![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
There is a tendency for offset providers to add themselves to the external links. Wikipedia is not a platform for commercial purposes, and I think it fair that either we include a comprehensive list of providers, or we include none at all. My proposal is removing all providers from this page to the page with the list (in See Also). Jens Nielsen 09:52, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
The following in the first paragraph should not be included. Quote: World carbon emission rates would have to be reduced by 60%–-80% to prevent sea levels from eventually rising 7 meters (23 feet) or more[2]
While it is clear to me and the rest of the scientific community that Global Warming is overwhelmingly likely to raise sea levels amongst other terrible economic and ecological travesties, it is unhelpful to pose these predictions as fact, as they are likely to be siezed on by critics as something simmilar to nostradamus apocolypse warnings, and while I am under no doubt that this is not the intention of the author in this case, it is advisable to correct the text to make it clear that this is a subjective estimate and not a known fact.
On the other hand, it is unanimously believed by the serious science journals in the United States and elsewhere that serious sea-level changes are imminent due to the climate change phenomenon caused overwhelmingly because of the artificial increase in carbon dioxide and other "greenhouse" gases. It is widely accepted that a sea-level rise of three metres is almost certain to occur before 2100, but estimates in the region of 7 metres are contentious, and no time region is given in the quote above.
I would therefore suggest that the sentence be paraphrased thus:
Some scientists believe that world carbon emission rates must be reduced by 60%–-80% during the next X years to prevent sea levels from eventually rising 7 meters (23 feet) or more[2].
or
Failure to reduce world carbon emissions will cause a dramatic increase of sea-levels, although the effects may be at least somewhat offset by a world reduction of carbon emission rates to a more stable level.
Evildictaitor 20:53, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
The 60%-80% estimate is from a Dec2005 presentation by James Hansen at the annual meeting of the American Geophysical Union ( http://www.digitalnpq.org/archive/2006_winter/hansen.html), as cited in the version of "Carbon Offset" edited by evildictator on 2Jan07. Not-Actually-Evil Dictator's range of 3 to 7 meters is in broad agreement with the figures presented by Hansen, et al ( http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/notyet/2006_submitted_Hansen_etal_lrg.pdf, Section 6.1.1), also cited in the version of "Carbon Offset" edited by evildictator on 2Jan07. Hansen, et al note—based on climatic-geologic historical evidence—that 1°C higher-than-present temperatures have coincided with sea levels at most ~+5 m relative to today, and 3°C higher-than-present temperatures have coincided with sea levels 25 ± 10 m relative to today. Hansen's estimate is that carbon emission rates would need to decrease by about 60-80% to prevent warming of more than 1°C above present.
The estimate of 200 to 2000 years in the current "Carbon offset" is based on the evidence presented by Hansen, et al. that sea level rose 20 m in 400 y during Meltwater Pulse 1A (14k-15k y ago), that "it is unlikely that the response time for significant ice sheet change could exceed centuries," and that "long-term global ice volume changes tend to lag global temperature change by a few thousand years (Mudelsee, 2001), but these changes are in response to weak forcings varying on millennial time scales" whereas "GHG climate forcings in the IPCC BAU scenarios are far outside the range that has existed on Earth in millions of years."
Hansen's estimate of 60-80% is similar to the 70-80% estimate published 9Nov2006 by the Centre for European Policy Studies ( http://www.policypointers.org/page_4487.html).
An estimate of around 80% is implicit in recently adopted governmental goals:
Lesikar 04:06, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
I would suggest you actually read your citations. The figure of +1DEG is quoted from the summary from what I can tell, and is in the context of an absolute expected sea level change of approximately (+4.5~5.5 m / +1DEG). This is not the projected temperature rise over the next 100 years. According to the IPCC, who are widely regarded as being on the concervative side of the argument on global warming suggest that over the next 100 years we are guarranteed to see a 1.4 DEG rise in temperature, regardless of emissions, because global warming does not mean that more CO2 today means that it will be hotter today, but that more CO2 today means it will be hotter in two decades time. The concervative realist science lobby in Europe, China and Africa are suggesting that the temperature could easilly get to 3DEG over the next centuary, and there are a number of climatologists who I work with who are suggesting that political inaction over the past five years means that we should expect to see between 7 and 11 metres of sea-level rise.
