Zero Emission Network

UNDER CONSTRUCTION UNDER CONSTRUCTION UNDER CONSTRUCTION

Overview

Offsets are currently part of the climate change response from the personal to the international level, yet there is much controversy surrounding offsets, what type should be used or even if they should be used at all.

On a personal level they purport to allow people to undertake activities and reduce their climate impact to zero or even a positive outcome as evidenced by these strong statements.

Carbon Planet - "Carbon credits are a way you can remove your personal impact on the greenhouse effect and thereby remove your contribution to climate change."

Easy Being Green - "Put simply, going 'Carbon Neutral' means calculating the amount of greenhouse gas emissions your life creates, and paying to reduce the equivalent emissions from entering the atmosphere somewhere else."

However the simple reality is under current systems of offsetting the GHG you have emitted will still be up in the atmosphere doing climate damage, so instead of being carbon or climate neutral they perform the function of climate compensation.

For example if you took an airplane flight and produced 1 unit of GHG and offset 1000 units of carbon buy buying renewable energy certificates the net effect would still be +1 unit GHG into the atmosphere as compared to +1001 if you didn't offset (discussed below).

Even seeking to absorb your emitted carbon by planting trees has a number of issues (discussed below).

On a International level offsets allow companies to nominally "reduce" their emissions by shopping around for the cheapest offset and thus supposedly benefiting the world by finding the least cost solutions and perhaps even investing in third world countries.

Before Offsetting (Climate Compensation)

Offsets should be your final step in responding to climate change.

Before you consider offsetting you should undertake the following actions.

1. Establish your goal to reduce your emissions to zero.
2. Seek to eliminate your greenhouse producing activity or conduct it using a non or low greenhouse gas polluting option.#
3. Conduct your activities as efficiently as possible
4. Offset (Climate Compensate) those emissions you then still have and be smart about the offsets you choose.
5. Review your efforts and improve.

#For example, with travel don't go OS on a holiday, don't eat meat, switch to 100% Greenpower from your electricity provider, or ride a bike or drive an electric car charged on green power rather than driving a petroleum car or catching the bus.

Roles of Offsets

Under a Zero Emission Minus Fast (ZEMF) goal offsets have very little if any role to play in a meaningful response to climate change.

Given the size and systemic nature of the changes we need to make, the two approaches currently used in offsetting have different roles to play in a ZEMF goal.

Both sequestering of atmospheric carbon and preventing emissions are core activities as we try and remove existing atmospheric GHG through human assisted and natural sequestration and reduce our emissions to zero.

So under this logic we do not offset our drive in a petrol powered car or plane. We simply don't do that GHG causing action, and choose a zero emission option instead such as riding a bike, using renewable powered trains or electric cars.

However until these societal scale systemic changes are implemented, offsets do have a number of positive roles that can be fulfilled.

Personal Offsets

There are two types of offsets.

1. Sequestering Offsets
2. Preventative Offsets

Sequestering Offsets

Sequestering offsets seek to absorb atmospheric carbon and store it.

They usually take the form of tree planting.

The growing trees absorb carbon in the atmosphere and incorporate it into the biomass of the plants.

Thus the carbon you have put into the atmosphere is absorbed and stored.

Is the logic sound?

Action	Avoided	Taken	Taken with Offset
Offset Effect	NA	NA	-1
Action Emissions	0	+1	+1
Totals	0	+1	0

So seemingly offsetting using trees makes sense and would remove your emission from the atmosphere, however see "Double Accounting Below"

Criticisms - Double Accounting

The concept of planting trees initially seems sound but sadly most of the planting is in areas where forest previously existed.

See diagrams of forest cover in Victoria below.

Victorian Forest Cover 1886

Victorian Forest Cover 1987- much of what is shown as forest in this image has been severally damaged by clear fell logging.

By planting trees back in these areas we are merely putting the carbon back that was released when the forests, woodlands and shrublands were cut down and burnt years earlier.

Action	Taken with Offset
Offset Effect	+1-1=0
Action Emissions	+1
Totals	+1

Additionally if a given tree planting offset program could show that an area was not treed before then you would question the ecological wisdom of planting in those areas now.

Criticisms - Fire

Tree based sequestering offsets are often criticised because they are not seen to be as stable in the longer term due to threat of fire or no permanent tenure of land.

If the offsets are only accounted for in standing timber and include species that are fire resistant then it is quite reasonable to expect the tree and the carbon they have sequestered to survive a fire (see images below).

