From GRIST - Offsets: Pissing the earth away
"Mommy, where do carbon offsets come from?"
"Well, you see sweetheart, when a major polluter and a consultant love money very, very much, they express that love in a special way. Nine months later, the consultant produces an extremely large paper packet."
Offsets, the idea that big corporations can pay someone else to cut emissions on their behalf still fails as badly today as when that was written. Polluters still pay money to an offset project. In turn the offset project pays a share of polluter money to a consultant who constructs a really convincing narrative explaining why that project emits fewer greenhouse gases than if the money had not been paid. The difference between the consultant's story and actual emissions is the emissions reduction available for sale. The polluter buys this instead of actually reducing pollution. It is a difference between reality and what unprovably might have been.
The Friends of the Earth new report Offsetting: a Dangerous Distraction [PDF] documents that this continues to be true. Scientific American agrees. The Economist reports on a scandal in Papua New Guinea, which many offset opponents think is a good example of what we can expect should large scale forestry offsets be included in a trading scheme.
Offset supporters have new arguments:
One is that we need to support offsets as part of the total Waxman-Markey package, because Waxman-Markey is our last chance for a U.S. climate bill. But there is no reason to believe that this IS our last chance. McCain-Lieberman was beaten back, and this new bill is on the table around a year later.
Read more from Gar over at GRIST
