• Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Linkedin
Skip to content
Menu
REDD-Monitor
  • Start here
  • About REDD-Monitor
  • REDD: An introduction
  • Contact
REDD-Monitor
Carbon offsets are bullshit

“Carbon offsets are bullshit”: Cory Doctorow

Posted on 9 February 20229 February 2022

By Chris Lang

“The theory behind carbon offsets is that markets created the climate emergency, so markets will solve it. It’s a kind of high-stakes denialism, like a lifelong smoker switching to ‘light’ cigarettes after learning they have stage four lung-cancer.”

That’s Cory Doctorow, a science fiction author, tech activist, and journalist.

Doctorow describes the market doctrine that leads to carbon offsets: Firms should maximise shareholder value, regardless of the costs imposed on everyone else. Corporate crime thus becomes the result of “poor incentives”. Oil spills, pollution, and injured workers are the result of cheap insurance, or fines that are set too low.

Doctorow writes that,

Rather than criminalizing the conduct that leads to these outcomes – shutting down companies that engage in the conduct, holding managers and shareholders personally liable for it – market doctrine insists that we should “rebalance the incentives.”

Enter carbon offsets: rather than prohibiting the pollution that will render our planet permanently uninhabitable by our species, we make that pollution economically disfavorable, by offering bribes to companies that promise not to pollute.

So, a logging company can promise to do something called “sustainable forest management” instead of just clearcutting the forest.

Carbon offsets are bullshit

The company can sell carbon credits, and as long as the profits from carbon are higher than the profits from clearcutting, “the incentives net out in favor of not committing genocide,” as Doctorow puts it.

Big Polluters can buy the carbon credits and pretend to be addressing the climate crisis, while continuing to pollute.

A market for lemons

In a 1970 paper, the economist George Akerlof looks at how the quality of goods traded in a market can degrade when there is information asymmetry between buyers and sellers. Akerlof uses the second hand car market to illustrate the problem. Over time the information asymmetry leads to a market for “lemons” – a lemon being US slang for a car that turns out to have serious defects.

This is exactly the situation with carbon offsets. The sellers know whether their carbon offsets are bogus, but the buyers don’t. Larry Lohmann wrote about “lemons for sale” in his 2001 Briefing Paper, “Democracy or Carbocracy? Intellectual Corruption and the Future of the Climate Debate”.

In a post titled, “Carbon offsets are bullshit”, Doctorow quotes another economic principle, Gresham’s Law of 1860, that states that “bad money drives out good”. Cheap, easy to generate carbon credits will drive out expensive but genuine carbon removals.

An example of “bullshit” carbon offsets, Doctorow writes, are The Nature Conservancy’s fake forest offsets, as reported by Bloomberg Green in December 2020:

Carbon offsets are bullshit

Doctorow writes that,

Offsets are the worst. Corrupt “charities” like Nature Conservancy make vast fortunes ($932m in 2019) helping the world’s worst polluters greenwash their fortunes by offering offsets for set-asides on lands that would never be logged anyway.

Good credits?

As an example of “good credits”, Doctorow refers to Stripe’s support of Climeworks AG’s direct air capture carbon sequestration at US$775 per ton.

Direct air capture plants do genuinely remove carbon from the atmosphere and permanently store it. But direct air capture requires huge amounts of energy, particularly if it is employed on a large enough scale to significantly reduce the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. And there is no guarantee that scaling up the technology is feasible in the short time span remaining to address the climate crisis.

Direct air capture plants do not provide an excuse for business as usual. Despite the fact that they are currently operating at a tiny scale, these, and other, “negative emission technologies” are used to avoid politically difficult decisions to dramatically reduce emissions from burning fossil fuels today.

Similarly, carbon offsets are not a means of reducing emissions. The purpose of carbon offsets is to allow the fossil fuel economy to continue business as usual for as long as possible.

Offsets, Doctorow writes, cannot be “fixed”:

Everything we do to fix offsets just makes them worse: adding complexity to a loophole-riddled system creates more loopholes.