The after effect of a fairly extreme fire showing the eucalyptus regenerating well. Very few trees have died.

You can see the regenerating native forest on the right, the dead plantation pine on the left and living pines are seen in the far left. The fire break completely failed to stop the fire moving from the native forests into the plantation.

Where the fire hit the plantation pine died.

Criticisms - Inability to calculate carbon

Some people claim you can't calculate the carbon forests. This is simply not true and a variety of scientifically and statistically valid mechanisms are in place for carbon calculations and auditing.

Criticisms - Albedo Effect

Some people present the albedo effect.....

Criticisms - Long time frames

Some offset companies will sell a forest based offset that takes 100 years to take the carbon out of the atmosphere.

By doing this you are certainly not going carbon neutral as your carbon will be out there effecting global warming over 100 years.

Ideally the carbon dioxide seeking to be offset should be absorbed by tree based planting within a much shorter time period such as one year.

This could easily be done by offsetting companies only selling the amount of carbon their forests absorb in one year, however some claim that this would make their offsets too expensive.

Criticisms - Threat of Climate Change

Some people argue that forests planted for sequestration will be vulnerable to destruction through the process of climate change itself.

We must acknowledge the potential threat to all ecosystems. If the global temperature keeps increasing and we get to the stage where our forest systems are under significant threat then humanity is in serious trouble as we and our remaining forests will be suffering the same fate.

Our goal is of course to avoid this state.

Native forests can withstand fire to some degree as mentioned above.

So whats their role now and into the future

In the short term Tree based Offset plans provide an opportunity to reestablish native vegetation biomass on cleared land, help provide climate corridors for migration of species and protect biodiversity in general.

Forests also play a critical role in low level cloud formation which helps cool the earth.

Under a Zero Emission Minus Fast goal biological sequestration would be supported not as offsets but in their own right in an effort to maximise the rate of atmospheric carbon removal and roles previously mentioned.

Preventative Emission Offsets

These fall into a number of types

• Efficiency
• Replacement Technology
• Forests and Land clearing
• Activists

Is the logic sound?

The key problem with preventative emission offsetting is that they are totally reliant on a pollution source to be in existence to get a credit referenced to.

Some also require reference to a future point where those emissions would be released without your intervention.

When you buy a preventive offset you are actually offsetting the original pollution and them seeking to claim you are offsetting your own pollution.

This is double accounting.

Energy Efficiency

Emissions you = 1 unit CO2-e
Future Emissions Avoided = 1 unit CO2-e
Change in Atmospheric Emissions = +1 unit CO2-e

Forests

Emissions you = 1 unit CO2-e
Future Emissions Avoided = 1 unit CO2-e
Change in Atmospheric Emissions = +1 unit CO2-e

Action	Avoided	Taken	Taken with Offset
Offset Effect	NA	NA	+1-1=0
Action Emissions	0	+1	+1
Totals	0	+1	+1

Criticisms

Preventative offsets are often

Criticisms - Avoided Deforestation - Alternative Future Scenarios

Some people argue against avoided deforestation on the groups we would not be sure that the forest would have infact been longed.

The logic here is flawed. It would be analogous to saying there is no point in undertaking energy efficiency because we are not sure we will still be using coal fired power stations in the future.

If logging is currently scheduled in a given area we can safely assume that it will be logged, and even some areas that are meant to be protected are currently being destroyed such as national parks in Indonesia.

In both the case of forest logging and coal fired generation there are many people trying to stop both for reasons other than climate change.

Criticisms - Avoided Deforestation - Displaced Impact

Some people argue against avoided deforestation based on displaced impact into other areas.

This will not increase the net area of forest being logged as all areas of forests not protected will be subject to logging and destruction.

The economic incentive for not logging and for protecting the forests into the long term must be higher than it is for logging. Then forests will be protected.

Criticisms - Time Lag

Life time offsets mean that the greenhouse gas will not be removed within one year.

For example Easy Being Green calculates that a 15,000 hour energy-saving light cuts CO2 pollution by 0.9 tonnes throughout its life. If the light was used 8 hours per day it would take over five years for the offset to meet.

The solution to this problem is the same as the solution relating to the time lag effect for tree planting which is that offsetting companies only sell the amount of carbon their forests absorb in one year.

In either case unsold offsets could be banked for later sale.

Preventative Emissions Under a Zero Minus Fast Scenario

This is a stronger requirement than for a Kyoto-compliant credit, which is required to abate the carbon dioxide for only 30 years.