IPCC (1.4 guarranteed, 5 likely before 2100) http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html#Q11 REALclimate: (4 guarranteed, 6 likely before 2100) http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/03/catastrophic-sea-level-rise-more-evidence-from-the-ice-sheets/ Environmental lobby group in USA: ( http://www.whrc.org/resources/online_publications/warming_earth/potential_outcome.htm
Let's put it like this: Since 1900 CO2 levels in the atmosphere have gone up from approx. 0.5GT to about 7GT, which is a fourteen fold increase. Temperatures went up by almost exactly 0.7°C. Over the next 100 years at current rate of development, projections are that we will be having levels in the region of 25-27GT, which assuming that CO2 levels linearly cause temperature increase, (which isn't far off) and that the major "tipping points" of the ice-caps melting, which will reduce reflection, the sea-absorbtion rate reversing, which would triple effective emissions over a five year period, or sea-level increase which increases the black-suface area absorbtion-rate of high-energy light-waves, we would be looking at an increase of temperature of about 2 - 3DEG, which would correspond according to your citation as about 5.5 - 8.5m of water over the next centuary. This sea-level rise would be during the next centuary (IPCC) which clearly contrasts with your statement of over the next 200-2000 years.
Note that the level of reduction proposed by political bodies should not be taken to be a scientific consensus on the matter. Neumann (author The Skeptical Environmentalist) suggests that we reduce CO2 levels to the levels we had in 1970, or should get a job in real estate buying up inland property. Neumann has studied climate change since 1965, and has advised the Clinton and Bush administration on their climate change policy, as well as effecting change in France, the UK, Ireland, California, Germany and China).
Another little point. When you use this quote:
"long-term global ice volume changes tend to lag global temperature change by a few thousand years (Mudelsee, 2001), but these changes are in response to weak forcings varying on millennial time scales"
you forget that since then maps have had to be redrawn of the Antarctic regions due to a substantial section of it slipping into the sea, which on its own raised sea levels by 0.078m. It is also suspected that the greenland central glaciers are due to slip into the gulf stream during the next hundred years, and indeed, have already started doing so. Suspecting that global warming is a thing which will affect us in the long term but not the medium term does no longer apply.
My whole point in introducing the idea of a 60-80% reduction into this article is to stimulate a realizatiion that now is the time for very strenuous action to mitigate global warming.
I think we're in basic agreement here, because what I see from Hansen et al is that a 20 m rise is sea level could happen in as little as 200-400 years. I know that the projected increase in temperature is 3°C or more over the next 100 years. The sources referenced by Hansen et al in Section 6.1.1 indicate that if temperature held steady at 3°C above present, then the consequent sea-level rise would be 25 ± 10 m. The hope is that if the rate of carbon emissions were reduced 80% over the next 20 to 50 years that the increase could be held to 1°C or less, which—based on paleoclimatogeologic findings—would result in a sea level rise of at most 5 m.
In my prior posting, I was trying to make the point that not only could a 20 m rise in sea level happen in as little as 200-400 years, but also that historical global ice volume changes lagged global temperature change by a few thousand years only because they were in response to weak forcings varying on millennial time scales, whereas expected human-caused GHG climate forcings are far above the range that has existed on Earth in millions of years. In spite of this, I felt it was prudent—in light of the uncertainties—to indicate that it might take 200-1000 years for a 1°C rise to raise sea levels by up to 5 meters. Lesikar 06:49, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
It is wrong to state that there is unanimous agreement in serious science journals that serious sea-level changes are imminent. See S. J. Holgate; published in the American Geophysical Union. [ http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2007/2006GL028492.shtml On the decadal rates of sea level change during the twentieth century] Goggsie 08:46, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
A few of the offset providers that I've seen rely almost solely on the Climate Exchange for their reductions. They pool funds from their contributors, purchase carbon credits, and sit on them until they've expired. Some, such as Carbonfund.org, suggest that ultimately, contributors' actions will make the credits more scarce, and thus more expensive, forcing companies to make reductions of their own. It seems to me that the article concerns itself with criticizing tree-planting projects more than anything else, and more or less skips over renewable energy & carbon credits. Are there any plans to expand this area? Akbeancounter 04:20, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
The assertion, "After roughly 50 years, newly planted forests will reach maturity and remove carbon dioxide more slowly, if at all" in particular is a powerful statement that could be interpreted in many different directions(Then shouldn't all trees be chopped down every 50 years?) and needs validation in context. I modified the post to reflect the need for a citation.
