In view of the recent report by Friends of the Earth against the use of carbon offsetting and the inclusion of forestry programmes in a future Copenhagen treaty, Carbonica wishes to make the following statement in defence of forestry (REDD) carbon offset programmes (and carbon offsetting in general).

London, 3 June 2009 

Carbon credits and carbon offsets are an integral part of the Kyoto protocol and have enabled an entire sector of the economy to invest in emission reduction programmes, contributing to the mitigation of climate change. Furthermore, CDM has contributed to raise awareness among companies and individuals about their priority to reduce emissions and pay the cost for the environmental damage caused by GHG emissions, in particular CO2. Putting a price on carbon is a good way to manage our environmental damage.

CDM is far from being a perfect mechanism and the forthcoming Copenhagen treaty gives us the opportunity to improve the framework. There are obviously fundamental questions that must be addressed. The principle that an emissions reduction programme generates a "carbon credit" which in turn legitimises a company to pollute and entitles it to emit a permissible amount of GHG gases into the atmosphere must be completely dismissed. In order to mitigate climate change we must start from the premise that the only permissible level of emissions is zero and our net global GHG emissions must be negative. The reason for this is very simple: the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is already too high and for our mitigation efforts it is mandatory that we capture CO2 from the atmosphere, not simply reduce our emissions.

However there is a very good reason why CO2 emission quotas are allocated within the Kyoto framework. It helps us keep our emissions under control. These quotas, however, should not be interpreted as "permissible" emission levels within our mitigation efforts, and within the Kyoto protocol's main remit every conceivable measure must be adopted to gradually reduce them.

For this reason, cap-and-trade mechanisms where companies gradually and continually try to find ways to reduce their emissions and overall carbon footprint, will be the more realistic foundation of a future Copenhagen agreement, and will pave the way to an orderly and gradual transition to a low-carbon or decarbonised economy.

Carbon offsetting is an umbrella term that is used for many different products. It is important to distinguish carbon offsets that are created from emission reductions and those that stem from carbon capture and result in a net negative amount of GHG emissions. Forestry carbon offsets are the only type of offset where net GHG emissions are negative, and therefore the only ones that play an active role in mitigating and reversing global warming. Other offsets, such as renewable energy projects, contribute to net emission reductions and make no more than a neutral contribution to our mitigation efforts.

One could ask the question of why a carbon credit is created by investing in, say, a hydro project in developing countries, whilst investing on a wind turbine in the UK would not entitle a company to create an emission credit that it can sell on. It is an interesting question. 

One answer is that by placing a price on emissions, developed countries can fund emission reductions and green energy projects in the developing world. This can only be positive.

Forestry projects on the other hand, are very different instruments. They are pivotal to climate change mitigation and for this reason not only should they be high on the agenda of the Copenhagen talks, they must be the cornerstone of our global climate change mitigation and reversal strategy.

Carbonica dismisses the claims contained in the FoE document that offsetting contributes to global warming and forestry projects will lead to land grab and poverty in developed countries. On the contrary: the only sustainable forestry carbon offset programmes are those carried out in collaboration with local communities, by enabling them to make a living out of the forests and the environment around them, and empowering them to look after the land and have a vested interest in protecting it. For these projects to work, local communities must have sufficient autonomy and there can be no land purchase for the purposes of creating the offsets. The local farming communities will look after these assets best when they work on their own land. These carbon offsets are a fundamental vehicle for developed countries to protect the rainforests, and provide local communities with the skills to make a living and protect the wildlife, biodiversity and the living environment around rainforests. 

Other rainforest projects that are based on land purchase are not sustainable in the long term; they create fenced-off areas that entail a greater financial liability to the owners of the asset than the ecological service derived from it.

In order to takle climate change and draw a significant mitigation and reversal strategy, REDD programmes must be extensive and well funded to permit reforestation in quite an unprecedented scale. Forest owning countries will benefit from this cash flow and their deprived communities will reap greater benefits from reforestation than illegal logging, which is a problem directly correlated with poverty.

Mikel Susperregi

Chief Executive

mikel@carbonica.org  

A study published in Nature last week shows that the extra CO₂ in the atmosphere is causing trees to grow bigger in the rainforests, absorbing a net extra 5bn tons of CO₂.

Tropical trees are absorbing more carbon than they would naturally, grow bigger, and unwittingly provide a helping hand in the fight against climate change.

It is very much a case of eat as much as you can, while food is abundant and readily available. It appears that trees, like humans, do have a good go at the buffet while it's there. It's not surprising that in areas such as the tropics, where rain is abundant and growth can be sustained, the excess of CO₂ can just be the thing for the largest tree specimens to go supersize.

This emphasises the importance of the rainforests as carbon sinks and how urgent it is that we restore them to their past glory. The earth has lost over three quarters of its forests during the last century, so we do have quite a lot of ground to recover. This is the challenge to combat climate change.

It's good news that governments are now talking about REDD (reduction of emissions by preventing deforestation) to include reforestation and prevented deforestation in the successor to the Kyoto protocol. For a while reforestation projects didn't have a good reputation but this is fortunately changing and there's now talk of financial commitments to prevent deforestation.

The UK government commissioned a report, the Eliasch Report, on financing global forests and the cost of preventing deforestation. Indirectly, all this has a lot to do with the financial incentives for countries such as Brazil and Indonesia to prevent illegal logging. I think this might be the wrong angle - paying people to stop destroying their own forests doesn't address the issue of why they are doing it in the first place. Illegal logging can move elsewhere and the subsidies will be money wasted. The real solution is to turn deprived communities into skilled farming communities who will benefit from sustaining the rainforests. So long as everyone can have a vested interest and views the rainforest as an asset of greater financial value than its timber content, then we will have a solution.

I believe, as we all do in Carbonica, that reforestation is the only acceptable form of carbon offset. The rainforests are the only mechanisms we have to absorb carbon from the atmosphere. Other projects, such as renewable energy projects are often a disguised form of deception. For example, if I was to put a wind turbine on my roof and sell carbon offsets from the emissions I have saved (by not connecting to the national grid and being self-sufficient in my electricity consumption), I would probably be able to get CDM certification, the Gold Standard and all possible rubberstamped "certified" and "authenticated" credentials one can imagine. However, it does seem ethically objectionable. Why should I pay for my own wind turbine by allowing other people to emit CO₂ into the atmosphere with these so-called carbon "credits"?

How can we talk about "credits" or "allowances" to release CO₂? It is a farce in this day and age of global warming. 

I don't know how my wind turbine differs from some hydroelectric project in the developing world. Such a project would be deemed as contributing to "renewable energies" but it would create tons of CO₂ in carbon credits because the local community is no longer using a coal-fired station. Well, my question is that they shouldn't be using a coal-fired station in the first place. If they stop doing that, then that's great, but that does not entitle someone else to spew into the atmosphere all the junk that the coal-fired station would have emitted. Otherwise the end result is the same, and we have gained absolutely nothing in terms of addressing climate change.

If, on the other hand, we restore the rainforest as a form of carbon offset, we recapture the CO₂ emitted and in the long term even more than was emitted, as well as adding to the planet's biodiversity, and helping local communities earn a living. And it's important that we talk about reforestation and not only about prevented deforestation. Reforestation means progress in the fight against climate change, because we increase the capacity of the planet to absorb CO₂. Prevented deforestation simply leaves us where we are.

In my opinion deforestation can be prevented by turning illegal loggers into farmers and effectively the drivers of reforestation.  

Brunella Bell

brunella@carbonica.org

British environmentalist George Monbiot writes in The Guardian that the expansion of London's Heathrow airport is about class war.

His ludicrous articles are embarrassing and a disservice to the green movement.

Everyone with minimal common sense agrees that the planned third terminal for Heathrow is simply crazy. Opposing the expansion of the airport has nothing to do with being pro or against business, and still less to do with socio-economic status. It has a lot to do with being consistent with a commitment to tackle climate change and of course with the additional issue that the airport is already as it is a great noise and pollution nuisance to millions in the capital. The UK government must live up to its obligations to reduce emissions, in the spirit of the Climate Change Bill that was passed in 2008, and ensure that the airport and its immediate environment meet environmental standards.

Even at its present size, Heathrow will fail to meet all those targets.

I find Monbiot comical but given that he has so much impact I think the whole thing is really tragic. He begins his article moaning about all the middle-class Brits who have Agas and this somehow builds up the argument that it is really the rich and their second homes in France that is the cause of the increase in air traffic and ultimately the expansion of Heathrow airport.

He presents some statistics to show that 54% of people using budget airlines are in fact rather affluent. From this it follows (apparently) that we should dispel the myth of the "anorak tourist" who flies to Sicily for the weekend on a flight that's cost him less than a cab fare, stays at a cheap hotel and eats out at fast-food joints. No, it turns out they are a well-heeled lot jetting off to their home at la Dordogne - and it's just one of those funny things that they pay less for their flight than for their organic camembert.

The angle of the analysis misses the point completely. If Ryanair had to rely only on Brits with second homes in France and Spain, they would fold up tomorrow. Naturally there are passengers from all income brackets, and most are simply spending a few days abroad, whether they earn £30,000 a year or £90,000. This does not discount the fact that it all amounts to excessively frequent, unnecessary and frivolous travel.  And that's the key of the problem. It's not a class issue, it's an issue of bad habits. 

