Carbon compensation or CO2, the opinion of Jancovici

Warming and Climate Change: causes, consequences, analysis ... Debate on CO2 and other greenhouse gas.
Christophe
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 79117
Registration: 10/02/03, 14:06
Location: Greenhouse planet
x 10973

Carbon compensation or CO2, the opinion of Jancovici




by Christophe » 18/02/08, 19:46

The pessimo-realistic opinion of Janco on the "nascent" business of carbon offsets (in other words: I can pollute since I would have a clear conscience by paying to "offset" my pollution ... but the reality is less rosy ... green sorry!)

Read the complete dossier of JM Jancovici: https://jancovici.com/changement-climat ... croquerie/

Carbon “neutrality”, funny good idea or beautiful scam?

At all times, sin has given a bit of a bad conscience to the vast majority of brain bipeds that we are, even when we wallow in them with delight. For the great mass of individuals who are at odds with the moral of the moment, there is always the little voice of conscience which reminds us that "it's not good what you do", and that we will have to see buy back at a later opportunity.

Unless you are deaf and blind, everyone understands that the morals of the 21st century will less and less praise the fact of consuming energy at arm's length while caring as little as possible about the possible consequences. As we are not with a contradiction near, this growing concern of our rejections does not prevent us from continuing to consider, at the same time, as socially desirable and economically desirable to consume more and more, and that even our president said that it was a goal in his wishes to the French. With or without a president, moreover, the status is always measured by the size of the accommodation, that of the means of transport, or even the distance traveled between the home and the vacation spot: going far (in the Tropics, in Patagonia, etc. ) it's still more chic to impress office cops (than) than going to the Morvan!

But if the moral - behaving in an ecological way - and the status - which supposes having always more - become antagonistic, how to manage that? Very simple: we don't change anything at home, and we ask others to be green in their place by giving them a little something. It's stupid like cabbage, it was enough to think about it, right? This awesome find is called…. "offsetting": every time I directly or indirectly emit greenhouse gases, for example by lighting a boiler, getting into a car or plane, or even by buying a mobile phone (because we also emit - indirectly - by buying a phone or going to a restaurant!), I pay someone to "unsubscribe" for me. When “compensation” relates to all of the emissions linked to an individual, a company, a product, etc., the term “neutrality” is used: on paper, all of the emissions taken into account are “canceled” by a reduction made elsewhere. I consume, and you clean up in my place without having consumed, such is the logic of this miracle.

I'm exaggerating? A little, come on, because this reasoning follows a logic of the type "communicating vessels" which is also used in the framework of the Kyoto protocol, for "clean development mechanisms", and which is not so stupid as that seen from the top. The reasoning proposed is as follows:

we take into account the sum of the emissions of the entity that “offsets” and of another entity, “elsewhere”, that we will help reduce its emissions (on paper, in fact we will see below that this vision is often questionable).

(...)

What's the problem, then?

This “compensation” (or “neutrality” when it concerns all the emissions of the paying entity), as it is explained above, seems common sense itself: if reducing elsewhere turns out to be easier to do that reducing at home, for a lower price and no change in habits, it would be wrong to deprive yourself of it. Indeed, in terms of greenhouse gases, any reduction here is equivalent to a reduction elsewhere, because of the very long period of residence in the atmosphere of these gases. And in fact, if the proper functioning of this “compensation” mechanism was guaranteed in all cases, without limit on the volume of issues concerned, without carry-over effect not taken into account, and without simple delay in time of the shows concerned, that would be perfect. Except that ... when we move from theory to practice, it appears that it is anything but simple to guarantee the answer to the following few questions:

Where is the guarantee that there is no postponement effect, which would cancel the result? A carry-over effect occurs when what is no longer issued here will be issued “elsewhere”, but is not taken into account in the calculation because the perimeter is too narrow.

Are the emissions avoided at the same time as the emissions of the compensating entity? In other words, does the entity that pays to "compensate" buy a reduction that occurs when it pays, or that will occur "later"? If it comes later, how can you be sure it will happen?

In all cases, who verifies the reality of the emissions avoided, and how to guarantee that this verification has value?

How to verify that the “compensation” has a ripple effect, by preparing the paying entity to reduce its own emissions, and not an anesthetic effect, by giving it the illusion that the problem is under control and that it will not be necessary to make the least heavy investment, when in fact these are essential?

Is this "compensation" open to all, or are the first to use it "bite the spot" and there is no reduction possible?

Is “compensation” also a good response to the inevitable decrease in the supply of oil, gas and coal that will occur during the 21st century?

Emissions avoided or emissions transferred?

Emissions avoided or emissions transferred?

The first possible weakness of the mechanism will come from the choice of the perimeter of calculation, which can strongly condition the result. Indeed, in real life, what happens here is rarely completely independent of what happens there, so that the only perimeter of calculation which guarantees that one will not miss a phenomenon of carry (what is no longer consumed here will be consumed there) is ... the entire planet. In other words, to be rigorous, it would be necessary to compare the emissions of the entire planet if the money for "compensation" exists, with the emissions if this money does not exist. It is obviously impossible to do so for at least two reasons:

history is only written once: "what would have happened if" cannot be observed, but simply proposed,

the system is far too complex to have direct visibility of all flows, and limiting it to a subset of the planet is essential.

With certain projects, in particular those dealing with non-CO2 gases, this reduction is quite largely justified: if the money from the “compensation” is used to finance the capture of methane from a landfill, for example, and if this money was really not found in the country concerned, we can accept the idea that what has been paid has a real effect on reducing emissions: emissions that no longer take place in the landfill will rarely reappear elsewhere. But… this kind of project (landfills) is a tiny part of what is financed with the money from the “compensation” (see below) and for avoided deforestation or renewable energies the reasoning is much more questionable.

(...)
0 x
User avatar
jean63
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 2332
Registration: 15/12/05, 08:50
Location: Auvergne
x 4




by jean63 » 21/02/08, 12:08

As soon as I have a moment, I go back to it.

He is very well argued his article ....... as usual.
0 x
Only when he has brought down the last tree, the last river contaminated, the last fish caught that man will realize that money is not edible (Indian MOHAWK).
User avatar
Remundo
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 15992
Registration: 15/10/07, 16:05
Location: Clermont Ferrand
x 5188




by Remundo » 21/02/08, 14:02

Yep, at Janco's place it's all right! :D
0 x
Image

 


  • Similar topics
    Replies
    views
    Last message

Back to "Climate Change: CO2, warming, greenhouse effect ..."

Who is online ?

Users browsing this forum : No registered users and 175 guests