TNR BLOGS

July 04, 2009 | 11:58 AM
July 04, 2009 | 11:32 AM
July 04, 2009 | 8:16 AM

March 09, 2009 | 5:19 PM
March 09, 2009 | 5:16 PM
January 07, 2009 | 12:20 PM

July 01, 2009 | 10:33 PM
June 30, 2009 | 8:42 AM
June 29, 2009 | 9:09 AM

July 26, 2008 | 2:24 PM
July 23, 2008 | 1:55 PM
July 17, 2008 | 3:56 PM

July 03, 2009 | 10:13 PM
July 02, 2009 | 12:57 PM
July 01, 2009 | 7:02 PM
COLUMNISTS
TODAY'S STORIES
09.10.2008
Carbon Offsets: Still Raging, Still Dubious

A few days ago, The Washington Post had a piece noting that the financial crisis hasn't really crimped the market for carbon offsets—many consumers are still willing to tack an additional $12 on a cross-country flight or $80 on a wedding to pay for some emissions-reducing project somewhere and alleviate their guilt over spewing so much carbon. But the piece also had a perfect anecdote to illustrate just how ludicrous many of these "offset" projects are:

In the western Virginia town of Christiansburg, the operators of a landfill sell carbon offsets tied to a project that captures methane, a powerful greenhouse pollutant, and burn it in a tall orange flare. They've made $43,000 on the Chicago Climate Exchange in just a couple of months.

But that project was put in long before the offsets were sold and for a different reason: to keep dangerous gases from accumulating in a capped landfill. So if the offset market dried up completely?

Nothing would change.

The money "is gravy to us right now," said Alan Cummins, executive director of the regional authority that runs the landfill. Even without it, he said, "we would always continue to flare."

That's insane. The GAO recently found that the offset market—which could be as large as $100 million—was so opaque and loosely regulated that "it is difficult for consumers to determine the quality of the offsets they purchase." If your offsets are going toward a new wind farm, how do you know that that wind farm wouldn't have been built anyway? If the offsets are being used to plant trees, can you be sure that that's a true offset—what if the tree burns down next year? (And what if planting trees in certain deciduous regions can actually increase warming, as some studies have found?) If the offsets are used to pay someone not to cut down a forest somewhere, how do you know the logger won't just take the money and go cut down some other forest somewhere else? That doesn't mean offsets are totally unworkable, but they certainly need a great deal more scrutiny than is happening right now.

--Bradford Plumer

Posted: Thursday, October 09, 2008 6:12 PM with 8 comment(s)

Comments

You must be logged-in to comment.

Not a subscriber? Click here to get a digital or print and digital subscription to The New Republic!

fernandd said:

Are you serious?  Burning methane in a giant flare?  What about using it for power production, or gas heating?  That is completely ridiculous.  

If that kind of thing is commonplace, it's totally absurd to imagine we can't get off of foreign oil and that right soon.

October 9, 2008 2:39 PM

quarksmb2 said:

Almost all methane recovery systems operating at landfills in the USA are mandated by either Federal (RCRA Subtitle D or Clean Air Act) or state/local rules, and are therefore not eligible for carbon credits.  There are several hundred landfill methane recovery systems which do use the methane for its energy (usually as fuel in on-site electrical generators, whereby power is sold to the local utility).  However, the economics does not always justify the higher capital cost of power generation relative to simple flaring.  The rate the local utility will pay for the power isn't enough, or the landfill is too small.  But these situations -- gas flaring without energy recovery and/or NOT legally mandated -- are getting pretty rare.

October 11, 2008 6:45 PM

Environment and Energy said:

It's never that surprising to hear that some companies aren't nearly as "green" as

January 5, 2009 12:45 AM

Environment and Energy said:

Barack Obama's inaugural speech yesterday spent more time dwelling on energy and environmental issues

January 21, 2009 1:20 PM

Environment and Energy said:

I have to admit, one of the more intriguing voices on climate these days is Bob Corker, the junior Republican

January 28, 2009 12:38 PM

Environment and Energy said:

It's hard to find anyone who really adores the idea of using a cap-and-trade system to curb our carbon

February 24, 2009 12:46 PM

Triple Pundit said:

The global economic slowdown has prices falling and standards rising in the carbon offsets markets. In the long run, the implications seem to be positive; then why it's bad for overall sustainability?

March 20, 2009 10:13 AM

Environment and Energy said:

I was out of commission yesterday and couldn't comment on the big draft energy bill released by Henry

April 1, 2009 12:36 PM