your gas tank combines with oxygen from the air, you're actually manufacturing CO2--one carbon and two oxygens together, and about three times as heavy as carbon component in the original gasoline.

And off they go. Pounds and pounds of CO2 molecules. Tons and tons as time goes on...at a rate of almost 20 pounds for each gallon of gas you burn. I'll repeat: 20 pounds of the stuff for every gallon you burn! No matter how efficient a car you're driving. Whether for business, for fun, or--heaven forbid--just idling.

So I thank carbon offets guru, Adam Stein of TerraPass, for crunching all the numbers and explaining the science (on his TerraBlog post). Plus visual modeler extraordinaire, Marshall Clemens of Idiagram for helping create the marvelous diagrams shown here. With their help, maybe the point will reach more of you, more effectively. Think about it.

Now, for what a cheeseburger can teach us about CO2...

Fortunately, while we're all trying to get a handle on the basics, we've got folks like Jamais Cascio, who on his Open the Future blog shares insights from his research. And the news isn't great. Intrigued by the question of what the carbon footprint of another typical American staple, the cheeseburger, might be, he came up with some startling factoids. Consider this...

- The average American eats about 150 burgers a year.

- Between a quarter- and a half-kilogram of carbon dioxide are emitted in the production and consumption of one cheeseburger (calculating everything from raising the cattle and making the buns, to the transportation that gets the burger--and us--to the burger joint).

- Over the course of a year, according to Jamais, between 37 and 75 kilograms of carbon emissions result from the average American's cheeseburger habit.

And there's more...like the methane gas that the cattle generate (with about 20x the greenhouse gas effects of CO2), and so on. (You can hear much of this discussed in a fascinating interview with Jamais on TreeHugger Radio). But the message is clear. What we eat, and all the energy required to make it, transport it, and enjoy it contributes significantly to greenhouse gases (GHGs). No wonder it's fueling a skyrocketing interest in growing, buying, and consuming locally. That, though, is a topic for another post, so stay tuned.

By the way, Jamais refers in his piece to a report from Stockholm Unversity and the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, titled Energy Use in the Food Sector. For those of you interested in some of the fascinating details, check out the PDF here.

Note: If you would like to use the visuals above for web or print purposes, please feel free to do so...but we ask that you 1) attribute the source and 2) inform us where it will appear, which will help us better meet your informational needs. Thanks.

Here come the enviroGrammys?

Here's a quickie. From a post on my new favorite sustainability advocates web, called compassnetwork, comes word that Pink Floyd's 'Another Brick in the Wall, Part II' has been masterfully remastered into a real catchy enviro music video. Says something to me about the way we're starting to use all channels of communication to get the word out--especially to a generation with a lot less gray and a lot more energy than I have.

Swedish DJ and producer Eric Prydz's 'Proper Education' was released recently, and you can see and hear it here. Coincidentally, I just heard from my undergrad daughter that yet another friend of hers has opted to take up the sustainability cause when she graduates in May. Nice to see that eConsciousness has no age barriers.

Sustainability communications...I'm a fan!

Maybe I just like beginning with tongue twisters or mind benders or even invented words, but I can't resist the observation that, when I launched this blog little did I know how little I knew. About the sophistication of both my audience and my fellow travelers in the communications sphere, that is.

I have to hand it to all of you--you make my work easier and more interesting than I had imagined. Being that I have a fascination with how to inform and motivate and inspire people to sustainable awareness and action, I'd like to steer you to a site that really gets it!. It's called futerracom.org (a very clever kind of a .com.org melding, I have to say). But, clever branding aside, this U.K. group plays at the interface between innovative messaging, superb delivery, and lingering impact--to give sustainability real teeth. It's clear to me that, whether you're mom or pop, student or policy maker, Futerra will get you thinking.

If those of you who are statesiders (I looked that up, trust me) think you can work your way through a reasonable dose of U.K. idiom and unfamiliar terms, then click above and take in the whole site. It's worth it. But if you want a shortcut, then go directly to Futerra's quite powerful videos (my favorite is the theatrical 'The Seasons Alter'). Or click through their listing of 100 simple ways to change the world.

So, at the risk of repeating myself, I'll repeat myself: go there, take it in, and reflect. And then check your eConsciousnes meter for me. I think you'll detect some bit of movement.