In the news today, ConocoPhillips is reporting that they will spend $10 Million to offset the carbon emissions of a proposed refinery expansion in the Bay Area. I have mixed feelings about this, but basically think it’s a good thing. On the one hand it lends a big boost to the legitimacy of carbon offsets, most of the money will be tied to indirect and difficult to audit projects such as wetlands restoration and tree planting. It also would seem to give people the idea that dumping a bunch of money on such projects suddenly makes it “ok” to burn a lot more oil. But unfortunately, that seems like what we’re destined to do for a while whether we offset or not.
What do you think?
ConocoPhillips $10 Million Deal to to Offset Expansion
By Nick Aster | September 12th, 2007 
3 Comments
3P's Most Popular Posts
What's Hot:
Sponsors
Where We’re Going
Nov 19, 09
San Jose: The Tech Awards
Dec 2, 09
Bard CEP National Climate Seminar: Hon. Ed Markey Sponsor event
Dec 16, 09
Bard CEP National Climate Seminar: Eban Goodstein, Live from Copenhagen Sponsor event
Partners
Comments
September 12, 2007 at 17:37 pm PDT | Anonymous writes:
It’s dubious at best. Most of the money for offsets tend to end up with projects that have already been started / completed irregardless of the offsets themselves. It’s not adding any carbon-free capacity, in other words. Offsets and credits, in my mind, only work if there’s a cap that forces industry to reduce overall emissions over time.
September 13, 2007 at 2:41 am PDT | Arthur Browning writes:
“Oil – Last Bastion of the 19th Century” – read this “Energy Crisis or Political Profiteering?” at
http://ezinearticles.com/?Energy-Crisis-or-Political-Profiteering?&id=725936
September 16, 2007 at 18:56 pm PDT | Business Marketing writes:
Offsetting carbon emissions is great, but it really doesn’t help to solve the bigger issue which is rapidly increasing oil consumption by the whole world.