Digitalsmear 16:26, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
I came here to get a summary of the skepticism concerning this topic (please google 'carbon neutral myth' or 'carbon offset myth' for verification). My NPOV dispute comes from the fact that this article makes no mention of such a myth. The criticisms section has been entirely neutered. This article needs a summary of the logic which myth proponents use. Thanks. Yeago 03:58, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
The NPOV flag has recently been removed, however, the tone of the article doesn't really push the division that exists over Carbon Neutrality. I am glad to see more of the "feel good" perspective. However, can someone acknowledge this perspective in the opening paragraphs, since it is by no means a minority or one-party-bias opinion? Yeago 23:47, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Yeago, I think you're begging the question here. There is an emerging consensus that certain types of offsets (viz. boreal or temperate forest reforestation) are based on a faulty premise (i.e. they don't actually offset anything), but there is no such agreement on other types of offsets such as alternative energy sources or methane capture. While the approaches are certainly still evolving, these latter approaches do seem to have validity (even if they are only a modest interim step; the ultimate solution to reducing anthropogenic gas emissions will have to involve a wholesale shift in sources and deployment of energy systems). Not sure if you are still working on this but thought this might help clarify. Cheers. Arjuna 06:56, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
I still think that this article is mildly obsessed with tree planting, so I added a section regarding methane capture and combustion. I know
TerraPass,
Carbonfund.org, and
NativeEnergy fund such projects♦, but I can't speak for others, so I kept it short for now. In the not-too-distant future, I want to add to the wind and solar power sections, and probably a small section regarding the secondary benefits (e.g., clean power in impoverished countries is often cheaper, too).
-- A.
02:00, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
♦ These are links to the offsetters' project summaries, not intended as advertisements.
I was thinking of adding a separate section but may be this one can be modified to add Biofuels wih Methane. Biofuels, especially from non-edible fuel crops such as jatropha are very attractive to reduce dependence on fossil fuels and GHGs reduction. Jatropha plantation can benefit the environment by the afforestation of marginal lands where it can easily grow and by replacing fossil fuels for transportation and electricity generation. Carbon offset can make these activities economically viable for poor farmers in developing countries who otherwise are forced to abandon their unused wasteland. To the best of my knowledge
plantjatropha is the only website that is focussed on supporting poor farmers to carry out such projects from the individuals and companies who volunteer to offset their carbon footprint.
As I wrote in the main article, BusinessWeek wrote an article questioning the additionality of offsets, specifically those given to presenters and performers at the Oscars. FYI, the provider of said offsets, TerraPass, is conducting a follow-up review of the project primarily discussed in the article, to ensure that their pre-investment review came to the right conclusions. They're putting a wiki together [4] to chronicle the investigation. The results of this investigation could have significant implications for the offset industry. -- A. 18:57, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Moved this statement from Tree Planting section of article:
This is not a valid argument because "it ignores the long-term carbon-neutral cycle of new trees replacing the ones that have died, either by replanting or regeneration. In this carbon-neutral cycle, the new trees re-absorb the same amount of carbon dioxide that the dying trees released." [5] -- Barrylb 07:18, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
References
The List of carbon offset providers is nominated for deletion and will soon be deleted unless it is made more fit for an encyclopdia. Take quick action if you wish to keep it. Jens Nielsen 09:43, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
There's a typo or two in this sentence -- I'm making it grammatical but somebody may want to tweak my fix: "The project is certified under the Forest Stewardship Council scheme as well managed by SGS Qualfor, the world's largest leading verification and certification company." -- 201.19.40.176 00:39, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
I've inserted a piece on the recent research [7] showing that when also albedo and cloud forming impacts of planting trees is considered, planting trees may not benefit the climate at all. It would be useful for this article's editors to keep an eye on further developments, and link to the full report when available. Jens Nielsen 12:18, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
89.240.138.104 rewrote: "... found little or no climate benefit when trees are planted in temperate regions alone. However, the study found that planting all over the planet surface including focus on tropical regions was very beneficial to the climate."
89.240.138.104 changed quote to the following: "I like forests. They provide good habitats for plants and animals, and tropical forests are good for climate, so we should be particularly careful to preserve them, But in terms of climate change, we should focus our efforts on things that can really make a difference, like improving efficiency and developing new sources of clean energy"
Jens Nielsen 12:18, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
What is this discussion of benefit for the climate? The global climate or local climates? How can a climate benefit from anything? Who is benefiting? Is it meant that this maintains a (the) climate's current state which happens to be beneficial to -us-? This is just sloppy speech. Mintal 18:34, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
I believe the albedo section could be better. It starts by citing a 2005 modelling study which suggests that if all the earth was covered by forests there would be a net warming effect - but which distinguishes between the cooling effect of trees in the tropics and the warming effects of trees in high latitudes.
The section then goes on to say that this is being challenged by ... and then cites a 2002 article in a non peer referenced magazine. It is difficult to see how someone in 2002 would have had the foresight to challenge something that was not going to be published until 2005. It then cites another article in a non peer referenced newsletter as evidence of a challenge when the article supports the view in the 2005 study that trees in the tropics cool.
