Comments on: Carbon Offsets: Why No Two are Created Equal http://www.triplepundit.com/2008/06/carbon-offsets-why-no-two-are-created-equal/ Business, Better. Since 2005 Sat, 21 Nov 2009 00:18:23 -0800 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.6 hourly 1 By: Mike http://www.triplepundit.com/2008/06/carbon-offsets-why-no-two-are-created-equal/comment-page-1/#comment-10932 Mike Thu, 17 Jul 2008 16:38:18 +0000 http://www.triplepundit.com/wordpress/2008/06/carbon-offsets-why-no-two-are-created-equal/#comment-10932 Hi, I have a question about methane capture. If carbon offset companies consider one ton of methane 21 carbon credits, but then they burn the methane to dispose of it. That destroys the methane but releases CO2 back into the air. Are they ripping me off? I was thinking of buying my credits with just people that plant trees instead of the methane capture method. It appears a little shady. I have a funny feeling that my 21 carbon credits are more like 10. Hi,
I have a question about methane capture. If carbon offset companies consider one ton of methane 21 carbon credits, but then they burn the methane to dispose of it. That destroys the methane but releases CO2 back into the air. Are they ripping me off? I was thinking of buying my credits with just people that plant trees instead of the methane capture method. It appears a little shady. I have a funny feeling that my 21 carbon credits are more like 10.

]]> By: Jason Smith http://www.triplepundit.com/2008/06/carbon-offsets-why-no-two-are-created-equal/comment-page-1/#comment-10931 Jason Smith Mon, 16 Jun 2008 20:43:54 +0000 http://www.triplepundit.com/wordpress/2008/06/carbon-offsets-why-no-two-are-created-equal/#comment-10931 What I find particularly fascinating about LiveCooler's project is that it fits the model so many of us have in our heads about what offsets should look like in terms of co-benefits, distributed behavior change at the consumer level, etc. Yet, the actual markets have a real difficulty capturing these reductions due to one of the very things that make it a great offset. That is, because the reductions occur at such a micro-level, one household at a time, they are almost impossible to calculate precisely. Who so ever cracks this nut will yield the fruit of the carbon future. Kudos to Jay for getting a head start on the markets! What I find particularly fascinating about LiveCooler’s project is that it fits the model so many of us have in our heads about what offsets should look like in terms of co-benefits, distributed behavior change at the consumer level, etc. Yet, the actual markets have a real difficulty capturing these reductions due to one of the very things that make it a great offset. That is, because the reductions occur at such a micro-level, one household at a time, they are almost impossible to calculate precisely.
Who so ever cracks this nut will yield the fruit of the carbon future. Kudos to Jay for getting a head start on the markets!

