Environmental Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
Concerns about carbon offsets
Critics have been expressing concerns about the effectiveness of the use of carbon offsets,
such as:
Lack of harmonized standards for measuring emissions and reductions:
Selling carbon
offsets has been a lucrative business opportunity that promoted the development of many
companies around the world to offer them. With the exception of some established standards
(e.g., the CDM, Voluntary Carbon Standard 2007, and the Chicago Climate Exchange), many
standards have been developed to measure emissions and quantify reductions. However, the
lack of harmonized criteria creates standards with different levels of rigorousness, which
undermines credibility and creates uncertainties.
Absence of regulations and overseeing:
Mostly, the carbon offset market is voluntary and
unregulated (DiPeso, 2007). Lack of regulations and overseeing creates the ideal ground for the
development of opportunistic carbon offset businesses of questionable practices. So, with the
absence of regulations the only guarantee a carbon offset purchaser has is the company reputation.
Insufficient transparency in the process:
A consequence of lack of harmonized standards
and regulations is that emissions and reductions are counted according to criteria established
by the company offering the offsets. Often, these companies provide carbon emission
calculators on their websites that act as black boxes. So activities are typed in and quickly
these calculators return the emissions along with the dollar amount needed to offset these
emissions. These calculators generally offer little details (or no details at all) on the calculation
process. Quite often, the description of reduction projects is vague and provides few specifics.
The creation of a sense of indulgence:
Many critics voice their opinions that carbon offsets
are an easy way to pay for sins of emissions (Smith, 2007). By paying a modest amount,
humans can counterbalance carbon emissions without compromising lifestyle or economic
activities. Carbon offsets can be purchased at a cost between $3 and $40 per metric ton (Slater,
2008), which is a relatively small price to pay for the benefits of a ton of emissions. However,
this relatively inexpensive fee is seen by many as a way of continuing business as usual without
any positive benefit on the reduction of carbon emissions.
No immediate effects and uncertainties on reduction projects:
Sequestration projects do no
have an immediate effect on cutting GHG. Instead, they take years to develop, and their
effectiveness is guaranteed only when projects are followed up closely. For instance, when a
wind farm is developed, it takes several years of energy production to break even with the
energy spent to build the farm. After twenty to twenty-five years—the typical useful life span
of a wind project—the farm needs to be decommissioned and replaced by a new one, starting
the cycle all over again. In a forestry project, trees take decades to grow and capture carbon in
the process and the effectiveness of this capture is assured only if the forest is preserved
(Rogers, 2010). Carbon captured by trees is not “as safe” as geologically trapped carbon (as
oil, gas, and coal) because the trapping of carbon by living organisms is a dynamic process of
constant fixation and release. Moreover, there are serious uncertainties on how much carbon
can be fixed by trees (Smith, 2007).
Emissions trading
There are two main options to promote carbon emissions reduction: a carbon tax and a
cap-and-trade system. A carbon tax is based on economic disincentive by punishing the emitter
with a tax. A carbon-cap-and-trade is a market-based system that creates an incentive to avoid
pollution. Likely, a tax system is more straightforward, but a cap-and-trade system looks more
favorable for being implemented in the near future. Cap-and-trade systems can either be
