Comment Log Display

Feb. 23rd, 2010

Dear California ARB,

As someone deeply concerned about the effects of climate change, I
applaud your proposal to limit the types of offsets acceptable to
the state of California under AB32.  I would encourage you to go
further and reject the false solution of carbon offsetting
entirely, as it is counterproductive to the urgent need to
drastically reduce the burning of fossil fuels.  I hope you would
agree that there are now sufficient questions about the veracity,
accounting procedures, and avoidance of ‘additionality’ that the
state’s resources are best focused on cutting GHG emissions at
source rather than “outsourcing” this task and trusting for-profit
companies with emissions reductions.  I’ve written up a position
paper that outlines the specific reasons for this stance.

Background:  With a scientific consensus having emerged that human
beings are warming up the planet, risking catastrophic damage if we
continue with business as usual, much of the conversation around
climate change has shifted away from “why is this happening?” to
“what are we going to do about it?”  The solutions being discussed
range from the local and practical, such as organizing community
bicycle repair co-ops to the global and fantastical, like placing
giant space mirrors in orbit.  One of the ‘solutions’ that has been
eagerly embraced by industry is that of carbon trading and
offsetting, where a company (or individual) who doesn’t want to cut
their carbon emissions essentially pays someone else to do it for
them, thereby salving their consciences and improving their public
image.  Many of the largest financial institutions in the world-
the same ones who are responsible for ongoing climate damage- are
heavily invested in the carbon market, including Goldman-Sachs,
Barclays and Citibank.  

Real Solutions: The solution to climate change is simple.   We
need to stop (or at least dramatically reduce) the burning of
fossil fuels as soon as possible.   Any “solution” that does not
progress toward this goal is a dangerous distraction from the major
transition that is required.  By providing psychological
justification to continue to dump carbon into the atmosphere, the
sale of offsets allows people to live within a narrative that says
we can continue our existing lifestyles and still have a safe,
stable future.  That’s why auto, oil, and utility companies have
seized upon offsetting- because it provides ecological cover for
their increasingly damaging business practices.  Just like a
cigarette addict cannot imagine a life free of smoking, it is
difficult for most of us to imagine a life without fossil fuels. 
Because of our collective addiction, we are eager to embrace false
solutions (think Marlboro lights, filters, smokeless tobacco, etc.)
  The reality is that we need to overcome our chronic dependence on
oil, coal, and gas if we are to avoid lasting damage to the future
of life on the planet.   The sale of carbon offsets distorts this
basic truth, and distracts us from implementing real solutions to
the current crisis. 

The Future of Carbon Trading: The carbon trading industry (that
includes carbon offsets) is already a multibillion dollar industry.
 Offset firms like Terrapass have grown rapidly over the past
several years, with their bumper stickers proclaiming “I clean up
after my car” now a common sight on Bay Area roads. With the
possible passage of federal Cap and Trade legislation, carbon
trading is likely to become a trillion dollar industry by the end
of this decade.  Fortunately the truth about carbon markets is
coming out.  A number of critical articles have appeared lately in
national publications including Harper’s, the New York Times, and
the Nation exposing carbon trading as a deceptive shell game.  (see
links below).  A number of travel companies such as Responsible
Travel have rejected offsets, and now believe that they are a
“medieval pardon that allows people to continue polluting.” 
However, millions of people continue to believe that if they pay
$49.95 a year to an offset firm, they can erase the damage to the
atmosphere that their driving or flying habits cause.  This is a
destructive lie that needs to be exposed.

News articles on Carbon Offsetting:

Harper’s: Conning the Climate: Inside the Carbon Trading Shell
Game (pdf document)
http://citizensclimatelobby.org/files/Conning-the-Climate.pdf

New York Times: Paying More for Flights Eases Guilt, not
Emissions
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/18/science/earth/18offset.html

The Nation: Don’t bet on Offsets
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20070507/thompson_moles

Business Week: Another Inconvenient Truth
Behind the feel-good hype of carbon offsets, some of the deals
don't deliver
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/07_13/b4027057.htm

Other Background Information

The Story of Cap and Trade
http://www.storyofstuff.com/capandtrade/

CheatNeutral:  Pay to offset your marital infidelity!
http://www.cheatneutral.com/

Sincerely,

Joshua Hart


Joshua Hart Bio
Joshua Hart MSc has worked as a professional transportation
advocate since 2000, first as Project Coordinator for the
Rails-to-Trails Conservancy from 2000-2002 and then as Program
Director for the San Francisco Bicycle Coalition from 2003-2005. 
He obtained a Masters degree (with merit) in Transportation
Planning at the University of the West of England in Bristol from
2006 to 2008, and completed research entitled Driven to Excess,
presenting the social and quality of life impacts of automobile
traffic on local residents.  The research was covered in over 100
international media outlets including the BBC, the Guardian, Tehran
Times, and the Daily Mail.  

Joshua has extensive experience managing environmental and
transportation campaigns, including formal media training and
extensive interviewing and public speaking experience.  He
maintains a blog at http://onthelevelblog.com.