6 ms·

[Author of the original post here] I agree that some carbon offsets / credits are "high quality", i.e. represent actual, durable reductions in someone's emissi

[Author of the original post here] I agree that some carbon offsets / credits are "high quality", i.e. represent actual, durable reductions in someone's emissions. They can help with the important projects you mention. When the result is to durably sequester carbon from the atmosphere, I also agree that this is a good contribution toward net zero. I don't know anything about mangrove planting, but that sounds like it might fit. Certainly the Climeworks project someone mentioned elsewhere in this discussion fits. The problem is with "avoided emissions" offsets. Suppose X and Y are both emitting greenhouse gases, and X pays Y to stop. That's a half solution, but it is often treated as a complete solution: X looks good because they bought an offset, and Y looks good because they're no longer emitting anything. That's the shell game. Concretely, let's consider rainforest preservation. This is critically important, and plausibly (I don't actually know a lot about it) requires payments to relevant actors in places like Brazil. So yes, as a society, we need to come up with money for those payments. But we need to come up with that money in a way that doesn't let some other polluter permanently off the hook for their emissions. If an airline pays to protect some rainforest, says "hey look an offset", and declares victory, how will we ever address the airline's emissions? We've done some good in the short run (we accelerated the effort to preserve the rainforest), but then we arrive at a dead end. Cap-and-trade systems avoid this problem, if all of the buyers and sellers of credits are part of the system, and the cap is gradually reduced to zero. But if a company says "my plan to reach net zero relies heavily on purchasing offsets", outside of a cap-and-trade system that eventually squeezes avoided-emissions offsets to zero, then we're back to the shell game.

nonrandomstring 5y ago
Is there a moral question here about whether some things, like responsibility, are intrinsically "non-transferable"? When thinking of simple goods or services it seems fine that I can buy a car and then sell it. That's part of property rights. For other things like a medical prescription, driving license or degree certificate it seems correct that these things are somehow tied to an individual. Capitalism has evolved to allow transfer of many non-tangibles. Financialisation is really the ability to trade companies, and more importantly "titles and rights". Eventually this has extended to buying and selling debts. Through this mechanism we've accepted, in the limit, the trading of responsibility. Yet there are already obvious limits to this. If I murder a man I cannot sell that burden by contract, such that if I'm convicted another will go to prison in my stead.[1] These carbon trades feel a little bit more like this last case than selling a car. Should one get to commit a tangible harm and then offload the responsibility? [2] [1] actually I think this may have been historically possible in some cultures. [2] This is a Kantian question - because clearly under Utilitarian analysis I can simply claim a "greater good is served".
- snewman 5y ago
  It's an interesting question but I don't think it applies here. The problem with carbon offsets is not some moral question about my offloading my guilt to another party. The problem is that there's double-counting. Going back to the scenario, "suppose X and Y are both emitting greenhouse gases, and X pays Y to stop". Let's break that down: 1. Initially, X is emitting greenhouse gases. I'm not sure moral terminology is helpful here, but for the sake of discussion, we can say X is "guilty". 2. Initially, Y is also emitting greenhouse gases, they are also "guilty". 3. X makes a payment to Y, and Y halts their emissions. If we say that Y is no longer guilty, because they stopped emitting, then we must say that X is still guilty. If we say that X is no longer guilty, because they purchased an offset from Y, then we must say that Y is still guilty: they started out guilty, and they sold off the rights to their compensating action (halting emissions) to X. We started with two guilty parties, and only one compensating / atoning action was performed. There is no coherent framework in which it can be said that both parties are now innocent.
  - nonrandomstring 5y ago
    This is the stronger argument. It's more complete. Thank you for explaining. I think we don't disagree and that you recognise my "non-transferability of guilt" in your step 4. Anyway the double accounting makes a clearer case. edit: some clarity
  - dr_dshiv 5y ago
    But carbon emissions still go down, paid for by one party. What’s the issue?
    - nonrandomstring 5y ago
      > But carbon emissions still go down, paid for by one party. What’s the issue? Unfairness/inequity. That's why I said my question was not a Utilitarian one. I do not speak for the PP. edit: removed possible smartass condescension
      - 5y ago
dr_dshiv 5y ago
I don’t think anyone thinks that offsets are the complete solution. Eventually we will have low carbon flight tech. A lot of money is being invested in developing this but it takes time to transition. Your argument seems to be based on the idea that because it doesn’t totally solve the problem then it is a scam. But if it contributes to the solution and buys time then what is the problem? It is all about buying time. Tech is rapidly advancing. For instance, I was just in Dubai. Wow, that is an unsustainable city. Except that they are plowing wealth into solar. It is 13% solar powered today (plenty of sun in those parts) and will be 100% by 2050. That’s great. But the world needs time to transition. And if we can buy time by creating revenue streams for saving rainforest lands and mangrove forests and the like, that’s a win win. But it still isn’t enough without the tech. And yes, sure, it would be great if no one drove cars or flew. But short of economic collapse, we need time to transition. What am i missing?
- belorn 5y ago
  The energy grid is a prime example of why carbon offset do not work, and in some cases, actually create perverse incentives. For the last decade or so the major strategy has been carbon neutral energy grid by using the logic that if the total exports of green energy surpasses the consumption of fossil fuel energy then the net sum is positive. The assumption is that the export will displace fossil fuel energy. The result is that under this plan fossil fuel plants can continue to operate since its more profitable to export green energy than shutting down fossil fuel plants, and since nations need large capacity in transitions lines to do exports they can also increase imports. More and longer life time of existing fossil fuel plants, and increased consumption of imported fossil fuel generated energy, while politicians can claim that the grid is green. The strategy share much of the articles criticisms of carbon offset. The assumption that the exported energy will create avoided emissions is taken as a fact rather than a theory, with poor evaluation of the quality. If Everyone Did It, the strategy wouldn't work. Everyone can't just export massive amount of green energy while continuing burning more fossil fuels. Someone somewhere need to actually stop burning fossil fuel for emissions to go down. And like the article noticed, the market forces do not align to encourage people to stop emitting carbon.
- snewman 5y ago
kqr 5y ago
I read the entire article and didn't really get it until I read this paragraph: > The problem is with "avoided emissions" offsets. Suppose X and Y are both emitting greenhouse gases, and X pays Y to stop. That's a half solution, but it is often treated as a complete solution: X looks good because they bought an offset, and Y looks good because they're no longer emitting anything. That's the shell game. Incredibly well put. So, effectively, one actor's emissions can be made to count for twice its effect through the accounting trick that involves one actor paying the other for having reduced their emissions. However -- is this really a bad thing? Sure, it's not the full solution, but it's effectively a privately sponsored economic bonus for those actors that do choose to reduce their emissions. Sure, it should probably be rebranded so it's clear this is actually what happens. "Carbon-reduction contingent donation" or something.
- dr_dshiv 5y ago
  This. A “Shell game” implies scam. Call it a “half solution” and it is an appropriate criticism.

nonrandomstring 5y ago

Is there a moral question here about whether some things, like responsibility, are intrinsically "non-transferable"? When thinking of simple goods or services it seems fine that I can buy a car and then sell it. That's part of property rights. For other things like a medical prescription, driving license or degree certificate it seems correct that these things are somehow tied to an individual. Capitalism has evolved to allow transfer of many non-tangibles. Financialisation is really the ability to trade companies, and more importantly "titles and rights". Eventually this has extended to buying and selling debts. Through this mechanism we've accepted, in the limit, the trading of responsibility. Yet there are already obvious limits to this. If I murder a man I cannot sell that burden by contract, such that if I'm convicted another will go to prison in my stead.[1] These carbon trades feel a little bit more like this last case than selling a car. Should one get to commit a tangible harm and then offload the responsibility? [2] [1] actually I think this may have been historically possible in some cultures. [2] This is a Kantian question - because clearly under Utilitarian analysis I can simply claim a "greater good is served".