Naturally it is no miracle that the more affluent will be able to indulge in budget travel more frequently, just like they have a greater share of most goods and services. After all, consumption is correlated to income.

It is quite clear that the second home owning travellers are a very small minority. In the routes to France that Ryanair decided to wind up because of a drop in passenger numbers (and high fuel costs), the Brits who'd purchased second homes there were left to hang and dry. Not only they couldn't get there for the weekend cheaply as before, but also the value of their properties plummeted. Clearly they were not the driving force of the demand.

If then we look at the really rich, then we are talking about tycoons jetting off in their private planes. Their carbon footprint is astronomical, and thankfully the a still smaller minority. All I can say is that they should offset their footprint if they can't reduce it. But they remain outside of the argument because this is such a tiny contribution to the bulk of total aviation emissions.

Brunella Bell

brunella@carbonica.org

CARBONICA - PROTECTING THE WORLD'S RAINFORESTS 

Click  here to reduce your carbon footprint

A storm has erupted over the carbon footprint of a cup of tea, literally. A Sunday Times story cited a Harvard scientist who claims that the carbon footprint of a Google search is comparable to that of making a cup of tea.

The story, full of wild guesses, prompted a quick response from Google.

Google claims that one search has a footprint of 0.2 grams of CO₂. Which is very little.

The funny side of the Sunday Times story was that it was little more than a plug for the company of the scientist in question, who owns a carbon offset provider dedicated to offsetting websites. So, hey presto, the article came complete with URLs and all, so that you can end up there feeling all guilty about your Google searches and get offsetting. What I find hilarious is that the company in question doesn't even once mention that it is about offsetting the carbon footprint of websites. It talks of making them "green". Oh goody. Such is the bad reputation of the offsetting industry that some providers go about their business concealing the dirty word like sex shop owners putting the goods in brown paper bags.

My guess is that Google's estimate of 0.2 grams of CO₂ is closer to the truth than the 35-times higher figure of 7 grams cited in the press. After all they are secretive about their data centers and the extent of the green energy initiatives that they have taken, so I'd rather believe the version that we're getting from the horse's mouth, because everyone else's is simply a wild guess.

Google should however come clean about its own footprint and put an end to all guesswork. No one knows exactly the number of searches that are carried out, so we can't compute Google's footprint. The 2008 Year-End Zeitgeist has a very complete compilation of trends and favourite searches from "billions of search queries", but the key is how many billions are we exactly talking about.

Some sources claim that in 2008 there were about 350-700 billion search queries, which means that if we take the figure of 0.2 grams per search to be accurate, Google's total footprint is in the region of 70,000 to 140,000 tons of CO₂.

This is not an awful lot: it is comparable to that of a small town with a population of about 10,000. It is a hell of a lot for one single company, but then I would guess that other global firms have a much larger footprint, especially if they produce physical goods.

My invitation to Google is: come clean with the figures, and get offsetting -- with Carbonica of course. Why not. At least we are not plugging this in a British rag.

Brunella Bell

brunella@carbonica.org

CARBONICA - PROTECTING THE WORLD'S RAINFORESTS 

Click  here to reduce your carbon footprint

A whole new year begins and it is time for our New Year's resolutions. Slimming, exercising, recycling and reducing our carbon footprint.

Some of our customers email us asking whether it is realistic to expect people to offset their footprint in times of financial crisis. Our answer is yes. Now it's more important than ever. The carbon footprint of the average person in the UK or Europe is about 10 tons of carbon a year, and this costs £6 per month to offset. It is a very small price to make a person zero footprint (or carbon neutral).

It is well known that offsetting our petrol emissions would only add about two pence to the price of the litre of petrol. This is an insignificant amount compared to the huge fluctuations in the price of petrol in recent months. Some supermarkets even offer 5p discounts per litre of petrol - it is ridiculous that they don't take the more consistent approach with the environmental policies that they claim to endorse and instead offer a 3p discount and pay 2p to offset the emissions so that the customer knows they are buying "carbon neutral" petrol. This would be an innovation and it wouldn't impact an awful lot on price.

We also get emails from people telling us that what one should do is cut emissions. Obviously reducing emissions is fundamental. But not the only goal. The principle of "offset the rest" is important. We will always have a carbon footprint, however much we reduce emissions, and the best thing to do for the enviroment is to offset the rest.

So, here is my suggestion to you: have a peek at our CO2 calculator, and in the section "QUICK", enter 10 tons. If you offset ten tons this will make you zero footprint for the entire 2009 if your carbon footprint is around average.