Would it not be better to start with the 2000 study? Something like:
"In 2000 a UK Met Office scientist suggested that the gain from carbon capture as a result of tree planting was offset in higher latitudes becauses forests were generally darker than other soil cover ie had a lower albedo Cite error: The <ref>
tag has too many names (see the
help page).
The Swedish utility Vattenfall did a study of full life cycle emissions of Nuclear, Hydro, Coal, Gas, Solar Cell, Peat and Wind which the utility uses to produce electricity. The net result of the study was that nuclear power produced 3.3 grams of carbon dioxide per KW-Hr of produced power. This compares to 400 for natural gas and 700 for coal (according to this study). [3]
Claims exist that the problems of nuclear waste do not come anywhere close to approaching the problems of fossil fuel waste. [4] [5] A 2004 article from the BBC states: "The World Health Organization (WHO) says 3 million people are killed worldwide by outdoor air pollution annually from vehicles and industrial emissions, and 1.6 million indoors through using solid fuel." [6] In the U.S. alone, fossil fuel waste kills 20,000 people each year. [7] A coal power plant releases 100 times as much radiation as a nuclear power plant of the same wattage. [8] It is estimated that during 1982, US coal burning released 155 times as much radioactivity into the atmosphere as the Three Mile Island incident. [9] In addition, fossil fuel waste causes global warming, which leads to increased deaths from hurricanes, flooding, and other weather events. The World Nuclear Association provides a comparison of deaths due to accidents among different forms of energy production. In their comparison, deaths per TW-yr of electricity produced from 1970 to 1992 are quoted as 885 for hydropower, 342 for coal, 85 for natural gas, and 8 for nuclear. [10]
Nuclear Power is not eglibale to create carbon offsets under any offsetting scheme and should therefore not come up in an article on offsetting. You can ad this type of information on a more general entry on energy and climate change. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.132.214.48 ( talk) 15:20, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
References
(reprinted from Environmental Practice, vol. 3, no. 2 (June 2001), pp.86–88 {Oxford University Press))
{{
cite web}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |month=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher=
(
help)CS1 maint: extra punctuation (
link)
{{
cite web}}
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |month=
(
help)
I think deleting the specific instances of controversy was probably not the best solution. I like what you have done with the more theoretical approach, but the specific instances of problematic behavior is instructive nonetheless. Your wholesale deletion makes me wonder which of those offset companies you work for. mlhwitz ( talk) 18:15, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
mlhwitz ( talk) 21:32, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
Anybody interested?
TimS TimS ( talk) 15:29, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Carbon offsets and carbon credits are quite different things, and since I see no discussion to warrant the label which is present on the article, I am removing the merge suggestion. Andipi ( talk) 13:20, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
The article does not properly differentiate or define carbon offsets and carbon credits. In fact it gives a misleading portrayal that equates carbon credits and carbon offsets. However, they are different stages of the same thing.
Carbon credits are the tradeable instrument that represent an amount of CO2e/GHG removed or prevented from entering the atmosphere. They do not offset or reduce anyones carbon footprint until they are retired (used up). If this were not the case, everyone who touches the carbon credit as it's traded from person to person (on an exchange, etc) could claim a reduced carbon footprint and it would end in severe double counting.
Carbon offsets are the non-tradeable and retired version of a carbon credit. Once a carbon credit is retired, it has the effect of reducing the carbon footprint of the person who had last purchased and retired that carbon credit. Ie, when a carbon credit is retired, it offsets the holder/retirer of that credit, and at that retired point becomes known as a carbon offset. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.159.131.34 ( talk) 04:45, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
( TimS TimS ( talk) 07:54, 4 October 2010 (UTC))
While it's true that trees absorb carbon as they grow, it's also true that dead, decaying trees release that carbon back into the air.
I added this to the article, but someone else took it out. I think it deserves to be included. Grundle2600 ( talk) 19:00, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
A May 19, 2008 article in Wired magazine stated, "A tree absorbs roughly 1,500 pounds of CO2 in its first 55 years... Left untouched, it ultimately rots or burns and all that CO2 gets released... A well-managed tree farm acts like a factory for sucking CO2 out of the atmosphere, so the most climate-friendly policy is to continually cut down trees and plant new ones... Plant seedlings and harvest them as soon as their powers of carbon sequestration begin to flag, and use the wood to produce only high-quality durable goods like furniture and houses." [1]
I could add quite a bit of information on forest credits - but have a COI (I´m working part time for an offset supplier & am a researcher in the field). Would appreciate if another author without COI would volunteer to double check any information I put in. ( TimS TimS ( talk) 14:51, 1 October 2010 (UTC))
Would suggest to add a reference to the VCS guidelines on permanence: "The Voluntary Carbon Standard requires all tree and other land use based projects to set aside a risk adjusted share of the carbon credits they create into a global buffer account. This buffer acts a an insurance to replace issued credits in case individual projects ends up non-permanent."
