Articles by Joseph Romm

New standard for carbon offsets is unimpressive

As E&E News (subs. req'd)reports today:

An industry group released standards yesterday for carbon dioxide offsets in the hopes of attracting existing and still-forming emission-trading markets.

The Voluntary Carbon Standards (VCS) are aimed at evaluating clean-energy projects in developing countries that are used to offset industrialized nations' emissions of greenhouse gases under the Kyoto Protocol's Clean Development Mechanism.

You can read all about the new standard on their website. I am not terribly impressed with this new standard. Among other things, it allows tree projects (no, and no!). They also didn't consult with a lot of environmental groups, and as I pointed out to E&E News and WWF, their website has this bizarre and I think inappropriate listing under board members:

James Leape, WWF International (invited)

Seriously. How do you list an invited -- but not accepted -- board member on your website? Especially from an organization that seriously criticized the previous draft of your offset standard.

The rest of the E&E article, with quotes from me and WWF, is below:

New report summarizes clean tech in California

Everything you could possibly want to know about clean technology in the Golden State can be found in an excellent new report, the California Green Innovation Index, published by Next 10, a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization. The report tracks the state's economic and environmental performance and analyzes key indicators to better understand the role green innovation plays in reducing emissions and growing the economy.

California is a state where growth has always been built around innovation, as this figure from the report shows:

I've often written about California's leadership policies in energy efficiency -- but the report points out a number of fascinating factoids I wasn't aware of:

House buys carbon credits through Chicago Climate Exchange

Perhaps this (sub. rqd.) is not the best strategy:

The House purchased these carbon credits to offset the impact of 30,000 tons of carbon emitted by the U.S. Capitol's coal-burning power plant each year. The funds will be used on carbon reducing measures, such as planting trees and underground storage of carbon dioxide, as well as green technologies like wind and solar power. The auction was oversubscribed with a weighted average clearing price of $2.97 per ton.

I hope they didn't plant a lot of trees -- they aren't the greatest offsets (see here also). And I really hope the underground storage carbon dioxide isn't used for enhanced oil recovery -- a very dubious offset.

I personally wouldn't recommend the Chicago Climate Exchange for offsets -- too many environmental groups have doubts about it, and I have heard some serious concerns directly from people involved in their offset projects.

At least the House is cleaning up its own act first:

The House will become carbon neutral by purchasing wind power for the electricity it uses, and by substituting natural gas for coal to generate the House's portion of the electricity produced by the Capitol Power Plant. To offset the carbon emitted from burning natural gas, the House will purchase carbon offsets.

That's much, much better than just trying to offset coal power with, say, trees.

This post was created for ClimateProgress.org, a project of the Center for American Progress Action Fund.

Research vs. cap-and-trade

Yes, OPEC is now "pledging $750 million for research into climate change technology" (while opposing a cap-and-trade system).

[Note to President Bush, Newt Gingrich, and Bjørn Lomborg -- it ain't a good sign when your climate strategy is the same as OPEC's.]

OPEC, however, seems a tad confused on just what a technology-based strategy could do for oil: