Voluntary carbon offsets are a minor but useful item in the tool kit for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Their value is mostly symbolic, a way to raise awareness and to make a statement about one’s commitment to reducing emissions.

Families, individuals or companies can buy voluntary offset credits from any of several private companies that direct the money (minus a commission) to wind farms, solar installations and other projects that reduce carbon emissions. The idea is, if you pollute in one place, you can theoretically reduce your net climate impact by buying credits and contributing to energy efficient projects somewhere else.

I agree with those who think this is a pretty good idea, if only because it makes people aware of the carbon emissions they are creating. I don’t entirely agree with the critics who scoff at the notion as no better than the indulgences that the Catholic Church sold during the Middle Ages, but I can see their point.

Voluntary efforts should not be confused with the rigorous carbon cap and trade programs now established by the European Union and elsewhere under the Kyoto Protocol. The EU has the most rigorous program I know. Each business must meet an assigned carbon emissions cap. Companies that do better than the cap can “sell” the unused portion of their caps, for whatever the market will bear, as credits to companies that aren’t meeting their goals. There are stiff financial penalties for non-compliance.

I would prefer to see engineers everywhere act voluntarily to aggressively innovate design-for-environment features in all sites, products and services. But we’re not seeing significant movement in that direction yet, and time to reduce environmental degradation may be running out. So, mandatory cap and trade programs are likely to be among the more successful methods for lowering emissions until we develop technologies to dramatically reduce our use of carbon-emitting fuels.

In contrast, voluntary carbon offset programs are a partially effective, temporary measure toward reducing emissions, mainly because they raise the consciousness of executives, companies and individuals to the measurable costs of polluting.

For example, when we were helping one of our clients to elicit Lean and Green ideas from employees, one of the first responses was that the company should buy carbon offsets. This suggests that electronics executives need to know about voluntary carbon offset credits and develop an opinion on them.

The issue of offsets was brought to my attention by Saxton Rose, the creative director of TFI’s Web site, after he had read my blog on green wash several weeks ago. Voluntary carbon offsets do have the potential to become another form of green wash with more PR benefit to the adopting company than any real impact on the environment. I would not excessively praise companies that adopt voluntary offsets, especially if that is the sum of their green efforts.

If you want to learn more about how to reduce the environmental impact of your company and its products — and increase profits at that same time — then attend our September Quarterly Forum in Ottawa, where we will have a briefing and panel on Zero Waste in the electronics industry. To learn more about this and TFI’s other Lean and Green services follow this link. www.techforecasters.com/consulting/environment/

Posted by Pamela Gordon, May 25th, 2007

Filed to Environment, Logistics

|

digg this

Bookmark on del.icio.us

 Email This Post