 |
 |
Ian & all, The Converging World project looks to me to be fully on the right track, this is surely the way forward. Some thoughts: Is the language of 'offsets' and 'carbon neutral' now so compromised that we should be trying to move beyond it, or using new initiatives such as your own to call into question the validity of these terms? Certainly the recent and growing body of literature on the offset business is damning. Can we develop some new terminology which captures media and public attention as well as "carbon offset" and "carbon neutral"? The press is full of articles at the moment about offsetting and almost always these make reference from the controversy around offsetting, the dubious marketing claims and so on. The time is ripe to push the debate on. People may have seen this report yesterday about Rising Tide activists occupying the offices of the CarbonNeutral company: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6382253.stm This highlights the outrageous fact that, as Kevin Smith documents, the CarbonNeutral company functions as the secretariat to the the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Climate Change, which works 'closely with businesses to develop policy options that will more fully intgrate government and business in tackling climate change' - a profit making company that has been censured by the Advertising Standards Authority for its misleading claims. I note CarbonNeutral brnads itself " a carbon management company, not a carbon offsetting company." It strikes me the key problem is that the success of offsetting is because the idea and language are so simple (deceptively so). "Carbon Neutral" functions as a kite mark which is readily achieved by a company and understood by consumers. How might a Converging World type project achieve the same? A strong part of the appeal of offsetting is the (apparent) quantifiability - consumers are provided with a set amount of donation for a set activity. Similar successes in marketing donations are the 'buy a goat' style donations. Not onlt does it give the doner the sense of something tangible it quickly resolves the decision of how much to donate - and hestitation can often lead to a donation going back onto the bottom of a 'good intentions' list. Perhaps therefore this element of offsetting does need to be salvaged, but expressed in a different way to the idea of 'neutralising emissions'. Regarding 'retiring' emissions credits - when in a project such as TCW where working with a partner project that is sustainable and the additionality of the credits can be demonstrated this seems to me an elegant way to provide consumers \ businesses with a product. Two other sources that allow consumers to retire ETS credits are - Ebico's Equiclimate scheme allows you to offset gas use against retired credits, the Science Museum is selling educational packs containing retired credits with options to buy more. These credits are purchased from the ETS thus raising the problem of the issue of additionality at source. From what I have read we can have little faith in verification of projects producing credits with the ETS - Kevin Smith has pointed me towards the serious problems with the Kuyasa project, the first Africa project ertified by the CDM executive board and first certified under the CDM Goldstandard http://www.thecornerhouse.org.uk/summary.shtml?x=397683 On a lighter note, check out the very funny www.cheatneutral.com Oh and on the zeitgiest front: The New Oxford American Dictionary<http://www.amazon.com/New-Oxford-American-Dictionary/dp/0195170776/ref=pd_sim_b_4/102-7941273-5108927>'s Word of the Year for 2006 is (drum roll please) *Carbon Neutral.* best regards, Dan On 21/02/07, Ian Roderick <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > > Hi, > > > > *Carbon offsetting* > > > > I can't agree more with all of the sentiments expressed by Kevin Smith of > the Transnational Institute / Carbon Trade Watch. An unregulated and > rather 'wild-west' offset industry has sprung up that has cool celebrities > jumping on a band wagon. Many schemes are badly implemented and it is open > to misuse. I am sure that for most people in the offset business this is far > from intentional but it does offer opportunities to the unscrupulous. Worst > of all with the existing state of affairs it is easy to perceive carbon > trading and offsetting as perpetuating the global capitalist systems that > has got us into the mess. > > > > There is money to be made in this game of indulgences for climate sins. > Whether it is comparable to Enron style is debateable. Enron collapsed > because it had a balance sheet and profit forecasts based on thin air. > Future value accounting in that business was a criminal activity. Future > value accounting for saved carbon tonnes is also dodgy but hardly illegal > unless done with the intent to deceive. However, let's assume integrity, > what is the penalty if carbon savings don't turn up, if the wind turbine > doesn't produce electricity? Red faces yes, and money removed from polluters > and wasted - a failed investment. (What would they have consumed with it > instead?) > > > > But let's push the analogy of indulgences for climate sins a little > further and take up Kevin's challenge to look at this phenomenon > systemically and historically. The practice of selling indulgences to wipe > away sins was rife