Disqus - Latest Comments for Adam Stein

Re: Gardens Grow Up: Are Vertical Landscapes the New Green Roofs?

Adam Stein — Mon, 07 Sep 2009 10:21:59 -0000

Hi,

Thanks for the link to my piece on vertical farms. It's probably worth also linking to this other piece, which takes a more thoughtful look at the topic:

http://www.terrapass.com/blog/posts/cities-are-...

A couple of things to note:

1. Vertical gardens and vertical farms are entirely different things. Although they're both slightly more 3D than regular old flat gardens, they otherwise serve different functions and face different constraints. I was specifically criticizing the notion of doing industrial-scale agriculture in skyscrapers. I don't have much of an opinion on vertical gardens, other than that they seem nice.

2. My criticism of vertical farms isn't really contingent on the fact that there are other, better environmental solutions out there. I think vertical farms are likely to be a dumb idea no matter what. My point about carbon pricing is that vertical farms are an incredibly reductive way of thinking about our environmental impacts. When dealing with a complex system -- and food production surely counts as a complex system -- only a systemic solution like carbon pricing is going to help us find the ideas that have actual merit.

Re: Pancho Campo Poses a Question for Al Gore on Wine and Market Choices

Adam Stein — Tue, 19 Feb 2008 16:50:29 -0000

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.

Re: Pancho Campo Poses a Question for Al Gore on Wine and Market Choices

Adam Stein — Tue, 19 Feb 2008 16:51:17 -0000

Whoops, posting one follow-up comment so I can register for email updates...

Re: Pancho Campo Poses a Question for Al Gore on Wine and Market Choices

Adam Stein — Wed, 20 Feb 2008 06:57:22 -0000

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

Re: Infant Potty Training: Diaper Free Babies?!

Adam Stein — Tue, 18 Aug 2009 21:38:16 -0000

Hi Sami,

Thanks for the interesting post. One minor correction: Erik Blachford wrote the article about potty training, not me.

Regards,

Adam

Re: Pair Networks Working with TerraPass, Helping TreeHugger Grow

Adam Stein — Tue, 16 May 2006 19:15:23 -0000

First of all, thanks to Michael for the shout-out. We're very excited to be working with Pair Networks.

Second of all, El Jefe -- Whew! Where to begin? That is an impressive load of conspiracy theorizing, wild speculation, and straight-up misinformation you've managed to brew up there. I can't really hope to disentangle it all, but a few comments:

1) Ford does not "sponsor" TerraPass. Nor does Ford see a single thin dime, in tax breaks or otherwise, from the partnership. The extent of the arrangement is that Ford directs traffic to TerraPass from their web site, and we sell a custom-branded offset to Ford owners who are interested.

2) TerraPass has absolutely nothing to do with carbon sequestration or oil companies. For the Ford agreement in particular, funds go to a wind farm in Nebraska and a methane digester on a sustainable dairy farm in Minnesota.

3) To answer your rhetorical question: no, it doesn't seem weird that TerraPass is offered to people who drive SUVs. TerraPass is offered to everyone who drives. Would it make more sense to refuse to sell to people who drive SUVs?

4) Contrary to your supposition, with TerraPass you know exactly where your money is going. We are the only organization in this industry that submits to audits from the Center for Resource Solutions, the same folks who run the Green-e renewable energy certification program.

5) We are not "traders" on the carbon exchange. When we buy offsets from the CCX, we retire them forever, so that they can never be used as pollution permits. To suggest that this is funding industrial polluters shows a deep lack of understanding of carbon markets.

6) TerraPass is not a non-profit.

El Jefe, even a casual perusal of our web site would dispel all of the misinformation you've posted. You would do well to heed your own advice: do your research.

Re: The TH Interview: Jason Smith, CEO of DriveNeutral

Adam Stein — Wed, 19 Jul 2006 13:27:32 -0000

At TerraPass, we share Jason's sentiment about the carbon offset industry. Having some healthy competition is great for consumers and great for the environment, and I think all players in this industry are focused first and foremost on the big picture of trying to address global warming.

However, we do feel it necessary to respond some of Jason's comments about RECs. Certainly there is room for difference of opinion, and presumably Jason is sincere in his thoughts about the REC market. However, many of those opinions are deeply outside the mainstream.

