Clearly it is time for us to join them in that future. Methane is such a valuable and even already utilized electricity source that there is absolutely no reason to pay anyone to have it thrown away!

Did you contact the Chicago Climate Exchange?

Because offsets can provide funding sources to increase our supply of wind farms and so on: they are useful. They just need to be better monitored by carbon offset auditors - even accountants are needed in the green-collar job bonanza!

And the fact that they would be doing it anyway is a red herring if in fact the offset encourages others (who are not doing it anyway) to do so.

[JR: Red herring? It is called “lack of additionality” and the vast majority of people would consider it fatal to an offset. After all if I’m paying you to do something that you were already doing and we’re going to do anyway, then I’m not offsetting anything. I’m just making a charitable donation.]

No, Joe. (Geez! I thought I said it clearly but obviously not.) In life we OFTEN - meaning, almost always - have to accept the not-go-good with the good. Or as we say, not let the perfect be the enemy of the good. If the offset market for capturing landfill methane causes a lot of methane capture that would have not otherwise been captured, it is NOT a case of “lack of additionality.” Even if there are some cases where there is no additionality. You are being too idealistic.

http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/emis/usa.html

Offsets are inherently dissatisfying because you can’t prove additionality. You’re right to point out that some offsets are just flat-out fraudulent, while others are of dubious quality. However, there are also a variety of decent offsets–energy efficiency projects, renewable energy projects, co-generation projects that are made viable by offset income.

You have to parse out whether your difficulty is with offsets, or with the offset market. The latter is really the problem I think you’re upset with–that consumers don’t know what they’re getting. I worked at GAO recently, and they released a report a couple months ago about what you’re getting (or not getting) when you buy voluntary offsets:

http://www.gao.gov%2Fnew.items%2Fd081048.pdf&ei=RWH_SLi-HYm4sAOO0705&usg=AFQjCNGPzJU6XhlCv2pffc-A9zTj_mHbyw&sig2=vwJ7PZTTx8H2EDsug84s1w

So indeed, take issue with that. As for offsets themselves, yes, quality is compromised in a lot of ways. The solution is not to do away with them, but rather to change the terms by which we generate them–for example, limiting project types theat are eligible, or moving to sectoral benchmark assessment instead of project-by-project basis.

Really? What does “vast majority” mean? 51%? What does “at some level” mean? This is just polemical rhetoric based on one extreme example. How about a balanced overview first, then we can discuss “bottom line”.

From a European perspective, this American discussion on climate change looks new to me. May be was I ignorant but I have got the feeling that the election of Obama has opend the door to a new American policy to climate change.

By chance, Europeans have come on that subject a little bit earlier. That is why we have some more experience in that. May be, since I have been working on that subject for a while, could I give some advice.

First, the words “global warming” look to me dangerous. In some areas, climate change will create indeed global warming. In some areas, it will be the opposite. Better to use appropriate wording to get sounder trust.

Second, I guess that the European experience could help the US to deliver quicker. Climate Change will probably force us to change some aspects of our ways of life. See for example that funny cartoon found on You Tube http://fr.youtube.com/watch?v=b1kf_axslfk.

Hope it will help

Luc