 

2 thoughts on ““Carbon offsets are bullshit”: Cory Doctorow”

  1. Daniel says:
    9 February 2022 at 1:30 pm

    I studied environmental science at UWS and received Distinction average. When I questioned the doubted the efficacy of carbon offsets I was dissuaded from doubting. But then I left the field behind as worthless. And there’s no work in it anyway because bad money chases out the good. But the truth is that the system is bad. Only when one challenges the system can we be deshackled.

  2. Delton says:
    10 February 2022 at 3:34 am

    Hi Daniel. There is another option to carbon offset credits. I did a reanalysis of carbon pricing, that I call the “carbon pricing matrix”. The matrix approach identifies another carbon pricing policy that is called a “carbon reward”. Carbon rewards do not result in any offsetting or carbon trading. It is fully funded for decarbonisation at the emissions source, and for carbon dioxide removal (CDR). Here is a link to the matrix concept:

    https://globalcarbonreward.org/carbon-currency/pricing-theory/

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

SUBSCRIBE!

Enter your email address to receive notification of new posts.

Recent themes
Natural Climate Solutions
WWF's conservation scandals
Aviation and offsetting
Conservation Watch

Recent Comments

  • shahid on James Moore sentenced to more than 11 years in prison for his role in the Bar Works scam
  • Kathleen McCroskey on Offsetting is not an option if we are serious about addressing the climate crisis. My response to Hartmut Graßl
  • Delton Chen on Offsetting is not an option if we are serious about addressing the climate crisis. My response to Hartmut Graßl
  • Kathleen McCroskey on Offsetting is not an option if we are serious about addressing the climate crisis. My response to Hartmut Graßl
  • Chris Lang on Offsetting is not an option if we are serious about addressing the climate crisis. My response to Hartmut Graßl

Recent Posts

  • Offsetting is not an option if we are serious about addressing the climate crisis. My response to Hartmut Graßl
  • Papua New Guinea Environmental Alliance letter to Pogio Ghate, Minister for Environment, Conservation and Climate Change
  • Ecomapuá Amazon REDD Project, Brazil: Pública investigation reveals Ecomapuá Conservação is selling “illegal” carbon offsets from land it does not own, without transferring the money to local communities
  • Response from Steve Zwick, Verra: “Verra will ask Kanaka Management Systems to cease and desist any actions that may mislead communities into thinking that Verra has not already rejected the project”
  • Response from Kanaka Management Services: “Please do not conduct legal trail or castigate REDD+ project developers on the website by writing text which shows the project developer in bad light”

Recent Comments

  • shahid on James Moore sentenced to more than 11 years in prison for his role in the Bar Works scam
  • Kathleen McCroskey on Offsetting is not an option if we are serious about addressing the climate crisis. My response to Hartmut Graßl
  • Delton Chen on Offsetting is not an option if we are serious about addressing the climate crisis. My response to Hartmut Graßl
  • Kathleen McCroskey on Offsetting is not an option if we are serious about addressing the climate crisis. My response to Hartmut Graßl
  • Chris Lang on Offsetting is not an option if we are serious about addressing the climate crisis. My response to Hartmut Graßl

Issues and Organisations

30x30 AB 32 Andes Amazon Boiler rooms California Can REDD save ... ? Carbon accounting Carbon Credits Carbon Offsets CDM Conservation-Watch Conservation International COP21 Paris Deforestation FCPF FERN Financing REDD Forest definition Fossil fuels FPP Friends of the Earth FSC Green Climate Fund Greenpeace Guest post ICAO Illegal logging Indigenous Peoples Natural Climate Solutions NGO statements Plantations Poznan R-M interview REDD and rights REDD in the news Risk RSPO-Watch Safeguards Sengwer The Nature Conservancy UN-REDD UNFCCC World Bank WRM WWF

Countries

Australia Bolivia Brazil Cambodia Cameroon Canada China Colombia Congo Basin region Costa Rica DR Congo Ecuador El Salvador European Union France Germany Guatemala Guyana Honduras India Indonesia Kenya Laos Madagascar Malaysia Mexico Nicaragua Norway Panama Papua New Guinea Paraguay Peru Philippines Republic of Congo Sierra Leone Sweden Tanzania Thailand Uganda UK Uncategorized United Arab Emirates USA Vietnam West Papua
©2022 REDD-Monitor | Powered by WordPress and Superb Themes!