Emission offsets might actually be harmful

Or so says this BBC article I unearthed today. The system is harmful, it says, because people believe action is being taken to reduce greenhouse gas emissions when they buy offsets when, in fact, it is, arguably, a way to subsidize 'good energy' in order to justify 'bad energy' usage.

"Current emissions-trading schemes have proved to be little more than a shell game, allowing polluters in the developed world to shift the burden of making cuts onto factories in the developing world. Too often factory owners use the additional profits banked from carbon credits to expand their dirty factories. Even more worrying, emissions trading may have set back the battle against climate change by diverting investment from renewable-energy technology, which arguably is essential to any long-term solution," according to Newsweek International.

And, even in the countries that have yet to ratify the Kyoto, are now scrambling to get on the bandwagon. For every action, there is, of course, an equal and opposite reaction. So, Al Gore won an Oscar. He may, also, have created a monster.

Sustainable Philantrophy?

In a world with finite resources, it seems fair to say that massive accumulation of wealth for less than 10% of the world's population actually hinders the poor and those hovering just above the poverty line from obtaining a fair income and a reasonable standard of living. So, instead of simply looking for ways to alleviate circumstances of poor communities by offering hand-outs and sending out teams of well-meaning Westerners to evaluate improvements in living standards (from a lack thereof) in existing underdeveloped locations, a "new" approach from sustainability camps calls for the "dismantling" of excessive wealth to help provide resources for all people. Philanthropists like Charles Feeney have been sited as possible role-models. 'Chuck' Feeney made a fortune as the founder of Duty Free Shoppers Ltd and secretly gave away all but $5 million of his $4 billion in donations to universities, educational organizations, low-income housing initiatives, job training programs, and hospitals both in the US and Ireland. The now 70-year-old is quoted as saying, “I believe that people of substantial wealth potentially create problems for future generations unless they themselves accept responsibility to use their wealth during their lifetime to help worthwhile causes."

Blueprint for sustainable philantrophy? Certainly a better model than your usual charitable one. Teach a man how to fish and you will feed him for life. Is that how the saying goes? Food for thought.

How much is carbon worth?

Termed as an 'EU Allowance', the carbon trading commodity under the EU Emissions Trading Scheme is presently valued at approximately Euro 26 per tonne of CO2 emitted or abated. Of course, there are conflicting estimates from various sources, but the graph below is courtesy of ICF International, who came up with the figures graphed below.
Two key drivers that ICF sites in their analysis are, firstly, the introduction into the carbon market of assigned amount units (AAU), or so called “hot air” allowances, from Russia and Ukraine; and, secondly, the implementation of cost-effective, large-scale power sector abatement options within Europe, as new combined cycle gas turbine (CCGT) power plants come on line in specific markets where high value opportunities emerge.

In any event, an EU Allowance price leaning more towards 15 euros would certainly help drive major investment financing emission reduction projects, which include energy efficiency measures to cut overall emissions AND renewable energy sources such as wind, hydro, biomass and landfill developments. ETS schemes are an attractive way to encourage both government and industry to put their money where their mouth is when it comes to "going green". Even countries outside the Kyoto Protocol regime, such as Australia and the US, admit that emissions trading is an important part of the global policy mix for humanity achieving a significant win in the fight against climate change. It would seem international emissions trading is an inevitable recourse. The question is simply when?

Why ConversationZ on Sustainability?

Ever since An Inconvenient Truth came out and won Al Gore an Oscar, the whole "green is good" movement all of a sudden became mainstream. Now, more so than ever, people everywhere have something to say about climate change and how we can all get on the green bandwagon...errr, I mean... contribute.

Heck, I blog about it. So what makes my talking about it any different to just simply blowing more hot air on an already hot topic?

My point is precisely this: our conversations possess a powerful potential for change. If I didn't believe so, then I'd certainly have a different blog title.

But are we challenging others around us to awaken to more caring and impeccability about the environment because we ourselves behave in ways that champion sustainability or do we just talk the talk? Question is, are we willing to speak out to family, friends, peers and acquaintances when we observe practices known to be detrimental to ourselves, not to mention the planet?

Salad for thought? Perhaps, but I'm not here to preach. So, for you garden-variety city-dweller who wants to go green but doesn't know where to begin, here's my tip: crank up the green machine to get your conversation started. Then, come back and let's talk some more.