Debate around the quality of carbon offsets ranges far and wide. The most commonly held definition of quality refers to the adherence to established norms, such as those set out by the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) arrangement under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (also known as the Kyoto Protocol). Others are quick to point out that ‘established norms’ are a myth, and that systems such as CDM and the Voluntary Carbon Standard (VCS) - a non-Kyoto Protocol derivative that bases its carbon standards on CDM - are overly restrictive and too exclusive because they rule out many potential carbon offset projects that have neither the time nor the funds to survive the qualification process. But most importantly, the greatest criticism is that these ’standards’ are either
unsuited to or
ignore measures of impact that operate
beyond the range of quantifiable data.
Whether one agrees with the criticisms leveled at CDM, VCS and other such standards, it is undeniable that defining ‘quality’ as rule compliance in a system that views the carbon offset mechanism as a purely financially-driven phenomenon is a mistake. If we give it even a moment’s thought, it is clear that this view of offsets is drastically misguided, especially given that the basic purpose of carbon offsets is to change people’s behavior - there is no logical reason for assuming that behavior change can only occur when financial incentives are present.
The biggest criticism of all, one that is leveled at the entire carbon offset concept, is this: carbon offsets do not actually change the behavior of the people who buy them… Read the rest of this entry »