Source: http://www.v-c-s.org/afl.html ( TimS TimS ( talk) 08:03, 4 October 2010 (UTC))
References
The section on offset markets overall was woefully thin, and despite my edits remains so, considering the market for trading carbon offsets is one of the handful of defining characteristics of offsets as a topic. It also had unsourced (and false) assertions regarding the voluntary side of the market especially. I have cleaned up, corrected, and provided clear citations for the added information. The only problem now is that my section on the voluntary markets may be disproportionately large. I believe it's about the right size as a quick overview and primer of this sub-topic, which barring a lot more writing isn't ready to be split into an entirely new topic of its own. But if someone would like to do similar work to flesh out the compliance side of the market this section would be comprehensive and well-balanced TobinMarchbanks ( talk) 08:18, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Again, I could do that easily but have a COI (see my posting on forestry credits above) - would need a double check from an independent author. ( TimS TimS ( talk) 14:53, 1 October 2010 (UTC))
I would suggest to adapt to the "State and Trends of the Carbon Market 2010" report by the World Bank. The text is currently based on the 2007 Version, while the article refers to the 2010 version further down (source number 20). => Would make it 8.7 billon tCO2e + 143.7 billon US$.
When using the 2009 numbers, it should be mentioned that it has been the year of the VAT fraud, which artificially increased the traded amounts.
(
TimS TimS (
talk)
07:46, 4 October 2010 (UTC))
The section on the voluntary carbon market includes links to an arbitrary list of commercial offset retailers. They should either be deleted or replaced by a link e.g. to " http://www.carboncatalog.org/" which hosts a much more complete list. ( TimS TimS ( talk) 08:08, 4 October 2010 (UTC))
Would it not be appropriate if there is a section on ways to reduce Carbon Offset in daily activities? For example - Travel Sites such as " http://www.thomascookessentials.com/questions/carbon-offset-reduction.asp" explain the the benefits of trains versus buses? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattravel ( talk • contribs) 08:46, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
http://www.thenation.com/article/164497/capitalism-vs-climate
“Free-market climate solutions,” as they are called, will be a magnet for speculation, fraud and crony capitalism, as we are already seeing with carbon trading and the use of forests as carbon offsets. And as climate change begins to affect not just the poor but the wealthy as well, we will increasingly look for techno-fixes to turn down the temperature, with massive and unknowable risks.
99.190.86.244 ( talk) 09:57, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
Talk:Carbon credit#resource ... example
99.56.122.24 ( talk) 09:05, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
I believe the article has systemic bias on these points:
In addition, I added a criticism section template to the controversies section. That should be integrated with the article anyway, regardless of the outcome of this particular debate.
-- Therealelizacat ( talk) 21:20, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
The reference for the statement "Deforestation, particularly in Brazil, Indonesia and parts of Africa, account for about 20 per cent of greenhouse gas emissions" does not seem to back up that assertion. And even if there were statements to that effect within the webpage cited, its not exactly a reliable primary source. Though after looking through the citation guide, nothing sticks out as the proper way to flag it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nickwbrown ( talk • contribs) 18:24, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Carbon offset. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 10:06, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 10 external links on Carbon offset. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 00:38, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Carbon offset. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 06:34, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
The section "perverse incentives" is badly written. It should be rephrased to reflect that the emission baselines for the various industries need to be revised regularly and often are not due to political pressures. -- 83.145.195.17 ( talk) 10:13, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 10 external links on Carbon offset. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://cdm.unfccc.int/public_inputs/inputam0001/Comment_AM0001_Schwank_081004.pdf%2CWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 18:12, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Carbon offset. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 23:52, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
The lead section of the article is currently 8 paragraphs, much more than the 3-4 paragraph length recommended by Wikipedia's style guide ( /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Lead_section#Length). Worth cutting down, maybe moving most of the content into sub-sections? If so, what should the sub-sections be?
69.202.129.134 ( talk) 17:15, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
Most citations and information appear to date from 2011 or earlier. Could use a major refresh on this article, including updates to the vast majority of cites.
69.202.129.134 ( talk) 17:26, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
Can anyone define the difference concisely enough for a hatnote and also check the hatnote on Carbon credit which may be wrong? Chidgk1 ( talk) 07:38, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
I added the tourism heading along with a few sentences. Please let me know if there is a better way of incorporating the information about how the tourism industry effect the environment.
-- Nightlymist ( talk) 20:20, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 14 January 2021 and 11 April 2021. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Nightlymist. Peer reviewers:
LisaTruong3,
Trentjohnson17.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 16:46, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 4 July 2022 and 16 August 2022. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Ninamn7 (
article contribs).
— Assignment last updated by Sqlo123 ( talk) 15:24, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
I started a new section and moved the following here as I think it is out of date and would really confuse the reader:
Renewable energy offsets commonly include wind power, solar power, hydroelectric power and biofuel. Some of these offsets are used to reduce the cost differential between renewable and conventional energy production, increasing the commercial viability of a choice to use renewable energy sources. Emissions from burning fuel, such as red diesel, has pushed one UK fuel supplier to create a carbon offset fuel named Carbon Offset Red Diesel.
There is no technology up to date that is perfect for each scenario, there will be negative effects and positive effects with pollution and carbon offset. [1] By 2050, the renewable shares are predicted to be 57–71% of the global electricity production. [2] This is done to reduce the levels of CO2 and this planned by the International Energy Agency (IEA) Energy Technology Perspectives. This will only occur if there is a global action will follow this scenario. The wind and solar power are the most common of new renewable technology being installed. [2] On the other hand, wind and photo-voltaic (PV) technologies are especially known to be unreliable. Recently there has been research towards finding a solution towards having a source of generated power being able to withstand the effects of oscillation and being reliable electricity services.
Sustainable biomass can be a transitional source of energy for a more renewable resource for electricity. [3] The SWITCH optimization model is used to determine the realistic goals for 2050 to lessen the carbon emission produced. In this model, the areas that were assessed were western electricity council. There are models in where the figure implement a carbon neutral and carbon negative plan.
Nuclear energy is another option that could serve as a renewable energy offset option. While renewable energy offsets such as wind power and solar power do not produce any carbon into the atmosphere, nuclear energy has the potential to capture the carbon already present in our atmosphere. A nuclear energy source would have such a low carbon footprint that it could power the capture and transformation of the carbon dioxide, resulting in a carbon-negative process. Many carbon offset programs like the Gold Standard [4] and the Clean Development Mechanism exclude nuclear power from generating carbon offset credits. [5]
Renewable Energy Credits (RECs) are also sometimes treated as carbon offsets, although the concepts are distinct. Whereas a carbon offset represents a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, a REC represents a quantity of energy produced from renewable sources. To convert RECs into offsets, the clean energy must be translated into carbon reductions, typically by providing evidence that the clean energy is displacing an equivalent amount of fossil fuel produced electricity from the local grid (of the energy user applying RECs). There are compliance and voluntary markets for RECs. Compliance markets in the United States have been established by Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) policy requirements on a state or regional level. Voluntary RECs have been researched with similar outcomes that largely disregard the claim that RECs cause emission reductions that would not have otherwise occurred. [6] [7] [8] For a REC to be used as a carbon offset, it must cause emission reductions that would not have occurred without the REC. [9] This concept is termed "additionality" and the research literature shows additionality to be lacking with RECs (see compilation of research provided by the University of Edinburgh Business School). Intel corporation was the largest purchaser of renewable power in the US as of 2012. [10] Chidgk1 ( talk) 18:01, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
References
Question to all: who has ideas for adding more images to the article? Do you find the image that is currently in the lead ideal (a wind turbine)? Would maybe a 2 x 2 image collage be better for the lead (like we have at climate change mitigation? EMsmile ( talk) 07:07, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
It seems like the redirect from carbon credit to here can now be put in place. However, as the redirect wonn't point to a specific section within the article but to the article in general then I have two suggestions:
As part of the project “Improving communication of climate change knowledge through Wikipedia”, I would like to propose that this article and the carbon offset article be combined into one article, perhaps titled “Carbon offsets and credits”. Am posting this proposal to both this page and the carbon credit talk page.
I’m suggesting this because:
Carbon credit | Carbon offset |
---|---|
Carbon Credit TOC
Key Points in Lead 3rd paragraph – drive to lower emission processes (credits and offsets), and discussion of trading partners (more relevant to credits). 4th paragraph- carbon offsets in voluntary markets & credits in Kyoto CDM and EU-ETS (covers both offsets and credits). 1-Definitions – three different definitions given (all are relevant to both credits and offsets, and in fact the term “offset” is used as part of the second definition). 2-Types – VERs and CERS (distinction between credits and offsets here is muddled, VER description uses both offset and credit in same sentence) 3-Background 3.1-Emission allowances (credits), 3.2-Kyoto's 'Flexible mechanisms' (credits) – 3.3-Emission markets (mostly credits discussed here, but markets cover both credits and offsets) -3.4-Setting a market price for carbon – (ideas cover both credits and offsets). 4-How buying carbon credits propose to reduce emissions – (unclear if it relates to credits of offsets - Maintenance template for lack of citations, and much of this seems off topic – I would propose to eliminate most of this section). 5-Creating carbon credits – intro discusses both credit and offset programs; 5.1-Additionality and its importance (applies to both credits and offsets – there is also a template for no citations); 5.2-Criticisms (generally covers credit type issues – maintenance template for out of date information). 6-Fraud allegation – (Although it appears credit related, not sure how this text contributes to the article – suggest deleting it or moving under the criticism section). 7-See also – (mixture of credit related and offset related links). |
Carbon Offset TOC
Key Points in Lead 1st paragraph - definition – compensating for emissions elsewhere (could be offsets or credits, though citation is referring to offsets); one ton of CO2e (both credits/offsets); neutralizing discrepancies on price of carbon (unclear if offset or credit); 3rd and 4th paragraphs - types of projects and need for due diligence to identify “good quality” offsets (applies to both credits/offsets). 1-Features -gases covered, vintage, project type, co-benefits (generally applies to both credits and offsets), certification regime (covers both credit and offset mechanisms). 2-Markets – (Text describes both carbon credit markets (Global, UK) and voluntary (offset) markets). 3-Types of offset projects – (types of projects described in sections 3.1 to 3.6 are common for both carbon offsets and carbon credits). 3.7–Links with emission trading schemes (relates more to carbon credits). 3.8- Carbon retirement (covers similar issue for credits and offsets, though there are some differences). 3.9-Small-scale schemes, and 3.10-Other (don’t seem particularly relevant, and could probably be deleted). 4-Accounting for and verifying reductions –(the issues and concepts described here apply to both offsets and credits, though there are some minor regulatory aspects that are specific to credits). 5-Quality assurance schemes – (this section appears outdated, and most of the citations do not appear to go to active links. Suggest it be deleted). 6Controversies – (Nearly all of the issues described in this section, which has a template on it for potential NPOV issues, apply to both offsets and credits. This section as a whole needs to be rewritten to address the maintenance template). 7-See also – (most of these links are applicable for both offsets and credits). |
Dtetta ( talk) 20:14, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for those thoughts, based on the feedback to date, I would suggest this be approached in the following steps:
I think this approach would be a low risk way to address current concerns with the two articles in terms of overlapping coverage as well as address the maintenance template flags for outdated material, lack of citations, and NPOV. Dtetta ( talk) 14:43, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
I’ve nearly finished an outline for a combined article tentatively title “Carbon Offsets and credits” (still need to flesh out the “Recent Trends” section). It’s located at: User:Dtetta/Carbon offsets and credits. I think this effort shows the tightly intertwined nature of these two concepts, and why it would make sense to have a combined article.
Regarding the proposed title, there are several examples of other WP articles covering closely related concepts that use “and” in the title, such as: Provinces and territories of Canada, 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake and tsunami, and List of United States counties and county equivalents. There may be another way of describing this combination of terms, I just have not been able to think of a better one.
Within the outline, notes in italics indicate what portions of the existing two articles I have included at various point. Where a reference is described using citation numbers, it is referring to citations from the current articles that I would propose to keep in this article.
I would appreciate thoughts on the following:
EMsmile and Chidgk1 - wondering what are your thoughts on this, since you both have been previously involved in this discussion.
Dealing with COVID, so will probably wait a few days to check back in to this talk page. Thanks. Dtetta ( talk) 17:14, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
I sent a link to the outline I posted to Michael Gillenwater, Greenhouse Gas Management Institute, and Derik Broekhoff, Stockholm Environmental Institute, and asked them to provide comments. Below are those comments:
General
Recent trends
Relation to climate finance
I have revised the offset article, and moved the portions of the carbon credit article that seemed appropriate over to the offset article. Ready to close the discussion and determine consensus per section 2.4 of Wikipedia:Merging. Would be interested in feedback on whether there is any material in the carbon credit article that does not appear in the offset article, but should. So far it appears that EMsmile and Joyous! support the merger proposal, as do I. Dtetta ( talk) 02:50, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
Per Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia these are the portions of the Carbon credit article that I have copied, modified, and inserted into this article.