snewman 5y ago
It's an interesting question but I don't think it applies here. The problem with carbon offsets is not some moral question about my offloading my guilt to another party. The problem is that there's double-counting. Going back to the scenario, "suppose X and Y are both emitting greenhouse gases, and X pays Y to stop". Let's break that down: 1. Initially, X is emitting greenhouse gases. I'm not sure moral terminology is helpful here, but for the sake of discussion, we can say X is "guilty". 2. Initially, Y is also emitting greenhouse gases, they are also "guilty". 3. X makes a payment to Y, and Y halts their emissions. If we say that Y is no longer guilty, because they stopped emitting, then we must say that X is still guilty. If we say that X is no longer guilty, because they purchased an offset from Y, then we must say that Y is still guilty: they started out guilty, and they sold off the rights to their compensating action (halting emissions) to X. We started with two guilty parties, and only one compensating / atoning action was performed. There is no coherent framework in which it can be said that both parties are now innocent.
- nonrandomstring 5y ago
  This is the stronger argument. It's more complete. Thank you for explaining. I think we don't disagree and that you recognise my "non-transferability of guilt" in your step 4. Anyway the double accounting makes a clearer case. edit: some clarity
- dr_dshiv 5y ago
  But carbon emissions still go down, paid for by one party. What’s the issue?
  - nonrandomstring 5y ago
    > But carbon emissions still go down, paid for by one party. What’s the issue? Unfairness/inequity. That's why I said my question was not a Utilitarian one. I do not speak for the PP. edit: removed possible smartass condescension
    - 5y ago

dr_dshiv 5y ago

I don’t think anyone thinks that offsets are the complete solution. Eventually we will have low carbon flight tech. A lot of money is being invested in developing this but it takes time to transition. Your argument seems to be based on the idea that because it doesn’t totally solve the problem then it is a scam. But if it contributes to the solution and buys time then what is the problem? It is all about buying time. Tech is rapidly advancing. For instance, I was just in Dubai. Wow, that is an unsustainable city. Except that they are plowing wealth into solar. It is 13% solar powered today (plenty of sun in those parts) and will be 100% by 2050. That’s great. But the world needs time to transition. And if we can buy time by creating revenue streams for saving rainforest lands and mangrove forests and the like, that’s a win win. But it still isn’t enough without the tech. And yes, sure, it would be great if no one drove cars or flew. But short of economic collapse, we need time to transition. What am i missing?

belorn 5y ago
The energy grid is a prime example of why carbon offset do not work, and in some cases, actually create perverse incentives. For the last decade or so the major strategy has been carbon neutral energy grid by using the logic that if the total exports of green energy surpasses the consumption of fossil fuel energy then the net sum is positive. The assumption is that the export will displace fossil fuel energy. The result is that under this plan fossil fuel plants can continue to operate since its more profitable to export green energy than shutting down fossil fuel plants, and since nations need large capacity in transitions lines to do exports they can also increase imports. More and longer life time of existing fossil fuel plants, and increased consumption of imported fossil fuel generated energy, while politicians can claim that the grid is green. The strategy share much of the articles criticisms of carbon offset. The assumption that the exported energy will create avoided emissions is taken as a fact rather than a theory, with poor evaluation of the quality. If Everyone Did It, the strategy wouldn't work. Everyone can't just export massive amount of green energy while continuing burning more fossil fuels. Someone somewhere need to actually stop burning fossil fuel for emissions to go down. And like the article noticed, the market forces do not align to encourage people to stop emitting carbon.
snewman 5y ago

kqr 5y ago

I read the entire article and didn't really get it until I read this paragraph: > The problem is with "avoided emissions" offsets. Suppose X and Y are both emitting greenhouse gases, and X pays Y to stop. That's a half solution, but it is often treated as a complete solution: X looks good because they bought an offset, and Y looks good because they're no longer emitting anything. That's the shell game. Incredibly well put. So, effectively, one actor's emissions can be made to count for twice its effect through the accounting trick that involves one actor paying the other for having reduced their emissions. However -- is this really a bad thing? Sure, it's not the full solution, but it's effectively a privately sponsored economic bonus for those actors that do choose to reduce their emissions. Sure, it should probably be rebranded so it's clear this is actually what happens. "Carbon-reduction contingent donation" or something.

dr_dshiv 5y ago
This. A “Shell game” implies scam. Call it a “half solution” and it is an appropriate criticism.