Trading on the CCX began in 2003, making it a relative newcomer to the greenhouse gas abatement market. Today trading volume on the CCX is about 2 million tons annually.

The REC market in the U.S., by contrast, is about 20 million tons annually. Over 40 states have laws governing the definition and issuance of RECs. Over 600 green power programs based on RECs are now in existence in the U.S. Extremely sophisticated corporate buyers such as Whole Foods use RECs as a critical element of their carbon reduction strategies. To suggest that RECs are somehow excessively risky or lack proper protocols is to deny the existence of a thriving, mature market in renewable energy.

Jason also suggests that the risk of double-counting of RECs is high. In actual fact, the risk of double-counting is virtually nonexistent in today's market. And although double-counting is an important theoretical issue, it is also an issue that is quite solvable. For example, it has been already been addressed from a policy standpoint in the Kyoto Protocol. We have every reason to believe that similar policy safeguards will be enacted in the U.S. when they are needed.

Jason downplays the relevance of the Green-e program. Others feel differently. Daniel Lashof, science director of the climate center of the Natural Resources Defense Council, is quoted in the New York Times saying that the Green-e program is the only "uniformly accepted standard for what constitutes a valid reduction in global warming pollution."

Jason postulates that RECs won't be a part of any cap-and-trade emissions program in the U.S. If he's right, it would be a tragedy for the environment. Why would a program whose ostensible goal is to reduce greenhouse gases specifically exclude the largest thriving U.S. market in pollution reduction? Fortunately, historical precedent suggests that this prediction is wrong. Wind power and other renewables are included in the system of carbon trading set up by the Kyoto Protocol. There's no reason to think they won't also play a role in the U.S.

We certainly do agree with Jason that not all carbon credits are created equal. The carbon credit industry is complex, and many of the nuances and technical aspects of the industry are not well-understood by average consumers. However, suggesting as Jason does that CCX is good and RECs are bad is not a way to be "honest and clear" with customers.

At TerraPass, we support both the CCX and the REC market, and carefully select a portfolio of projects that further various environmental goals. In all cases, regardless of what type of purchase we're making, we only select projects in which we have the highest confidence that the carbon reductions are real.

One of the the most important goals in this industry is educating people about new ways to fight climate change. We welcome dialogs such as this one, and are glad that organizations such as DriveNeutral are helping to spread the word.

Re: TerraPass and Expedia Partner to Sell Flight Offsets

Adam Stein — Wed, 30 Aug 2006 17:28:15 -0000

Buying a carbon offset from TerraPass is buying a verified reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. It might be through funding clean energy, it might be through methane capture, or it might be through industrial efficiency projects.

Calling carbon offsets "polluter passes" is a nicely pejorative way to frame the issue, but of course very few of us have a carbon footprint of zero. We are all polluters.

I agree that we should strive to reduce our carbon footprint as much as possible through whatever means available -- solar panels and wind turbines are great, although somewhat out of reach for most Americans -- but for the emissions we can't eliminate, offsets are a great alternative.

Re: Carbon Neutral Myth? Protesters Take On Offset Companies

Adam Stein — Sun, 25 Feb 2007 12:32:58 -0000

We're planning on posting on this protest over on our own blog, but some half-baked thoughts while I digest this story:

The fact that this protest is misdirected isn't to me the most interesting aspect of this story. Yes, it seems a bit odd that climate change activists feel tiny carbon offsetting companies are the best targets for their attention and energy. But I think there's a really important message to this protest that we carbon offsetting companies would be very foolish to ignore, which in a nutshell is something like this:

Good intentions are not enough. Even good effects are not enough. Carbon offsetting companies have to be sincere in their efforts to incorporate offsets into a broader strategy that includes personal conservation and governmental action.

Perhaps this sounds obvious, but it's really not. When you're running a small company, it's very tempting to focus on the fundamentals. Of course we should all conserve, but is it really TerraPass' job to browbeat our customers about their driving habits?

But the fact is, contrary to strawman stereotype, people who purchase offsets are deeply concerned about their personal impact and looking for ways to reduce it. To the extent that offsetting companies can be a true partner in that effort, we will be successful. Otherwise, we can look forward to more protests.

