http://greenexplorer.ovi.com/getinspired/north-america/usa/energy-saving-4-grid-unlocked-towns/

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/interactive/2009/oct/20/guardian-quick-carbon-calculator

They argue that its the best one available because it includes various types of consumption related to emissions, not only energy use (e.g., shopping, eating out, etc). Its pretty easy to use (all it requires is sliding buttons up an down consumption scales), and it also includes an explanation on how they devised their methdology for the calculation .

But what will it take to bring atmospheric carbon dioxide back to below 350 ppm?

The 350 ppm target is far more ambitious than the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (the IPCC) target range of 450 ppm (which they estimate will result in an approximately 2 degree increase in mean global temperature) to 550ppm (leading to an approximately 3% spike in the mercury).  Professor Partha Gastupta, a leading Cambridge University climate economist, says that current estimates are that it will cost between 2% and 10% of current gross domestic product (GDP) to meet the IPCC’s 450ppm/2 degree target.  The influential Stern Review commissioned by the UK Government suggested that it would cost an estimated 1% of global GDP until 2050 to keep CO2 levels at 500 to 550ppm. Indeed, the Stern Review also issued this stern warning: “Stabilisation at 450ppm … is already almost out of reach, given that we are likely to reach this level within ten years and that there are real difficulties of making the sharp reductions required with current and foreseeable technologies”.  Make no mistake, getting atmospheric carbon back below 350 parts per million is a monumental challenge.

Can it be done?  Costs that are measured in percentages of global GDP represent staggering sums of money.  They should be kept in perspective though.  GDP in western and major emerging economies has been growing at an annual rate of 3% per annum for the last 30 years.  So, even setting aside 10% of GDP to deal with climate change only takes developed countries back to where they were three to five years ago.  In this light, the Stern Review’s 1% estimate begins to look eminently manageable and perhaps not sufficiently ambitious, in the light of the alarming scientific evidence that has emerged since the Review was published in 2006.  We need to consider too, that global economic growth has, after all, been underwritten by cheap, and as it turns out, unsustainable fossil fuels.  Ending our gigantic gamble with the planet’s climate demands that we adopt a longer time horizon for cost calculations than economists are accustomed to working with.

Predicting innovation is notoriously difficult, and we may discover, if the world commits to the reductions climate scientists say we need to avoid a climate crisis, that reducing emissions is less costly than the Stern Review and other estimates assume.  Amory Lovins, a respected experimental physicist, believes that climate economists have greatly understated the efficiency gains that are within our grasp and that experience suggests that investing in efficiency, even on a massive scale, will cost less than the cost of fuel we no longer use.  So, why are we not tapping into those efficiency gains, when it is both profitable and urgent? Part of it has to do with an economic system that rewards the wrong sort of behaviour. There are dozens of examples but here is one from Lovins: If the government penalises utility suppliers for cutting your electricity bill, as is the case in most states in the United States, then you can expect utilities and their customers to use more energy and produce more greenhouse gases.

The shortest route to a significant reduction in carbon emissions is a global commitment to strong emission reduction targets in Copenhagen, coupled with taxes on carbon imposed by the signatories.  While environmental taxes are sometimes considered a cop-out that allows polluters to “buy their way out of the problem”, 350.org co-founder Bill McKibbon agrees that a tax on carbon is the most important step towards averting climate catastrophe.  The higher the price of emitting carbon, the greater is the incentive to reduce emissions.  The amount of the carbon tax reflects policy choices about how much atmospheric carbon we are willing to live with.  A global commitment to 350 ppm will mean a much higher tax on carbon, and therefore a higher carbon price, than most governments are currently considering (if they are considering a carbon tax at all).

See more about them at www.cheatneutral.com

This naturally makes developed countries look good, and developing countries look bad. I might be wrong, but does this not leave tradebale carbon credits in Britain that developing countries may have to buy to produce pollution on our behalf.

A final point made is if historical carbon emissions are considered, the US, Germany and UK have produced the most. Should they therefore not do the most about reducing their carbon emissions now, at home and away?

Read the article at – http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8283909.stm

A helpful start is to broadly understand what an offset is and why they are considered beneficial

1. An offset represents the reduction, removal, or avoidance of Green House Gas (GHG) emissions from a specific project that is used to compensate for GHG emissions occurring elsewhere
2. A principle benefit is that the “Offsets prompt the market to seek out and take advantage of the lowest cost reduction opportunities first, resulting in the most economically efficient distribution of reduction efforts and mitigation funding. This reduces the overall costs of the program, which should translate to a higher level of political support.” See (http://www.offsetqualityinitiative.org/benefits_off.htm) for other benefits.

There are two questions I believe need answering in order to assess how to offset my flights:
1. To which project / organisation should I pay my carbon offset?
2. What is the true cost to the environment of a flight and hence the amount I should pay to offset a flight?

Part 1: What project / organisation should I pay my carbon offset?

