Carbon Offsets (Kyoto Protocols)
The increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and its contribution to global
warming and climate change have motivated individuals and corporations to
purchase ways to offset the ecological footprint of their carbon dioxide emissions.
A number of companies voluntarily offer to perform environmental activities to
offset the carbon dioxide emitted into the atmosphere by certain activities.
Controversy is evoked when these activities are scrutinized, and the actual
environmental contributions of the carbon offsetting activity are analyzed.
Carbon offsets are provided by profit and nonprofit organizations to offset the
carbon dioxide emitted, generally by a specific activity. The profile of carbon
dioxide offsets was raised when mortgage companies in the United Kingdom
used them in their mortgage advertising, and when carbon offset organizations
specifically marketed them to air travelers. Air travelers could elect to pay for
their share of the carbon dioxide on a particular flight. Airplane emissions are
substantial. Besides fuels and lubricants, airports use wing deicer and other toxic
solvents. With acres of paving, the runoff of these pollutants usually affects local
water supplies unless treated. The money paid is supposed to go to an activity
that uses carbon dioxide, to offset the carbon dioxide emitted on the flight, such
as tree plantings. Some have estimated the carbon offset market could be as
high as 100 million dollars.
U.S. businesses have also been buying carbon dioxide offsets in order to engage
in international business. Many other industrialized and non-industrialized nations
signed the Kyoto Treaty on global warming. The United States has refused and is
one of the largest emitters of greenhouse gases. The Kyoto Protocol set global
caps on emissions of greenhouse gases, like carbon dioxide. Many nations
devoted substantial resources for many years to the Kyoto process, as did
international bodies like the United Nations and the Union of Concerned
Scientists. National and international environmental groups, along with
community groups and labor unions, all also devoted considerable resources to
this process. There is an international movement of cities that sign on with the
1
Kyoto Protocols, including many of the major U.S. cities. U.S. businesses feel
strong pressure to reduce the emission of greenhouse gases in order to continue
international business transactions where higher standards are required.
There are still some questions about how carbon dioxide emissions are
calculated, although the emissions estimates for most major activities are known.
The big battleground is about how the money for carbon offsets is spent. The
range of carbon offset projects has attracted criticism of them. There is no welldefined offset protocol or policy, so there are many gray areas. If the money goes
to develop alternative renewable energy sources like wind and solar power, is the
carbon dioxide from the petrochemicals that would have otherwise been used
offset? Does it make a difference if the companies assisted make a profit, are
nonprofit, or are state operated? Another gray area is home weatherization to
save energy costs as a carbon offset. Does it make a difference to an offset
program if a single homeowner is benefited? The argument for it counting as a
carbon offset is that decreased energy use through conservation measures
reduces carbon dioxide emissions by lowering consumption of pollution-causing
energy sources. These differences can easily become battlegrounds.
There are many ways to mitigate carbon dioxide use, and some feel that buying
offsets just uses money to justify pollution. Some fear it favors big polluters that
just pay for their pollution, with the degrading environmental impacts such as
global warming. Most of the carbon offset programs would take many years to
offset the carbon dioxide used in one airplane trip. Realistically, trees take about
100 years to mitigate the carbon dioxide emissions of one person on one long
airline trip. Others feel that the criticisms of the carbon offset market are inflated.
The potential for future controversy around carbon offsets is unknown. It depends
on how much they are used, the project selection, and looming governmental
regulation. It also depends on whether it stays limited to just carbon dioxide
emissions. Some environmentalists question the underlying premise of paying for
your pollution. It allows rich nations and rich people to pollute. If the
environmental impacts are not negligibly reduced, then they question the overall
2
efficacy of it. Carbon offsets do engage the public imagination and give business
an avenue to express environmental concern in a voluntary market. Some have
argued that overregulation can limit the ability of industry to make pollution
reduction and prevention changes. However, governmental environmental
regulations are generally phrased in ways that induce compliance to minimal
standards. Most times these standards are simply require industry to report their
own emissions to the government. Large emissions are permitted, and industries
self-report whether they are under a regulatory threshold necessary for a permit.
Government regulators and environmentalists claim that industry is always free
to do more for the environment. Purchasing carbon offsets is one way they are
beginning to do just that.
Robert William Collin
MLA Citation
Collin, Robert William. "carbon offsets." Issues: Understanding Controversy and Society. ABCCLIO, 2014. Web. 27 May 2014.
Entry ID: 1609007
3