Carbon Neutral is a term that gets thrown around quite a bit these days, so what is it exactly? Is it a goal, a guideline, or a gimmick? Carbon neutrality is at the forefront of any conversation concerning climate change . Of course, in order to attain carbon neutrality, we have to start off by cutting carbon emissions and developing carbon neutral forms of energy and living. So what is this omnipresent catchphrase and what should we focus on when pursuing low-carbon living?
Definition of Carbon Neutrality
On the surface, the concept of carbon neutrality is rather simple. A process is carbon neutral when it sequesters (or takes in) the same amount of carbon (or carbon dioxide CO2) that it produces.1 For example, many biofuels are considered carbon neutral because the energy comes from plants, which take in CO2 from the environment as they grow. Once the plants are grown, they can be used for fuel or energy through various processes, and through these processes carbon is released back into the atmosphere. So, yes, the energy from biofuel emits carbon into the atmosphere, but theoretically, those emissions are no greater than the total amount of carbon taken in by the plant when it grew. If the total emission of CO2 equals the total absorption of CO2, then you have a carbon neutral process. What is the problem then you ask?
Let us look at the biofuel example. Is the “clean” energy still carbon neutral if we grow plants with synthetic petroleum-based fertilizers (for increased productivity), harvest and ship the plants around the country with petroleum-fueled machines, and engage in energy intensive processes to convert the plant from cellulose to a desirable form of energy? Most would say no, this is no longer carbon neutral. It is tempting to look only at the beginning and end products –ignoring the big picture. Plants go in, fuel comes out–sustainable! Unfortunately, it is never that simple.
Renewable Energies
Renewable energies can actually reduce the amount of CO2 we emit as a society. Since they rely on renewable sources such as the sun, wind, tides, geothermal, or biomass, they can produce energy without diminishing a finite stock of resources, and hopefully do so in a cleaner manner than traditional “dirty” petroleum-based energy resources and coal. Let’s say I want to create a solar energy farm. Now, I know there are carbon emissions associated with the creation of solar panels and construction, but this solar farm provides electricity for a community that is currently powered by a coal fired power plant (like 50% of all electricity in the U.S.).4 By getting electricity from the solar farm, instead of the coal power, the community greatly reduces its CO2 emissions and actually produces negative CO2 emissions over time when compared to the status quo of coal power.5 This same principle applies to other forms of alternative energies that replace preexisting “dirty” energy.
Now, the question becomes, what sort of balance should we strike between the creation of new renewable energy infrastructure and the continued production of energy through carbon intensive methods such as coal power elsewhere? For example, let’s take a successful coal company in the eastern U.S. that also provides many jobs for that region. People know its energy production methods are not the cleanest, and it is contributing to climate change. However, it is politically infeasible to remove this coal company from the region. So, the government proposes a sort of regulation to counterbalance the coal company’s CO2 emissions. They tell the company it must purchase permits to emit CO2 and must cap its emissions at a certain level. The coal company can then purchase permits from a renewable energy company in California that is doing a great job saving the world, but cannot compete in price with cheap fossil fuels. The coal company benefits because it can still operate and emit CO2, while the renewable energy company benefits because they are receiving money for being green. This regulation technique is known as “cap and trade.”6
The philosophy behind the “cap and trade” program is known as “carbon offsetting.” Carbon offsets are a way to realize carbon neutrality. Unfortunately, they add yet another layer of complexity and may ultimately distract from the real goal of reducing CO2 emissions globally.
Carbon Offsets
Carbon offsets follow the simple principle that carbon emissions from one geographic location can be offset by carbon reductions at another geographic location. Since CO2 emissions affect the globe, sequestering carbon in the Amazon rainforest balances out emissions from a power plant in China. However, many view this philosophy as easily manipulated and even morally reprehensible.8 In an era when many are concerned with their “carbon footprint” but do not know how to lower it, offsets are an obvious place to turn for help. It is hip to be green, but people also want to live life as usual, so they find an easy way to do both.
Some view offset programs as a way for people to repent for their climate sins. By purchasing an offset permit from a company, people can feel better about their non-ecofriendly actions. However, these markets are largely unregulated and someone is capitalizing on the sale and distribution of permits, thus creating false incentives to “get people a good deal on carbon permits.” Any offsets that sound too good to be true, probably are.
One should also consider that many offset companies are “offsetting” your CO2 emissions by planting trees around the world. Now, yes, trees do sequester carbon from the atmosphere, but they only hold that carbon for a finite period – maybe several hundred years. After that, the carbon is released back into the atmosphere, so this is not really a solution. Effective sequestration must hold carbon for hundreds of thousands of years, if not millions, for the earth to return to natural greenhouse gas levels. Offset companies are profiting from the concept of a quick fix and an easy way for you to be green and clear your conscious.
However, in most cases, you would do far more for the environment by reducing your personal carbon footprint through energy and consumption reduction. Charles Komanoff, an energy economist in New York believes, “[t]here isn’t a single American household above the poverty line that couldn’t cut their CO2 at least 25 percent in six months through a straightforward series of fairly simple and terrifically cost-effective measures.”9 Carbon neutral gimmicks, like easy offset programs, can distract the public from the hard reality that we need long-term public policy changes to combat climate change on a global scale.
If only it were this simple…10
Cheatneutral example: Let us look at carbon offsets from a different perspective. A “company” named Cheatneutral was formed in 2007 with the goal of “offsetting infidelity.”11 Their message was so clear, and almost logical, that people actually believed they were a genuine service. Technically, they are a genuine service, but they created the company with the sole intent of satirizing carbon offsets. Are you comfortable with the prospect of paying another couple to stay monogamous whenever you are unfaithful to your partner? This is what Cheatneutral purports to do—create a market for infidelity, where cheaters can “offset” their infidelity by paying others to stay faithful. The concept is so off-putting to most that they would never consider such a system. Well, perhaps they should stay away from carbon offsets as well. Offset programs almost seem to condone carbon emitting, as Cheatneutral condones cheating. If offsetting is as easy as spending a few dollars, why would you change how you live? This is why offsets are potentially dangerous, and even morally questionable.
Is Carbon Neutrality in our Future?
We all want to live green and lower out carbon footprints, but we must take an active role in this process. The concept of carbon neutrality is great, but it is easy to get caught up in a web of confusion and fictional markets that want your money. This is not to say that legitimate carbon offsetting companies do not exist, but be extremely wary and realize there may be more effective ways to combat climate change than buying offsets. Take personal action: reduce your carbon footprint, advocate for renewable energy in your community, and fight for substantial public policy measures that will do the most to move our society towards true carbon neutrality.