The standard approach is to pay an organisation that in turn invests in a project that reduces carbon emissions, as is the case with carbon offsets paid to British Airways.

Obviously when one pays for a carbon offset one wants to feel that ones money and the project it funds will is actually reduce carbon emissions. Below is a list of risks that impact a projects ability to effectively reduce GHG, which should be considered when choosing an offset project:

• Additionality – whether the project (saving a rain forest, building a wind farm, capturing methane or carbon sequestration) would have happened anyway. Said differently, the revenue from selling the project’s emission reductions is reasonably expected to have incentivised the project’s implementation.

• Real – offsets should be real; in other words, they should represent actual emission reductions and not be artifacts of incomplete or inaccurate accounting.

• Certified – offsets should also be monitored and quantified in accordance with established standards, and be verified by an independent third party.

• Leakage – the situation in which a carbon sequestration activity (e.g., tree planting) on one piece of land inadvertently, directly or indirectly, triggers an activity which, in whole or part, counteracts the carbon effects of the initial activity

• Permanence – that an offset is permanent i.e. ensure a forest saved from deforestation is not ultimately cut down.

• Duplicate – Offsets should be unambiguously owned, serialized, and accounted for in a registry to ensure they are not double counted or sold twice.

• Social or other project consequences – ensure that non-GHG considerations are adequately addressed i.e. consider the consequence of a project that reduces employment levels

If the company you pay your carbon offset to does not list specific projects one must rely on the accreditation organisations to perform the review. Carbon offset calculations and projects are complex and many of the parties involved have a profit motive. It is therefore likely or possible that projects may not have adequate controls to guard against the risks listed above that result in the publicised offset not being achieved.

Offset Quality Initiative (OQI) (www.offsetqualityinitiative.org) classifies offsets as one of three types and comments on whether it is suited for a regulatory offset program. This implies that certain types of offsets are more likely to result in actual, permanent and measurable offsets than others, as discussed below.

“Broadly speaking, OQI believes that direct emission-reduction projects — projects that cause emission reductions at the project site, such as capture and combustion of landfill methane — are best suited for use in a regulatory offset program.”

“Indirect emission-reduction projects are defined as projects that cause emission reductions at a location other than the project site, such as the installation of energy efficient equipment in a building that results in reduced power plant emissions.”

OQI states that due to difficulty in establishing ownership and the risk of emission reductions being double counted, Indirect emission projects should not be funded through offset, but through other incentives.

OQI believes the third project type Biological sequestration carries a risk of impermanence or susceptible to leakage, as explained below.

“Biological sequestration projects, such as reforestation and rangeland management, utilize natural processes to remove and store GHG from the atmosphere or avoid GHG emissions by preventing the release of stored carbon. OQI recognizes that while this is a vital category of mitigation opportunities, there are unique challenges inherent in integrating biologically based sequestration credits into a regulatory offset framework. These challenges include issues surrounding baseline establishment, permanence, and
leakage. However, OQI believes that policy mechanisms and criteria can be designed and implemented to ensure that biological sequestration activities play a credible role in the offset market.”

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPPC) describes leakage as follows:

“Leakage refers to the situation in which a carbon sequestration activity (e.g., tree planting) on one piece of land inadvertently, directly or indirectly, triggers an activity which, in whole or part, counteracts the carbon effects of the initial activity. It can be shown that most of these types of problems arise from differential treatment of carbon in different regions and circumstances, and the problem is not unique to carbon sequestration activities but pervades carbon mitigation activities in the energy sector as well.”

“In land use, leakage can occur from either protection or planting activities. Suppose, for example, that a forest or wetland that was to be cleared is instead protected. Protection of one such forest or wetland may simply deflect the pressure to another piece of land that is not protected and will be cleared instead. Leakage can occur across both spatial and temporal boundaries. Additionally, a forest protected in one year is subject to the possibility of clearing in subsequent years.“
(http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg3/174.htm)

So that’s a little something on the risks and considerations of carbon offset projects. However, there is another option, what if the money I was going to spend on carbon offsets could instead be donated to an environmental pressure group that aims to ensure the correct GHG legislation is passed nationally and globally.

This decision clearly removes the direct connection between the GHG my flights caused and the remedy, but it does feel that stronger regulation or global agreement on reduction of GHG emissions is likely to be the best way to “Save the World”, especially in the lead up to United Nations Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen in December of this year. So that’s what I chose.

There are obviously many non- direct carbon trade projects to support, such as family planning programs or programs that make euthanasia more publically acceptable especially in Western Nations where people consume significant resources.

Andrew Winston from the Huffington Post makes a good point when he wrote, “Because not creating carbon to begin with is the highest quality offset around” and is definitely the first prize.

Part 2 – Some thoughts on, What is the true cost to the environment of a flight and hence the amount I should pay to offset a flight? will follow some time soon…

See the article on the aviation industry’s plan here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/sep/21/airlines-carbon-emissions-cut

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/sep/15/obama-healthcare-climate-change-copenhagen

http://www.bbc.co.uk/bloom