Results

I first heard about carbon offsetting from a friend when planning my wedding. She had heard a news story about having a “green wedding,” where guests buy offsets in lieu of gifts to atone for the carbon emissions created by their air/car travel, hotel stays, and even cocktail napkins. The idea struck me as interesting, but inherently fishy. It seemed somehow dishonest, like indulgences in the Middle Ages, to pay for a clear conscience. However, the idea of carbon offsetting is becoming ever more popular in spite of its controversial nature. Businesses are now buying carbon offsets to supplement their energy saving efforts.

The practice of carbon offsetting is a means by which individuals or businesses can reduce their CO₂ footprint by donating to an organization that promises to spend the money on renewable energy projects, tree planting initiatives, methane recapture, or other means of reducing carbon emissions. The theory is that because global warming is in fact a global problem, it doesn’t matter where in the world or by what means carbon emissions are extracted from the atmosphere. In addition to (or sometimes instead of) reducing one’s own energy use at home, an individual or business can make an impact on the problem by financing a reforestation project in the Amazon, or a methane recapture facility in Oklahoma.

Carbonfund.org, a non-profit vendor of carbon offsets, argues “it is more cost effective and better for our environment to build a 100 MW [megawatt] wind energy farm in Minnesota than a 5 kW [kilowatt] windmill in your own backyard. Carbon dioxide emissions are a global problem, so reducing a ton of CO₂ in Brazil or North Dakota has the same climate change benefit as doing so in your backyard” (see www.carbonfund.org for more details). Their website also points out that since some 60% of a household’s carbon output comes from the products we buy (packaging, shipping, and manufacturing costs), we cannot rely on reducing our energy usage alone. Offsets allow people to make up for the emissions they cannot control. Carbonfund.org allows donors to choose whether they want their money to be used for renewable energy, energy efficiency, or reforestation projects.

Rainforest2Reef, another non-profit which manages carbon offset donations, promises “for each ton (2000 lbs) of CO₂ that you or your household produces, Rainforest2Reef will plant one tree, at the cost of only $1 per tree. This tree will absorb roughly 1 ton of carbon over its 40 year lifecycle” (www.rainforest2reef.org). Both Carbonfund.org and Rainforest2Reef have “carbon calculators” on their sites to help donors decide how much they should give. These two organizations are just examples of the many who promote carbon offsetting as a valid way for the public to reduce their impact on the environment.

Opponents of the practice point to the short-sighted nature of this solution. They point out that if one can simply pay a fee to feel better about global warming, then less of us will take the initiative to drive fuel efficient vehicles, recycle, and reduce our demand for electricity. Environmentalists have criticized tree planting initiatives, suggesting that some have used non-native trees in areas where they impact local species and reduce soil quality. Also, tree planting is only truly effective in temperate zones, where trees absorb CO₂ more readily. One of the most suspicious aspects of the trend is apparent when businesses make claims of “zero emissions” or having a “neutral carbon footprint”. This is often a selling point for consumers who don’t realize that this claim may come from offsetting donations rather than from true implementation of energy saving practices. This seems to be the case with Icelandic Glacial water, which boasts to buying offsets equaling 552 tons of emissions. That figure, however, does not include any shipping impacts after the bottled water arrives in the ports of destination countries (see http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/07_33/b4046073.htm?chan=search for the full story).

Some businesses are taking a more hands-on approach to reduce their carbon footprint. One trend with high technology firms is to reduce their energy use by replacing old, inefficient server farms. This practice, called virtualization, is not only beneficial to our environment but can also save money. Switching to energy efficient power distribution units, air conditioners, and cooling pumps can make a huge impact on your consumption and expenses. Though the initial payout is daunting (as much as $400,000 per server) these new units replace dozens of old servers and will pay for themselves in electricity savings. If businesses were to take a comprehensive approach to reducing their CO₂ emissions which combined initiatives like virtualization and carbon offset purchases, the impact would be enormously beneficial.

So how do you know if the offset you purchased was impactful and honest? Did they really plant trees with your donation? You don’t know. While some non-profits undergo certification to ensure their offsets are measured accurately, the industry as a whole is unregulated at present. The old saying, “If you want something done right, do it yourself” seems to apply here: to ensure that you are actually doing your part to reduce carbon emissions, you should probably do it yourself. Recycle, use energy-efficient appliances, drive a fuel-efficient car, insulate your home to reduce heating costs, and buy locally whenever possible. Perhaps the best approach is a hybrid one: if businesses and individuals combine carbon offsets with measurable energy savings, we will have the maximum possible effect on the global climate crisis.

Monday, October 22nd, 2007 Both comments and pings are currently closed.

By Haley January Eckels