| Source – Times of India – The Economist |
| Washing off sins of emission The sale of indulgences by the Catholic church in the early 16th century, whereby people could, in effect, purchase forgiveness of past sins by handing over enough money, was condemned by Martin Luther and other reformers. Today, some environmentalists are denouncing the “offsetting” of carbon emissions in similar terms. A company that wants to declare itself “carbon neutral” calculates how many tonnes of carbon it emits, and then offsets the emissions by paying someone else not to emit that amount of carbon on its behalf. Just as Luther criticised indulgences, critics of offsetting argue that the ability to buy retrospective forgiveness for sins of emission is no substitute for not sinning in the first place.
Carbon offsets have two main purposes. One, as with indulgences, is to assuage guilt. Carbon offsetting allows consumers to quell their eco-guilt even as they jet off to distant climes on holiday, and drivers of sports-utility vehicles to argue that they have atoned for the emissions produced by their gas-guzzling cars. A second purpose is image-polishing: companies that declare themselves carbon neutral may well have public-relations as well as environmental benefits in mind. To fulfil those purposes, carbon offsets do need to reduce carbon emissions. Existing schemes are far from perfect. One popular sort involves planting trees, which remove carbon from the atmosphere as they grow; but this approach is now somewhat discredited, since the carbon may be released again when the trees are cut down. Another problem with offset schemes is the lack of standards: can you really trust those who promise to eliminate emissions elsewhere on your behalf ? Then there is the problem of “additionality”: would the emissions in question have been eliminated anyway, or is the reduction additional? Since offsetting is done on a voluntary basis, unlike the mandatory carbontrading systems that have been imposed on some industries in some countries, such doubts may put people off doing it altogether. After all, only wideranging, compulsory schemes will make a real difference in reducing emissions and minimising climate change; the odd bit of offsetting here and there will not. Despite such flaws, however, the idea of carbon offsets is a good one. Establishing markets in which carbon emissions can be traded and offset is a good idea, since market forces then provide financial incentives for people to find the cheapest ways to reduce or eliminate emissions. The lack of standards is also being addressed. Various bodies are creating standards and inspection regimes that will allow buyers of carbon offsets to feel confident that they really are getting what they pay for (see article). And many firms are embracing voluntary offsetting now in the expectation that compulsory carbon trading will soon be imposed upon them anyway. The right way to not do something Yet as the nascent carbon-offsetting industry starts to take shape, a new problem is emerging. Some of the nongovernmental organisations that are drawing up carbon-offset standards require emissions to be cut in particular ways: after due consultation with local people, for example, or using particular favoured technologies. Such considerations are irrelevant: the only thing that should matter in offset schemes is that emissions should be cut. Politicising offsets risks discrediting an approach that deserves to be taken seriously. And that really would be a sin. THE ECONOMIST Publication: Times of India Mumbai; Date:Aug 5, 2006; Section: Times Business; Page Number:24 |