Isn't the whole carbon credit system simply a way to appease our conscience? While I agree that the burning of fossil fuels has led to immense environmental degradation, I cannot help but wonder if we should not attempt more radical steps like changing our patterns of consumption or putting a cap on population numbers. If the carbon credit system fails to make any difference than what is the next step?

Julia: You are wondering in the right direction!

Indeed, the first and foremost priority is to dramatically reduce greenhouse gas emssions. In Canada that funadmentally means using dramatically less fossil fuels — coal, oil, gas. Canada is the least energy efficient country in the western world and we have huge win-win opportunities to cut energy use, thus cutting global warming pollution. Nor have we tapped the potential for zero and low-carbon sources of energy, such as solar, wind, hydro, geothermal.

It’s not ‘easy’ but it’s certainly not “radical” in fact unless it becomes absolutely expected and ‘normal’ for individuals, business and government, the planet and our livelihoods will suffer. Carbon offsets are at the bottom of the list of options, and should only be considered when there are un-avoidable emissions. I’ll address the credibility of carbon offsets in responding to another question.

Hello Julia, we live in a carbon (ie fossil fuel based)economy, right? So isn't carbon trading simply a way of monetizing and commoditizing CO2 emissions within our existing (carbon)economic framework thus allowing us to carry on business as usual?

Then how would carbon trading enable us to move away from our non-sustainable carbon economy towards a more sustainable society and economy?

Thanks.

Julia: This was answered above, ie: carbon trading is an important tool, but the real pre-condition is a legally-binding, absolute-reduction, carbon CAP to ratched down emissions. Trading is a ‘flexibility’ mechanism for the regulated industries which can spread the economic and technological burden.

The problem with our current ‘business as usual’ situation is that there is no limit on the amount of carbon that can be put out (for free).

I am a forester in New Brunswick and manage the forest extension services for the private forest industry. There is growing interest in the potential for those with private forest land to potentially subsidize new forest management strategies with carbon offset money. Others see offsets as a means of diversifying the income from their landbase in the face of a weakening forest industry. In regards to the 'additionality' requirements of a carbon offset, that being the requirement that offset money result in the sequestration of carbn that would not otherwise be captured through 'business as usual', what would a woodlot owner be required to do to prove additionality? There are so many unknowns and variables at play in determining the amount of forest carbon being sequestered I'm not sure how it can accurately be projected. Is the question of end use considered in this as well? i.e. what happens to the forest carbon, is it sequestered forever in some product or does it simply follow the natural carbon cycle back into the atmosphere in which case there is no net decrease. I would like some clarification as to what an owner would need to do, end to end, in order to bring one credit to market, and where that market is. Thank you very much for your help in this, I am recieving inquiries daily and have not as yet found any concrete answers.

Julia: There is a fundamental difference between fossil carbon (i.e. oil, coal and gas that is dug up and burned and adds carbon in the atmosphere) and biological carbon (plants and animals, which are part of the carbon cycle — pulling carbon out of the atmosphere as they grow and releasing it back into the atmosphere when they die.) Maintaining the biologial carbon bank is absolutely essential to avoiding dangerous climate change. Turning this into carbon credits is, however, a source of great debate.

First we have figure out the carbon accounting for forests and woodlots, which WWF is involved in. I sympathize with your interest and intentions, but not easy answers at this point.

What is the most effective way or method of calculating an office's carbon footprint? There seems to be many different "calculators" and systems out there but no one method has been used universally.

Julia: Thank goodness I can easily answer this because WWF just finished round-two of our office environmental management system. We used the GHG Protocol Initiative calculator tools which can be found at www.ghgprotocol.org.

More specifically, we used the cross sector tools found under the Calculation Tools > All Tools Tab and used spreadsheets for CO2 Emissions from Employee Commuting (Version 2.0. June, 2006), CO2 Emissions from Business Travel (Version 2.0. June, 2006) and Indirect CO2 Emissions from the Consumption of Purchased Electricity, Heat and/or Steam (Version 1.2. January, 2007).

Of course I could also answer what we’ve done, but that’s another question. A propos of this particular chat, however, WWF does purchase Gold Standard carbon offsets for our emissions.

How will governments ensure that the emissions a company emits do not exceed the credits the company owns? Will there be emissions measurement systems required of companies, on-site emissions reports, audits?

Julia: Governments will have to develop such systems. At the moment, the voluntary offset sector is not regulated, and still a bit of a ‘wild west’. That is why we helped establish the Gold Standard CDM credits which do require independent verification.

I was wondering if some "carbon credit" organizations are more reputable than others. How can I become education to know the difference?

Julia: There are two factors that have to be considered. First and foremost, has everything possible been done to reduce emissions? The fastest and most cost-effective way is energy conservation and efficiency. Every one of us can be dramatically less carbon-polluting. So can business and governments. WWF has just launched The Good Life: an online community for concerned Canadians who want to stop talking about climate change and start taking personal action. It's free, open to everyone, and I'd like to invite you to sign up right away (www.wwf.ca). Next step is to use renewable energy. It’s kind of like the old Reduce-Reuse-Recycle slogan — I have to think up an equally good catch-phrase for this topic.

There will be un-avoidable emissions, and this is where offsets play a role. Here the factor is the quality of the offset. There is a lot of ‘snake oil’ out there, which has seriously undermined the credibility of voluntary offsets. In particular, tree-planting projects are particularly suspect; not that planting trees is bad, but the priority for investment should be on emission reduction projects such as energy efficiency and renewable power and who can guarantee that the trees planted will be maintained.

Concern about the quality of offsets has not been alleviated by the recently announced Voluntary Carbon Standard (VCS) which WWF describes as a ‘bottom of the barrel benchmark’, offering only a very basic set of rules focused primarily on lowering transaction costs and thus carbon prices to consumers. Worse, there are serious loopholes which could lead to gaming by project developers and no requirement for environmental and social safeguards. WWF has called for a review and tightening of the system. WWF only recommends and endorses carbon offsets which are certified by the Gold Standard methodology. Otherwise it’s ‘buyer beware’.

On principle, some oppose offsets altogether, in order to keep the single-minded focus on reducing GHG emissions. I agree that offsets are problematic if used as an excuse for not reducing emissions, and while much serious stuff has been written about this, check out www.cheatneutral.com for a humorous perspective on why we can’t just buy our way out of the problem.

Is it possible that being able to buy carbon credits will just allow countries (and companies) to act as they always have? What would be the incentive to reduce emissions if money can still buy an easy way out?

Thanks,
Jody M