The debate over carbon offsets gets heated

Here’s a note from Mark Trexler:

When 80 NGOs, including very credible and thoughtful groups, recently called for an end to the use of carbon offsets in corporate climate strategies, friends and colleagues fired back. I’m putting together an analysis of the NGO letter and of pushback to the letter which I’ll be able to point you to soon. But along the way something occurred to me that I’m interested to get initial reactions to.

– Vitriolic exchanges between offset advocates and opponents come and go, usually triggered by a critical news headline – of which there is a never-ending supply. The arguments used in these exchanges almost always represent “small world model” views of carbon offsets that usually draw from the following two categories:

– That the role of carbon offsets should be minimized or abandoned because: 1) offsets facilitate greenwashing; 2) offsets don’t deliver on their intended climate benefit; 3) offsets delay “real” action on climate change; 4) offsets immorally facilitate “paying to pollute;” and 5) offsets ate carbon colonialism.

– That the role of carbon offsets should be expanded because: 1) while carbon offsets aren’t perfect, they are incrementally improving and will continue to do so; 2) offsets promote cost-effective climate change mitigation; 3) offsets are necessary to achieve net zero goals and global climate targets; 4) offset revenues are key to closing the climate finance gap; 5) offset revenues are key to funding nature conservation; and 6) offset revenues contribute to the welfare of climate change impacted populations.

– What’s notable about these two lists? ALL of the points being made are at least anecdotally supportable, and can be made in good faith by good faith actors. Which I think helps explain why the debate over carbon offsets is never-ending, and never changes (much).

But then what SHOULD ⁉ the role of carbon offsets be going forward? I would suggest answering that question requires getting past the simplistic “small world model” arguments listed above, and asking key questions about whether carbon offsets are fit for purpose (and which purpose). (I’m putting together a list of such questions!).

I would also suggest that we should acknowledge going in the challenges of creating a tradeable commodity from something as intangible as “avoided or removed tons of GHGs.” British journalist Dan Welch probably intended his definition of carbon offsets as satirical, but it’s also more accurate than not. He said: “Offsets are an imaginary commodity created by deducting what you hope happens from what you guess would have happened.” If we can agree as a starting point that turning an imaginary commodity into a tradeable commodity is going to have challenges, can we then have a serious conversation about the future role of carbon offsets?

Or do we simply prefer vitriolic exchanges?