Adam Stein,

Co-founder, TerraPass

Re: Carbon Neutral Myth? Protesters Take On Offset Companies

Adam Stein — Sun, 25 Feb 2007 21:05:56 -0000

Anonymous,

The price of carbon under Kyoto has nothing to do with whether the offsets are a "scam." The low price under Kyoto reflects both the fact that the emissions baselines were set too high, and the fact that the treaty is naturally winding down (it expires in 2012). Setting the baseline too high is unfortunate, but it's an implementation flaw in Kyoto, not a fundamental flaw in the notion of a cap-and-trade system.

Also, you're confusing allowances with offsets. This is a very important distinction. The "indulgences" criticism is pretty bogus under any circumstance, but it's especially bogus as applied to allowances. Allowances are simply a form of carbon tax, and there's nothing "indulgent" about charging people for polluting.

- Adam

Re: Carbon Neutral Myth? Protesters Take On Offset Companies

Adam Stein — Mon, 26 Feb 2007 03:13:35 -0000

Tree-planing offsets are one of the bigger red herrings in the debate over offsets. It is true that tree-planting projects are unreliable sources of offsets. It is all true that of the 1,661 offsetting projects that are taking place under Kyoto, only 5 are forestry projects. Forestry is just not a meaningful part of the mix.

Blogengeezer, offsetting projects have nothing to do with Darfur. Most money from offsetting projects goes directly to renewable energy production in the developing world.

For a detailed spreadsheet of all the Kyoto projects, look here:

http://www.cd4cdm.org/Publications/CDMpipeline.xls

Re: Built on Guilt - Carbon Offsets

Adam Stein — Fri, 09 Mar 2007 13:18:16 -0000

What a disappointing post. Critics of carbon offsets seem to know that they don't have to say anything substantive on the topic -- they just have to raise enough questions and insinuations to make the whole idea seem somehow seedy. Unfortunately, as this post demonstrates, it's generally an effective strategy. Let's take a look at the issues raised:

the schemes are not regulated

This is true. Of course, this is true of almost all businesses and non-profits, other than in the most trivial sense that we all operate within a legal framework. So what is the point here? Does the author have any knowledge of the standards process underway in the industry? Is the author aware of any of the accountability mechanisms employed by reputable vendors?

the price and method of offsetting varies wildly from one offsetter to another

This is a feature of the industry, not a problem. Solar photovoltaic installations are more expensive than wind turbines. Dairy farm methane digesters have a different cost basis than landfill methane flaring projects. There isn't one single solution to global warming, and neither should their be one single price or method for offsetting projects. Again, what is the point of this criticism, other than baseless insinuation that something seedy underlies the pricing variations?

the model is at best a marketing ploy, at worst a system to extract loot off of consumer guilt

Why don't you tell us how you really feel? Call us crazy, but we think offsets are neither a marketing ploy nor a system for loot extraction, but rather an economic tool for funding carbon dioxide reductions. You do realize that the end result is a reduction in carbon dioxide reductions?

And critics really need to reconcile themselves with this notion of "guilt." Is guilt good or bad? I can never tell. It seems to be good when it leads to actions the critic likes, and bad when it leads to actions the critic doesn't approve of. Car guilt is good. Offset guilt is bad. Or something like that.

particularly damaging are the for-profit intermediaries such as Terrapass who openly proclaim they're in it for a buck

Mark, you sort of give up the game with this one. TerraPass, of course, has never proclaimed any such thing. This statement is flatly false, and you should know that it is flatly false, given how much of my own time I devoted to answering your questions about TerraPass.

having guilt converted into a fiduciary instrument is just plain wrong, and having consumers foot the bill for every infrastructure crisis that comes along isn't right either

And making baseless accusations on topics that you don't properly understand is also just plain wrong. Carbon offsets are not a fiduciary instrument based on guilt. I don't think the 196 countries that signed on to the Kyoto Accord believed they were setting up a guilt-based economy. Neither are consumers footing the bill for an infrastructure crisis. If they are, we're doomed, because the voluntary carbon market is pretty inconsequential compared to the $20 trillion in energy infrastructure investment that will be spent globally in the next three decades.

Rather, the voluntary market is an additional tool available to consumers who want to mitigate their impact. You, of course, are free not to participate. That's the great thing about a voluntary system. In the meantime, please get your basic facts straight.

