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… If anything, they exist purely so that offset buyers don’t have to change - at all. Offset should really be renamed ‘offload’, as in: offload the harmful effects of a wasteful lifestyle, offload guilt. One of the fastest growing markets in history - valued at $60 billion in 2007 - is essentially a misnomer, built on a lame-duck model that changes little other than the conscience of those who use it.
Rather than attack carbon offset buyers - after all, some action is better than no action at all - let us re-frame the issue in the manner of a question:
If the system is broken, how should we fix it?
Up next: A Model for Change…