Hello!
The comments on this profile are unclaimed and thus are unverified.
Do they belong to you? Claim these comments.
Adam Stein
Is this you? Claim Profile »
1 year ago
in Pancho Campo Poses a Question for Al Gore on Wine and Market Choices on Catavino
Hi Ryan,
Good question, tough to answer in a really simple way. With climate change, you have to really consider the short term and the long term separately.
In the long term, the only viable solutions to climate change are systemic. We need 80% cuts in emissions, and we simultaneously need to ensure that the developing world follows a different path to prosperity than we did. These are big challenges that can't really be addressed through individual efforts. So in this regard, the single most important thing you can do is vote or otherwise try to influence your legislators.
In the short term, though, we need to stop pouring money into long-lived infrastructure that is further contributing to the problem. Some of that infrastructure is things like are cars (which typically take 10 years to turn over) or new coal-fired power plants (which can last for 75 years or longer). Personal measures like offsets and conservation can help to relieve those short-term pressures while longer term investments are being made.
There really is no "right" amount to offset. Most people seek to match their own emissions, but this is really just a symbolic level. You could choose to buy more or fewer offsets, as budget or desire allows.
Hope this helps,
Adam
Good question, tough to answer in a really simple way. With climate change, you have to really consider the short term and the long term separately.
In the long term, the only viable solutions to climate change are systemic. We need 80% cuts in emissions, and we simultaneously need to ensure that the developing world follows a different path to prosperity than we did. These are big challenges that can't really be addressed through individual efforts. So in this regard, the single most important thing you can do is vote or otherwise try to influence your legislators.
In the short term, though, we need to stop pouring money into long-lived infrastructure that is further contributing to the problem. Some of that infrastructure is things like are cars (which typically take 10 years to turn over) or new coal-fired power plants (which can last for 75 years or longer). Personal measures like offsets and conservation can help to relieve those short-term pressures while longer term investments are being made.
There really is no "right" amount to offset. Most people seek to match their own emissions, but this is really just a symbolic level. You could choose to buy more or fewer offsets, as budget or desire allows.
Hope this helps,
Adam
1 year ago
in Pancho Campo Poses a Question for Al Gore on Wine and Market Choices on Catavino
Whoops, posting one follow-up comment so I can register for email updates...
1 year ago
in Pancho Campo Poses a Question for Al Gore on Wine and Market Choices on Catavino
Hi,
I'm Adam Stein, one of the founders of TerraPass. Gabriella asked me chime in on some of the points raised above, so here are a few thoughts:
First, there is the well worn analogy to carbon offsets and medieval indulgences. Pollute as much as you want and just pay some money for a carbon offset and you don’t have to feel guilty about all the polluting you do. Drive the biggest gas guzzler you want, and no worries. $10 a month assuages your guilt. Carbon offsets can lead to such a mentality. Why conserve when you can just buy away your problems?
Yeah, this has pretty much been beaten to death. It's a lazy criticism. In real life, people don't do this. Happy to consider any evidence to the contrary, but no one has ever produced any.
Second, there are companies who sell carbon offsets who don’t follow through. Though there is the start of some independent monitoring companies, to ensure you get what you pay for, one has to be very careful which company you use.
This is true, which is why TerraPass is independently audited and publishes a verification report on our web site. As with all purchases, you do have to do you research.
Third, you are really never carbon neutral as everything is an estimate anyways. They estimate what your carbon footprint is for certain activities. That estimate will vary dependent on which company you consult. Which estimate is best though? And your actual carbon footprint could be higher than the estimate so any offset may not truly offset your actual footprint.
This seems like an odd nitpick. People who purchase carbon offsets are aware that their purchase may not exactly match their true carbon footprint. But they're still happy to be able to take action on climate change, both through offsetting and through conservation measures.
Fourth, what methods of carbon offset are being used? Not all are the same and some methods are more controversial than others as to their actual effect. For example, a number of issues have been raised about tree planting as a method.
TerraPass doesn't support tree-planting projects, due to quality concerns. We spend an enormous amount of time, effort, and money doing project-level verification to make sure our offsets are high quality.