in the early 16th century: *"As soon as the coin in the > coffer rings, the soul from purgatory springs"*. It was certainly a neat > idea to raise some cash – selling words on a piece of paper as peace of > mind; it was totally corrupt and was partly responsible for the rise of > Protestantism and a major schism in the church. It was eventually reformed - > try buying an indulgence today and a priest will tell you clearly that you > can't expurgate your climate sins with money you need to change your > lifestyle … but if you have got some spare cash here is our collection tin > for the work we do in the fight for justice in Africa. Times change as time > changes. > > > > Changed times is where we have to get to - offset organisations rattling > the tin for donations towards work that will alter our lifestyles, fund new > structures in our society and press for political change … and Gift Aid on > donations please. > > > > Of course the real issue is to keep coal, oil and gas in the ground. We > have to change almost every aspect of our lives and our society to do this. > There is no argument with Kevin Smith saying: *'The only effective way of > dealing with climate change is to dramatically decrease our current rates of > fossil fuel consumption.'* But what is the way? The answer given is: *"collective > political action needs to be taken to tackle climate change and we need to > promote more effective and empowering approaches."* Again, no argument, > lead on, but how do we collect, promote and empower? Well carbon offsetting > might be the way. Is this heresy? Let's get in there, get the money from > polluters who care and use it to damn well promote and empower. > > > > *Concluding thoughts* > > > > There is a long way to go and we need critics like Carbon Trade Watch. > > > > The offset industry needs substantial "cleaning up" and regulating – a > process that has started. > > > > Offset projects need a full and thorough environmental and social impact > assessment - don't condemn mistakes, learn from them. > > > > Environmental and social justice movements need to do more systems > thinking and longer term visioning. > > > > Working and transforming the structures and artefacts of a system *is* the > system. > > > > Sometimes to get to a higher peak often means descending into a boggy > valley. > > > > Don't tear down the scaffolding just because it isn't the final building. > > > > Move away from classifying our high-carbon lifestyles as committing sins – > guilt is so negative. > > > > *Criticism please* > > > > With all this in mind I would like to invite criticism about something we > are helping to build: > > > > *The Converging World (TCW) is new charity, the seed for which was a > village project called Go Zero, it is based on the principle of Contraction > & Convergence. It is creating a second generation carbon reduction scheme > that addresses the criticisms raised against carbon offsetting.* > > * * > > *We are approaching large businesses and wealthy individuals to become > donors so that we can erect wind turbines in India near to where our partner > organisation called Social Change And Development (SCAD) operate ( > www.scadindia.org ). The surplus income from the electricity generated is > spent on sustainable livelihood projects with SCAD while the carbon credits > are available back here in the UK. * > > * * > > *We are inviting businesses and individuals to become members of TCW and > in return for donations we will retire carbon credits - if requested. This > allows individuals and businesses to claim that they are offsetting or even > carbon neutral. However, we expect a high degree of participation by our > members in carbon reduction and we provide services to achieve this. * > > * * > > *The money raised this way by membership in the UK is called the > Sustainable Community Fund, which is directed to larger scale carbon > reduction projects in the UK, projects like renewable energy installations > or social change with a 'green' tinge. We would like many community groups, > such as Go Zero, to become affiliated to TCW and the fund will support them > with resources, networking and the exchange of ideas – empowering them. > Community groups will be invited to apply for money for their own projects > that may exceed their capacity to fund themselves.* > > * * > > *The concept is based on Contraction & Convergence and although it seems > complicated it has been described as 'elegant' and 'beautiful', so we are > hoping that we might be on the right track.* > > * * > > *The people behind this have been engaged with environmental and social > issues for many years and are dedicated to a bright and joyful future for > all.