23 Comments

Have to chime in on praising the clarity in this discussion, particularly for a non-economist, non-policy perspective.

I do have questions though from a technological point of view. Where does increased efficiency fit into this puzzle? There is available technology in building design that can reduce energy consumption significantly. Fair body of demonstrations of the ease of implementation and the reliability of design predictions.

Theoretically in ff based energy grids that translates to carbon reductions. Lots of ifs. Sector dependent. Pretty exhaustive technical knowledge and quality management required. And sounds a lot like the passage that made me weep in gratitude as Dick Fiddler pointed out. The beauty of the technology is that, like so many of the deep technical topics of building design, implementation can be adopted in the design and construction practices without significant disruption or retraining.

If energy efficiency policy, efficacy, modeled impact is discussed in the book, fair enough. It’s going on my shelf regardless.

This conversation is an invaluable primer. Much appreciation to you Mr. Roberts for bringing this marvelous team to the microphone.

Expand full comment

As one who has been working for practical implementation of clean energy programs for over 40 years, the clarity of this interview is inspiring. There is so much jargon/BS/wishful thinking/happy talk in the clean energy field, and it only gets in the way of doing (and funding) the regulatory and incentive programs which actually are capable of getting the job done. Reading a sentence like "To set your additionality standards and baselines and all the technical details about non-observable phenomena, you have to have rich and intricate knowledge. Well, that's also what you need to do to set up a regulatory program." almost makes me weep with gratitude. (By the way, that's very parallel to what's needed for an effective incentive program.) Big thanks to Dave Roberts!

Expand full comment

It's pretty remarkable, after 30 years of experience with offsets, that we're still having first-order conversations about what they are and how they work, with different observers arriving at diametrically opposed conclusions. You can see that just by scanning this year's offset titles at https://2020offsetsbib.climatesites.net

Expand full comment

Notwithstanding the problems with offsets, there is a big push to massively expand the market's scope. https://carbonoffsetsround2.climatesites.net

Expand full comment

crazy idea for a carbon offset; set up rainforest host countries like Brazil, DRC, and or Indonesia with universal incomes funded by the international sale of carbon offsets. Eliminate deforestation in the developing world while avoiding the trope of lecturing people in 3rd world poverty about the environmental consequences of their attempts to feed their families.

Expand full comment

David---Your introductory statement copied below should include the major flaw of offsets: the frequent lack of additionality. "Carbon reductions" via offsets can be very real and still have an adverse impact on emissions. Because many forest reductions would have occurred anyway without offsets, it allows industries to avoid their own reductions so the net impact is that offsets can increase emissions. Verification is just one of the problems.

"But the model only works in practice if the carbon reductions represented by carbon offsets are real — verifiable and verified. Cullenward and Victor argue that they rarely are, and furthermore, that the incentives created by the programs themselves work against reliable verification. Large-scale offsets programs inevitably spark a race to the bottom."

There is a need for assessing the political economy behind offsets (please explore and write more). The growth is accelerating in this perverse policy. BP just bought the biggest offsets broker in California, Carney has a group of major companies lined up, the airlines CORSIA agreement will expand offsets, and brokers, lawyers, forestry consultants, agriculture interests all see a path that is not good for the climate. EDF, IETA and many others are focused on getting the Paris Accord Article 6 rules approved next November at the COP 26 in Scotland. This will give the veneer of legitimacy to this unfortunate trend. It is no surprise that Davos was the initiator of the trillion trees program.

Finally, the real damage from expansion of this policy will be in developing countries. Article 6 rules will be essentially the same as the Kyoto Protocol offsets program which was a failure. Around 85% of the Kyoto offset projects could not demonstrate reduced emissions. The Kyoto offset price sank to 40 cents/ton/CO2 which were grabbed up by EU industries under the EU ETS cap and trade and submitted for compliance.

Expand full comment

What is the quality of the Stripe carbon offset program? Direct air capture seems like it should avoid most of the verification issues.

Expand full comment

Here is a question from a consumer & citizen standpoint:

Is it better if I do nothing or if I try to offset my carbon footprint with a company like Wren https://www.wren.co for instance, that claims to only invest in offset programs that are i) certified and ii) reduce carbon

Expand full comment

This article raises good points but misses many fundamentals of offsetting. First and foremost, carbon overshoot is guaranteed so there's no path to climate stability without some type of offset. Yes, direct air capture may save the day, but that's way off in a theoretical future. Today we have nature-based solutions, driven largely by voluntary markets. Compliance markets, as noted, are small and somewhat flawed, as this article notes. But organizations like Verra and Gold Standard are working hard to ensure permanence (with a risk pool) and quality for credits around the world, with the voluntary market growing dramatically. In fact, the bar they set is so high that demand significantly outstrips supply right now. Whether its avoided deforestation in peatlands of Indonesia or improved forest management in forests of Pennsylvania, there is a growing body of evidence that offsets can be done well. Most importantly, we have to figure out how to get them right, because there is no other way to sequester emissions at scale today and for the foreseeable future. Unfortunately, this article misses the forest for the trees.

Expand full comment