Fifth, how much of the cost of carbon offsets actually goes to the offsets and how much is profit and admin costs for the company selling the offsets? When a for profit company is selling offsets, you know they will likely be charging as much as they can to maximize profits.
Nope, this is not true. The carbon offset industry is highly competitive -- there are something like 60 offset retailers out there -- which means there is an enormous amount of downward price pressure. Offset retailers charge as low a price as they can. This is how all commodity markets work.
Sixth, would the money you pay for offsets be better used for other conservation measures?
This is a value judgment that individuals will have to make. Usually, though, these types of questions imply tradeoffs that don't exist. "Should we really be spending money on saving panda bears when there are children starving in Africa?" More often than not, it's a false choice. But of course, I encourage people to put their money to whichever worthy causes they feel most passionate about.
-----
And to Jill -- it sounds like you're coming at this the right way. Carbon offsets aren't really either a band aid or (by themselves) a long-term solution. They're hopefully an accelerant to some of the long-term solutions that need to be put into place. Solutions such as national carbon legislation, investment in clean energy infrastructure, etc. Climate change is a very big problem, and we just need to chip away at it through every means at our disposal. Thanks for your support.
I'm Adam Stein, one of the founders of TerraPass. Gabriella asked me chime in on some of the points raised above, so here are a few thoughts:
First, there is the well worn analogy to carbon offsets and medieval indulgences. Pollute as much as you want and just pay some money for a carbon offset and you don’t have to feel guilty about all the polluting you do. Drive the biggest gas guzzler you want, and no worries. $10 a month assuages your guilt. Carbon offsets can lead to such a mentality. Why conserve when you can just buy away your problems?
Yeah, this has pretty much been beaten to death. It's a lazy criticism. In real life, people don't do this. Happy to consider any evidence to the contrary, but no one has ever produced any.
Second, there are companies who sell carbon offsets who don’t follow through. Though there is the start of some independent monitoring companies, to ensure you get what you pay for, one has to be very careful which company you use.
This is true, which is why TerraPass is independently audited and publishes a verification report on our web site. As with all purchases, you do have to do you research.
Third, you are really never carbon neutral as everything is an estimate anyways. They estimate what your carbon footprint is for certain activities. That estimate will vary dependent on which company you consult. Which estimate is best though? And your actual carbon footprint could be higher than the estimate so any offset may not truly offset your actual footprint.
This seems like an odd nitpick. People who purchase carbon offsets are aware that their purchase may not exactly match their true carbon footprint. But they're still happy to be able to take action on climate change, both through offsetting and through conservation measures.
Fourth, what methods of carbon offset are being used? Not all are the same and some methods are more controversial than others as to their actual effect. For example, a number of issues have been raised about tree planting as a method.
TerraPass doesn't support tree-planting projects, due to quality concerns. We spend an enormous amount of time, effort, and money doing project-level verification to make sure our offsets are high quality.
Fifth, how much of the cost of carbon offsets actually goes to the offsets and how much is profit and admin costs for the company selling the offsets? When a for profit company is selling offsets, you know they will likely be charging as much as they can to maximize profits.
Nope, this is not true. The carbon offset industry is highly competitive -- there are something like 60 offset retailers out there -- which means there is an enormous amount of downward price pressure. Offset retailers charge as low a price as they can. This is how all commodity markets work.
Sixth, would the money you pay for offsets be better used for other conservation measures?
This is a value judgment that individuals will have to make. Usually, though, these types of questions imply tradeoffs that don't exist. "Should we really be spending money on saving panda bears when there are children starving in Africa?" More often than not, it's a false choice. But of course, I encourage people to put their money to whichever worthy causes they feel most passionate about.
-----
And to Jill -- it sounds like you're coming at this the right way. Carbon offsets aren't really either a band aid or (by themselves) a long-term solution. They're hopefully an accelerant to some of the long-term solutions that need to be put into place. Solutions such as national carbon legislation, investment in clean energy infrastructure, etc. Climate change is a very big problem, and we just need to chip away at it through every means at our disposal. Thanks for your support.