* > > > > So the questions are: > > > > How to evaluate what we are proposing, are we on the right track? > > > > Are there any aspects of this scheme that appear inadequate or ill thought > through? > > > > Should the offset industry evolve into this model or should we kill it off > because it is corrupt, greenwashing and a desperate attempt to perpetuate > the status quo? > > > > Many thanks if you can help with any thoughts. > > > > Best wishes > > > > Ian Roderick > > Schumacher Institute > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Discussion list for the Crisis Forum [mailto: > [log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Chris Keene > Sent: 21 February 2007 01:48 > To: [log in to unmask] > Subject: [Fwd: The Carbon Neutral Myth - Offset, Indulgences for your > Climate Sins]] > > > > Transnational Institute > > > > Press Release > > 20 February, 2007 > > Carbon offset companies using Enron style accounting > > > > While the UK Parliament's Environmental Audit Committee inquiry into the > carbon > > offsets industry hears it first evidence today, a new report by Carbon > Trade > > Watch shows that the carbon offset industry is using the same sort of > 'future > > value accounting' that caused the collapse of energy giant Enron. > > > > When companies like Climate Care and the Carbon Neutral Company sell the > public > > carbon offsets, carbon savings expected to be made in the future are > counted as > > savings made in the present. This is known as 'future value accounting' > and is > > the same technique used by Enron to inflate its profits with such > disastrous > > consequences. Offset companies give the idea that emissions are > > instantly 'neutralised' when in fact the supposed 'neutralisation' can > take > > place over periods of up to a hundred years. Regular offsetting worsens > the > > problem because the rate at which carbon emissions are 'neutralised' is > far > > slower than the rate at which they are generated. > > > > The Carbon Neutral Myth – Offset Indulgences for your Climate Sins, > launched > > today by Carbon Trade Watch, a project of the Amsterdam-based > Transnational > > Institute, draws on extensive research and case studies to argue that: > > > > · Offset companies breed complacency by selling 'peace of mind' to > > consumers, offering up a form of 'greenwash' that distracts from the > serious > > task of tackling unsustainable consumption patterns and business practices > > · Limited research on the climate benefits of tree plantations into > the > > carbon cycle is sold as fact while the offset companies quantify this > supposed > > benefit into a sellable commodity. > > · Tree plantations marketed as beneficial for the climate have seen > > people in the South expelled from their lands. > > · Projects that look great on the website or in the leaflet are often, > in > > practice, mismanaged, ineffective or detrimental to the local communities > who > > have to endure them. > > > > The report's author, Kevin Smith, said that 'The only effective way of > dealing > > with climate change is to dramatically decrease our current rates of > fossil > > fuel consumption. Offsets are providing a justification to maintain our > carbon- > > intensive lifestyles, and delaying the profound changes we need to make in > our > > societies.' > > > > Jutta Kill from the organisation FERN, who is today giving evidence to the > UK > > parliament Environmental Audit Committee said that 'Government proposals > to > > regulate offset companies misleadingly give the impression that there are > bad > > offsets and good offsets. The fact is that all offset projects are > sanctioning > > further fossil fuel use, and in doing so are a dangerous distraction from > > tackling climate change.' > > > > The full report The Carbon Neutral Myth – Offset Indulgences for your > Climate > > Sins is available online at: > > www.carbontradewatch.org/pubs/carbon_neutral_myth.pdf and www.tni.org > > > > > > For more information: > > Kevin Smith, Transnational Institute, +44 207 700 7972 > > [log in to unmask] > > Jutta Kill, FERN, +44 7931 576538 [log in to unmask] > > > > "Carbon offsets are the modern day indulgences, sold to an increasingly > carbon > > conscious public to absolve their climate sins. Scratch the surface, > however, > > and a disturbing picture emerges, where creative accountancy and elaborate > > > shell games cover up the impossibility of verifying genuine climate change > > > benefits, and where communities in the South often have little choice as > offset > > projects are inflicted on them. > > > > This report argues that offsets place disproportionate emphasis on > individual > > lifestyles and carbon footprints, distracting attention from the wider, > > systemic changes and collective political action that needs to be taken to > > > tackle climate change. Promoting more effective and empowering approaches > > involves moving away from the marketing gimmicks, celebrity endorsements, > > technological quick fixes, and the North/South exploitation that the > carbon > > offsets industry embodies." > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------- > > This mail sent through IMP: http://horde.org/imp/ > > > > ----- End forwarded message ----- > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------- > > This mail sent through IMP: http://horde.org/imp/ > > > > ----- End forwarded message ----- > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------- > > This mail sent through IMP: http://horde.org/imp/ > > > > ----- End forwarded message ----- > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------- > > This mail sent through IMP: http://horde.org/imp/ > > > > ----- End forwarded message ----- > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------- > > This mail sent through IMP: http://horde.org/imp/ > > _______________________________________________ > > Nocarbontrade-l mailing list > > [log in to unmask] > > http://mailman-new.greennet.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/nocarbontrade-l > > >