BP's private CO2 offset scheme sets dangerous precedent

In a highly problematic move, BP has launched Target Neutral, a website where car drivers can offset the CO2 their cars produce. The idea is that a driver uses the website, www.targetneutral.com, to calculate their CO2 output and then makes a donation which funds projects which reduce CO2 output by an equivalent amount. The donation then goes into projects such as building a biomass power station in India, which uses agricultural waste and local crops, and which is carbon neutral. That way, the driver's CO2 emissions have been 'neutralised'.
The "Advisory Panel" - paid generously by BP - includes environmentalists who act in an individual capacity and who do not represent their organisations. This doesn't at all guarantee that the project is a not PR stunt, on the contrary.

The scheme sets a dangerous precedent and is highly problematic for several reasons:

• First of all, there is no independent board of scientists -- 'independent' as in 'not being paid by the very company that draws on them' -- that assesses whether the projects in which BP will invest the donated money are indeed climate friendly and contribute to CO2 reductions. BP's initiative is a commercial replica of the existing Clean Development Mechanism, which is monitored by the United Nations. Under the CDM, projects are screened very thoroughly and objectively on their real CO2 reduction value and their environmental sustainability, by real independent experts who are not paid or appointed by a commercial firm. Moreover, these procedures and selections are publicly available, and in their turn monitored by watchdogs. BP's scheme completely lacks this most basic of requirements. There is no way for us to know how the projects have been selected. Companies on the receiving end in the developing world might approach the BP fund in ways that would never be allowed under the CMD selection process. Given that this is a private fund, there is no way for us to monitor the entire selection procedure. We'll simply have to 'believe' BP on its word.
• Secondly, a private company's first aim is to make profits, and BP's private CO2 reduction plan is no different. Even though BP claims to make 'no profits' from the scheme, it is definitely a way of tieing consumers to the company, and moreover, a good PR campaign equals profits too.
  
• Thirdly, the scheme effectively comes down to the privatisation of carbon-reduction strategies. We think these efforts should be first and foremost the privilege and duty of the state, precisely because only the state can set targets that apply to all citizens equally, and that are based on a democratic decision-making process and that exert authority. Private schemes launched by commercial entities erode the idea that that state should be the prime actor when it comes to the sensibilisation of citizens.
  
• Finally, and more subtly, this privatisation immediately introduces a discourse of 'voluntarism' and consumerism into the CO2 reduction efforts. This way, the discourse changes from that of civic duties to that of mere consumers' choices (we read: "let's have lunch at McDonalds, go to the movies, and, oh yeah, let's reduce our CO2 emissions for a few months, just for fun"). Again we think climate change and greenhouse gas reduction strategies must be tackled in a more responsible, objective, and civic way, not in a voluntaristic and consumerist way.
• We cannot shop our way out of climate change and into sustainability, as more and more people are beginning to understand.
  

From what we can tell right now, we think BP's scheme sets a dangerous precedent. Not enough is being done to combat dangerous climate change, but a privatisation and commercialisation of the effort is definitely a wrong way to approach the matter. The fight against climate change must be approached globally, and with a consensus between states who, if necessary, force their industries and citizens to reduce their carbon footprints - using the power of the state.
We object to the United States' refusal to ratify the Kyoto Protocol and their attempt to launch an alternative pact based on purely voluntaristic CO2 emission reduction efforts - which come down to allowing the emitting industries to decide for themselves how much and when they will reduce their emissions. To use a strong metaphhor: this is a bit like allowing a criminal to be his own judge and to decide for himself what his punishment should be. For the same reasons we object to private schemes that aim to make citizens more aware of their CO2 emissions and that aim to offer them a purely voluntaristic, consumerist pseudo-solution to do so.

Of course, this scheme comes on top of the already existing state-driven CO2 reduction efforts (at least for countries that have ratified the Kyoto Protocol). So one could say that not too much fuzz should be made about BP's private program. But it has to be seen in the context of the major struggle that is going on in the debate about how to tackle climate change. The struggle is between, on the one hand, those who want a global consensus between states and a multilateral mechanism to monitor the execution of the effort (the supporters of the Kyoto Protocol), and on the other hand those who want to commercialize and privatize the matter and who trust the good will and voluntarism of the CO2 emittors (this approach is supported by the United States).
Now given this context, BP's scheme is clearly on the side of the 'privatizers'. That is why we object to it.

BP could however solve these problems in a very straightforward manner, simply by subjecting the projects it wants to support to the UNFCCC's CDM panel, and await that expert body's verdict. Just like any other company that is creating clean development projects in the south.

This story is definitely to be continued.
bioenergy :: biofuels :: energy :: sustainability :: climate change :: CO2 :: civic duty :: consumerism ::