Hey Brian, Giving Green has done some research, including on offsets, and they found some interventions to be effective and others being not. You can read more here: https://www.givinggreen.earth/carbon-offsets
I’ve only skimmed through it, and I don’t know how objective it is, but I think this article and the Giving Green report could be good references for carbon offset projects/charities that are too boastful and/or are barely impactful or even net-negative.
On another note, I wonder why Giving Green recommends some carbon offset charities even though Founders Pledge has found Clean Air Task Force to be a lot more cost-effective (even on conservative estimates of their success in lobbying). Maybe you know why, but I’ll try to email Giving Green’s founders to ask about this!
Thanks for pointing this out—this makes sense! Copied the part here for anyone that wants to find out where that specific part is:
Giving Green’s goal is to use an EA-style, highly rigorous research methodology to develop recommendations that will make current climate donations much more effective and that will crowd money to effective organizations. For instance, consider the space of carbon offsets. We believe (as do the researchers at Founder’s Pledge and Let’s Fund) that carbon offsets are not among the most cost-effective solutions to climate change. However, unlike Founder’s Pledge, we conduct research and make recommendations in the offset space because many organizations (specifically businesses looking to make claims of carbon-neutrality) want to buy carbon offsets. We think that providing recommendations in the offset market has a good amount of social value, as purchasers in this space are unlikely to switch over to, for example, policy charities.
“to meet emission reduction targets under the Kyoto agreement, the Swiss government committed to purchasing 2 million tons of certified emissions credits between 2015 and 2020 (estimated at $24 million USD1 ) by financing an NGO distributing water-purifying chlorine dispensers in Africa. Did the $24 million reduce 2 million tons in carbon emissions? Almost certainly not, as the assumption households would boil water in absence of the filters was untrue.” (Footnote 1. Note that chlorine dispensers treat water and reduce child diarrhea incidences and hence save lives, but they may just not be good at reducing carbon emissions.)
an EU-commissioned assessment of the UN’s Clean Development Mechanism (CDM), which is used to certify offsets under the Kyoto protocol, concluded that “CDM still has fundamental flaws in terms of overall environmental integrity.” It noted that 85% of the projects analyzed have a “low likelihood that emission reductions are additional and are not over-estimated.” (p2)
At least Chlorine dispensers seem robustly good. Like, not for climate, but for human wellbeing generally. In fact, under not-completely-crazy assumptions, they outperform deworming.
Hey Brian, Giving Green has done some research, including on offsets, and they found some interventions to be effective and others being not. You can read more here: https://www.givinggreen.earth/carbon-offsets
Thanks for linking this! I’ve read through this link: https://www.givinggreen.earth/post/overview-of-the-voluntary-offset-market
It’s quite helpful.
That link also links to this article: https://features.propublica.org/brazil-carbon-offsets/inconvenient-truth-carbon-credits-dont-work-deforestation-redd-acre-cambodia/
I’ve only skimmed through it, and I don’t know how objective it is, but I think this article and the Giving Green report could be good references for carbon offset projects/charities that are too boastful and/or are barely impactful or even net-negative.
On another note, I wonder why Giving Green recommends some carbon offset charities even though Founders Pledge has found Clean Air Task Force to be a lot more cost-effective (even on conservative estimates of their success in lobbying). Maybe you know why, but I’ll try to email Giving Green’s founders to ask about this!
They explain why they offer offset recommendations (even though, like Founders Pledge, they believe CATF is likely more cost-effective) at some length in their launch post: https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/xfN7AwkjYBpEbbz6x/re-launching-giving-green-an-ea-run-organization-directing
Thanks for pointing this out—this makes sense! Copied the part here for anyone that wants to find out where that specific part is:
Some more examples I found in their concept note:
“to meet emission reduction targets under the Kyoto agreement, the Swiss government committed to purchasing 2 million tons of certified emissions credits between 2015 and 2020 (estimated at $24 million USD1 ) by financing an NGO distributing water-purifying chlorine dispensers in Africa. Did the $24 million reduce 2 million tons in carbon emissions? Almost certainly not, as the assumption households would boil water in absence of the filters was untrue.” (Footnote 1. Note that chlorine dispensers treat water and reduce child diarrhea incidences and hence save lives, but they may just not be good at reducing carbon emissions.)
an EU-commissioned assessment of the UN’s Clean Development Mechanism (CDM), which is used to certify offsets under the Kyoto protocol, concluded that “CDM still has fundamental flaws in terms of overall environmental integrity.” It noted that 85% of the projects analyzed have a “low likelihood that emission reductions are additional and are not over-estimated.” (p2)
At least Chlorine dispensers seem robustly good. Like, not for climate, but for human wellbeing generally. In fact, under not-completely-crazy assumptions, they outperform deworming.
This—especially the “offset you flight CO2 emissions” BS, where they “buy” non-counterfactual emissions reductions.