Green Piggy

ALL OFFSETS ARE NOT EQUAL. Standards have been put in place, but are rarely regulated or enforced. This is very important when evaluating the assortment of companies that offer carbon offsets. Offset quality should meet the following criteria:

Additionality: the emissions reductions must be ‘additional’ to those that would have otherwise occurred under ‘business-as-usual’ circumstances. Business as-usual emissions are often referred to as the emissions ‘baseline.’

Permanence: the offsets should not have a reversal effect in the future (as might occur with sequestration projects where trees could potentially die; the long-term effects of sequestration are frequently debated).

Verification: offsets should be verified by a third party.

Registration: offsets should be registered so that they are not sold multiple times.

Source: Clean Air Cool Planet, A Consumer’s Guide to Retail Carbon Offset Providers, December, 2006.

The purchase of offsets is an investment in the future of our environment…make sure your money is invested in high-quality, credible projects. The following chart lists the advantages and disadvantages of common offset projects:

Project Type	Advantages	Disadvantages
Methane Capture & Destruction from Landfills	• Efficient means of reducing emissions • Captured methane can be used as fuel • Somewhat reduced odors • Reduced risk of ground water contamination • Relatively inexpensive • Easy to measure and monitor	Potential project based concerns about complete additionality, or whether the project reduces emissions beyond those that would occur under “business as usual” conditions
Methane Capture & Destruction from Livestock	• Efficient means of reducing emissions • Captured methane can be used as fuel • Reduced odors and co-pollutants • Reduced risk of ground water contamination • Relatively inexpensive	• Concerns about complete, project-based additionality
Methane Capture & Destruction from Coal Mines	• Efficient means of reducing emissions • Captured methane can be used as fuel • Few leakage concerns • Can improve safety for mine workers • Relatively inexpensive	• Concerns about complete, project-based additionality; others highly additional (e.g. abandoned mines)
Industrial Gas Destruction	• Very efficient • Highly additional • Relatively inexpensive • Easy to reliably measure and monitor	• Potential supply is limited • May not provide the PR benefits of other offset forms
Direct Fossil Fuel Reduction	• Supports clean technology • Cost savings • Reduces co-pollutants such as SOx, PM and VOCs • Reduces fossil fuel dependency • Potential social benefits	• Relatively inefficient means of reducing greenhouse gases
Indirect Fossil Fuel Reduction (RECs)	• Already established market with certification and verification systems • Supporting on-grid renewable energy important for decreasing reliance on fossil fuels • Reduces co-pollutants from fossil fuels such as SOx, PM and VOCs	• Compatibility issues between markets for RECs and carbon offsets (i.e. double counting of reductions) • Best for offsetting electricity use only
Reforestation—Afforestation of Native Tree Species	• Large number of potential social co-benefits • Contributes to biodiversity conservation • Addresses deforestation, an important part of the climate change problem • High potential PR value	• Lack of permanence • Uncertain science for quantifying reductions • Relatively inefficient means of reducing greenhouse gases • Less efficient than many mono-crop projects • Relatively expensive
Avoided Deforestation of Native Tree Species	• Large number of potential social co-benefits • Contributes to biodiversity conservation • Addresses deforestation, an important part of the climate change problem • Potentially less expensive than reforestation • High potential PR value	• Lack of permanence • Relatively inefficient means of reducing greenhouse gases • Major concerns about leakage (i.e. protecting forests in one area shifts deforestation elsewhere) • Difficult to measure additionality • No accepted methodology under CDM
Reforestation—Afforestation Monoculture Forestry	• Some potential for social co-benefits • Trees with high sequestration rates can be selected • Often lower cost	• Lack of permanence • Relatively inefficient means of reducing greenhouse gases • Concerns about water consumption • Reduced social and environmental co-benefits compared to projects that use native tree species • Can backfire in PR terms
Soil Sequestration	• Reduced erosion • Large number of potential social co-benefits • Improved water quality • Relatively inexpensive	• Questions of additionality and permanence should be carefully considered • Science unclear on measuring and quantifying reductions
Geological Sequestration	• Huge potential for storage	• Few co-benefits • Technology still evolving • Long term risks; effectiveness uncertain

Source: Business for Social Responsibility and The Katoomba Group’s Ecosystem Marketplace, Offsetting Emissions: A Business Brief on the Voluntary Carbon Market, Dec. 2006

< previous page 1 2 3 4 next page >