]]> By: JenBoynton http://www.triplepundit.com/2008/06/carbon-offsets-why-no-two-are-created-equal/comment-page-1/#comment-10930 JenBoynton Tue, 10 Jun 2008 19:59:28 +0000 http://www.triplepundit.com/wordpress/2008/06/carbon-offsets-why-no-two-are-created-equal/#comment-10930 Hi Jay, Thanks for your thoughts! It sounds like you have a great start with your 5% assumption. I'd be curious to hear how you arrived at that figure, because my gut tells me that the actual failure rate would probably be a bit higher. Do you account for the end of life as well? Regarding your second point, I would say that the tangibility of co-benefits makes them very appealing for consumers because they are easy to understand. The downside is that they aren't as precise. It's much more difficult to measure with precision what the carbon savings will be because there is so much user variability. For example, you can't predict how many hours the light bulb will actually be turned on in someone's home. The carbon offset is based on the amount of energy the CFL bulb saves compared to a traditional bulb, right? If you don't know how many hours the bulb will be used for, you can't accurately predict the amount of carbon savings. The carbon offset is all about the precision of that golden metric ton. Regarding your final point, I guess it depends on how you are calculating your offset. The bulbs certainly aren't permanent-- they'll fail eventually, but you include end of life in your assumptions and calculate the emissions savings using the emissions factor for the utility company in the local area where the bulbs are distributed, your carbon emissions could be considered permanent. It's nearly impossible to prove they are additional though. Don't get me wrong. It sounds like you are really trying to do a good thing. I would recommend that you go for conservative assumptions whenever you can, and you go out of your way to make sure they are as accurate as they can be, because there is so much uncertainty at play. Your offsets will be more trustworthy that way, which might score you some extra buyers. Hi Jay,
Thanks for your thoughts!
It sounds like you have a great start with your 5% assumption. I’d be curious to hear how you arrived at that figure, because my gut tells me that the actual failure rate would probably be a bit higher. Do you account for the end of life as well?
Regarding your second point, I would say that the tangibility of co-benefits makes them very appealing for consumers because they are easy to understand. The downside is that they aren’t as precise. It’s much more difficult to measure with precision what the carbon savings will be because there is so much user variability. For example, you can’t predict how many hours the light bulb will actually be turned on in someone’s home. The carbon offset is based on the amount of energy the CFL bulb saves compared to a traditional bulb, right? If you don’t know how many hours the bulb will be used for, you can’t accurately predict the amount of carbon savings. The carbon offset is all about the precision of that golden metric ton.
Regarding your final point, I guess it depends on how you are calculating your offset. The bulbs certainly aren’t permanent– they’ll fail eventually, but you include end of life in your assumptions and calculate the emissions savings using the emissions factor for the utility company in the local area where the bulbs are distributed, your carbon emissions could be considered permanent. It’s nearly impossible to prove they are additional though.
Don’t get me wrong. It sounds like you are really trying to do a good thing. I would recommend that you go for conservative assumptions whenever you can, and you go out of your way to make sure they are as accurate as they can be, because there is so much uncertainty at play. Your offsets will be more trustworthy that way, which might score you some extra buyers.

]]> By: Jay Barnes http://www.triplepundit.com/2008/06/carbon-offsets-why-no-two-are-created-equal/comment-page-1/#comment-10929 Jay Barnes Tue, 10 Jun 2008 14:51:22 +0000 http://www.triplepundit.com/wordpress/2008/06/carbon-offsets-why-no-two-are-created-equal/#comment-10929 Hi Jen. I am the head of a non-profit <a href='http://www.livecooler.org' rel="nofollow">livecooler.org</a> that creates charitable offsets from energy-efficient light bulb installations. The light bulbs go to low-income families.<br /><br /> I liked your description of the offset project types. A couple of comments on your description of Energy Efficiency Projects:<br /><br /> "These offsets are great for their social co-benefits, but from a carbon standpoint they are problematic because it is difficult to prove that people will use the new technologies, that they will not break, and that they will be used exclusively over the traditional products."<br /><br /> We address the difficulty of proving that the bulbs don't get de-installed by assuming that they do get de-installed. We assume roughly 5% per year get removed and factor that into the calculation of how much CO2 is offset.<br /><br /> And our energy efficiency-based offsets have one strength that you imply but don't mention, that unlike the renewable energy infrastructure, our offsets are more tangible or more directly tied to the offset. Do you agree?<br /><br /> Also, did you mean to say that energy-efficiency offsets are not permanent? The energy efficient bulbs are not permanent but the offset is permanent, right? Otherwise, one could say that because a wind turbine needs replacing in 20 years means it is not permanent?<br /> Hi Jen. I am the head of a non-profit livecooler.org that creates charitable offsets from energy-efficient light bulb installations. The light bulbs go to low-income families.

I liked your description of the offset project types. A couple of comments on your description of Energy Efficiency Projects:

“These offsets are great for their social co-benefits, but from a carbon standpoint they are problematic because it is difficult to prove that people will use the new technologies, that they will not break, and that they will be used exclusively over the traditional products.”

We address the difficulty of proving that the bulbs don’t get de-installed by assuming that they do get de-installed. We assume roughly 5% per year get removed and factor that into the calculation of how much CO2 is offset.

And our energy efficiency-based offsets have one strength that you imply but don’t mention, that unlike the renewable energy infrastructure, our offsets are more tangible or more directly tied to the offset. Do you agree?

Also, did you mean to say that energy-efficiency offsets are not permanent? The energy efficient bulbs are not permanent but the offset is permanent, right? Otherwise, one could say that because a wind turbine needs replacing in 20 years means it is not permanent?

]]>