Brunella Bell  

brunella@carbonica.org

CARBONICA - PROTECTING THE WORLD'S RAINFORESTS 

Click  here to reduce your carbon footprint

The definition of "carbon-free" is that it is produced without any emissions, what is called "fully decarbonised". On the other hand, something that is "carbon neutral" does have emissions, a carbon footprint, but it is offset by energy saving, reforestation or other programmes, so the net effect of this is zero.

If we ask ourselves the question, "do I prefer to be carbon-free or carbon neutral?" obviously the best choice for the environment is to be carbon-free. It is best not to produce a carbon footprint to start with, to be fully decarbonised. It is great in theory, trickier in practice. During the pre-industrial era societies were almost entirely decarbonised, so our existence as human beings is not impossible in a decarbonised environment. This is the general principle of pursuing CO₂ —and other greehouse gases— emission cuts. The goal is to get as close to full decarbonisation as we can.

During this week's UN Climate Change talks in Poland the crux of the matter is emission cuts. We can go a long way closer to decarbonisation than we are today, and the core of the argument is to get rich countries to dramatically cut their emissions and developing countries to follow suit without getting into a cycle of pollution and excessive emissions that rich countries engaged in for decades to get to the level of industrial development they enjoy today. Developing countries feel a lot is being asked from them, and rich countries are not even setting the right example.

So the first step is cut emissions, but while we have a footprint, the second step (or rather, simultaneous step) must be to offset it. At any given time we should aspire to be carbon neutral even if we are not carbon-free, which is obviously infinitely better for the environment.

At the moment we are running a campaign to raise awareness about the carbon footprint of the internet, and the emissions that we cause by producing and maintaining websites. We offer our customers a personalised service to make your websites carbon neutral and also we want to encourage everyone to produce websites as carbon-free as possible to start with.

Google, Fujitsu, Hewlett-Packard and other companies have been successful in adopting technologies to make their servers carbon-free. Google's "sea-faring solution" is an imaginative concept that uses tidal energy and waves to produce electricity to cool and power data centres. This kind of concept will be more widely used in the future, given that data centres contribute to nearly one fourth of the internet's carbon footprint - obviously it will be key to look at ways to change how we run them in order to cut emissions.

For smaller companies not quite in the league of the internet giants, the vast majority of us who rely on data centres powered by conventional energy sources, the way forward to achieve emission cuts is to demand from service providers to switch to greener and renewable sources of energy, and to offset the remainder of the carbon footprint in order to remain carbon neutral.

TO CLAIM YOUR FREE TREE:

Send an email to customer@carbonica.org and write the promotional code CT42 in the subject. Leave the message body empty.

We will write back within 24 hours confirming your free tree will be planted. One tree is equivalent to a carbon offset of 1 tonne of CO₂. 

TO GIVE SOMEONE A FREE TREE FOR CHRISTMAS:

Send an email to customer@carbonica.org and write the promotional code VT50 in the subject. In the message body write the email address of the recipient of your gift, and a message to them (optional).

You will receive an email confirmation that your free tree will be planted for your friend, and your friend will receive an email with your message and a confirmation of their free tree gift.

Terms and conditions apply.

Only one tree per person. Promotional carbon offsets are not for resale and are subject to availability.

New research demonstrates the key role of rainforest restoration to offset carbon emissions. In a research article published in the journal Environmental Research Letters,  a group of researchers found that forest restoration in the tropics is most efficient to combat climate change because carbon capture assists the water cycle, creating cloud feedbacks and decreasing the concentration of CO₂ in the atmosphere.

We have always believed in the beneficial impact of our rainforests in fighting global warming, and it is nice to come across research articles endorsing this view. The full article can be read here: http://www.iop.org/EJ/article/-search=59298093.1/1748-9326/3/4/044006/erl8_4_044006.pdf?request-id=c66ad5b9-243f-47f2-b72a-854c7674e6f8 (in PDF format).

The authors emphasize the importance of scientifically assessing the geographical location, specimens of trees and habitat prior to planting, to ensure that the ecosystem will be efficient as a carbon sink.

Without a scientific assessment, tree planting can result in unexpected side effects. For example in temperate climates such as Western Europe and North America, and more specifically in snow covered land, trees can contribute to the darkening of the landscape and increase sunlight retention, increasing regional warming. It is important to assess these factors to manage the forest as a carbon sink and to combat global warming, not to contribute to it.

For this reason Carbonica only supports reforestation and afforestation (conversion of open land into forest) in the tropics (specifically Central America), where the scientific case to consider these as efficient carbon capture and global cooling mechanisms is strong and well documented.

CARBONICA - PROTECTING THE WORLD'S RAINFORESTS 

Click  here to reduce your carbon footprint