Re: Built on Guilt - Carbon Offsets

Adam Stein — Fri, 09 Mar 2007 15:14:57 -0000

The problem is that your conclusions are absurdly tendentious and many cases flatly wrong. You say that TerraPass "openly proclaims they're in it for a buck." This is a smear. I co-founded TerraPass, and certainly I never proclaimed I was in anything "for a buck," for the simple reason that this isn't true. There are a lot of good ways to make a buck. Selling offsets isn't one of them.

You say that "Terrapass is doing carbon offsetting to turn a profit." This is a backwards and misguided notion of how business works. TerraPass is selling carbon offsets in order to reduce carbon emissions foremost, and secondarily to educate individuals about climate change. We attempt to turn a profit so that we can continue to pursue this mission -- otherwise our organization will cease to exist. Saying that we're in this for a buck is like saying non-profits are in this to grab grant money. It's biased, misinformed, and lazy.

Re: Built on Guilt - Carbon Offsets

Adam Stein — Fri, 09 Mar 2007 17:17:38 -0000

Criticism doesn't bother us. We criticize ourselves all the time, and we we fully understand that there are a lot of legitimate debates regarding carbon offsets.

But you have to realize that when you make false or poorly reasoned accusations, you are going to get called on them. You have a large audience here at Treehugger, and it behooves you to inform yourself about the topics you are writing on.

Re: TreeHugger Looks Into The Carbon Offset Project At The Tontitown Landfill

Adam Stein — Mon, 26 Mar 2007 20:49:18 -0000

Scott,

We at TerraPass certainly are concerned with the additionality of RECs. But most of the accusations in the article were vague and unsourced, so there's nothing really for us to respond to. The Tontitown criticism, on the other hand, was quite specific, so it merited further investigation.

More generally, as you note, there is a good deal of controversy regarding the proper way to measure the additionality of RECs, and TerraPass alone certainly isn't going to settle the issue, although we obviously have our opinion. I do want to note, though, that the financial additionality test that you focus on has received a lot of criticism for rewarding financially questionable projects.

Johnno, you say:

Instead of being rewarded for emitting less than otherwise the landfill should be penalised for ANY emissions on a CO2 equivalence basis.

I hear this sort of thing all the time: instead of A, we should be doing B. We can all agree that a carbon tax would be a very fine thing indeed. But we don't have carbon tax. And we're not very likely to get a carbon tax. So issuing statements like "it is plain wrong to reward methane flaring" is about as useful as, well, farting in an elevator.

Re: The TH Interview: Adam Stein of TerraPass

Adam Stein — Fri, 01 Jun 2007 11:40:08 -0000

Icelander, I doubt we actually disagree all that much on this issue. As I mentioned, the voluntary carbon offset industry is still several orders of magnitude away from your threshold of several billion dollars a year, and I suspect it will be regulated long before it reaches that size. Which is fine with me.

That said, I do think you overstate. I doubt, for example, that you're keenly interested in seeing strong federal oversight of the multibillion dollar barber shop industry.

I'm not trying to be glib here. Rather, I'm just pointing out that you've picked two examples (auto emissions and mercury pollution) that happen to be strong negative externalities of industrialization. These are exactly the types of things that require government regulation. They're also pretty much totally irrelevant to the carbon offsetting industry.

Re: The TH Interview: Adam Stein of TerraPass

Adam Stein — Fri, 01 Jun 2007 11:53:53 -0000

j -- because middlemen are the unsung heroes of the economy!

Well, maybe not. But in general, retailers provide several useful functions in most industries, and carbon offsets are no different. For example:

<ul><li>Quality control. This is probably the most important function. There are thousands of offset projects out there. Differentiating them is difficult. Even if you had the expertise, it probably wouldn't be worth your time to sift through hundreds of pages of verification reports before making a $50 purchase.</li>
<li>Demand aggregation. Well, maybe this is the most important function: you can't buy offsets directly from projects. Wind farms aren't set up to take credit cards, much less provide customer service. Like most wholesalers, they only want to sell in bulk to professional buyers.</li></ul>

There are other reasons, but these are probably the two big ones.

Re: Infant Potty Training: Diaper Free Babies?!

Adam Stein — Tue, 18 Aug 2009 18:38:16 -0000

Hi Sami,

Thanks for the interesting post. One minor correction: Erik Blachford wrote the article about potty training, not me.

Regards,

Adam