The merger proposal pointed out the overlap between these two topics, and Dtetta's outline clarified the definition of both concepts, with carbon credits generally being a subset of carbon offsets. EMsmile, Dtetta, and Joyous!Joyous supported the merge. There were no objections.
Currently the hatnote says "This article is about voluntary schemes. For carbon credits for international trading, see carbon credit. For carbon credits for individuals, see personal carbon trading.". Is this still correct? EMsmile ( talk) 17:10, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
This section is in need of revision and review by experts from Kew Botanical Gardens. ForestsareGreen ( talk) 15:00, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
In Scandinavian countries, carbon taxes and carbon credits have been practiced since the 1970's. It is worthwhile to describe this in more detail ForestsareGreen ( talk) 19:45, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
ForestsareGreen - would be happy to look at incorporating this kind of text into the article. Are you aware of any reliable sources that support that statement? I did a quick search and could not find anything. Dtetta ( talk) 23:34, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
The Scandinavian journals are NOT published in English, but in Swedish and other Scandic languages. Kew Botanical Gardens have published and can be approached directly. ForestsareGreen ( talk) 01:55, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: moved. ( closed by non-admin page mover) -- Maddy from Celeste ( WAVEDASH) 13:35, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
Carbon offset → Carbon offsets and credits – Information from the “Carbon credit” article has been merged into this article. This rename would capture the titles of both articles. These are closely intertwined concepts, as shown on the justification portion of the 9 February 2023 proposal on this talk page to merge “Carbon credit” with this article. There are several examples of other WP articles covering closely related concepts that use “and” in the title, such as: Provinces and territories of Canada, 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake and tsunami, and List of United States counties and county equivalents. The use of this particular wording has been briefly mentioned in the post immediately preceding this, and this post is intended to formalize the discussion. Dtetta ( talk) 15:28, 5 April 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. Material Works (contribs) 16:15, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
So this would be a change in the opposite direction where two concepts that are similar (but not the same) are requested to get two articles not one, no, the change under discussion here is not that kind of change at all. A question of whether to have two articles or one is a wp:merge discussion. We are not having a merge discussion here. We are having a wp:move discussion. Clayoquot ( talk | contribs) 23:17, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
There is a tendency for offset providers to add themselves to the external links. Wikipedia is not a platform for commercial purposes, and I think it fair that either we include a comprehensive list of providers, or we include none at all. My proposal is removing all providers from this page to the page with the list (in See Also). Jens Nielsen 09:52, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
The following in the first paragraph should not be included. Quote: World carbon emission rates would have to be reduced by 60%–-80% to prevent sea levels from eventually rising 7 meters (23 feet) or more[2]
While it is clear to me and the rest of the scientific community that Global Warming is overwhelmingly likely to raise sea levels amongst other terrible economic and ecological travesties, it is unhelpful to pose these predictions as fact, as they are likely to be siezed on by critics as something simmilar to nostradamus apocolypse warnings, and while I am under no doubt that this is not the intention of the author in this case, it is advisable to correct the text to make it clear that this is a subjective estimate and not a known fact.
On the other hand, it is unanimously believed by the serious science journals in the United States and elsewhere that serious sea-level changes are imminent due to the climate change phenomenon caused overwhelmingly because of the artificial increase in carbon dioxide and other "greenhouse" gases. It is widely accepted that a sea-level rise of three metres is almost certain to occur before 2100, but estimates in the region of 7 metres are contentious, and no time region is given in the quote above.
I would therefore suggest that the sentence be paraphrased thus:
Some scientists believe that world carbon emission rates must be reduced by 60%–-80% during the next X years to prevent sea levels from eventually rising 7 meters (23 feet) or more[2].
or
Failure to reduce world carbon emissions will cause a dramatic increase of sea-levels, although the effects may be at least somewhat offset by a world reduction of carbon emission rates to a more stable level.
Evildictaitor 20:53, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
The 60%-80% estimate is from a Dec2005 presentation by James Hansen at the annual meeting of the American Geophysical Union ( http://www.digitalnpq.org/archive/2006_winter/hansen.html), as cited in the version of "Carbon Offset" edited by evildictator on 2Jan07. Not-Actually-Evil Dictator's range of 3 to 7 meters is in broad agreement with the figures presented by Hansen, et al ( http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/notyet/2006_submitted_Hansen_etal_lrg.pdf, Section 6.1.1), also cited in the version of "Carbon Offset" edited by evildictator on 2Jan07. Hansen, et al note—based on climatic-geologic historical evidence—that 1°C higher-than-present temperatures have coincided with sea levels at most ~+5 m relative to today, and 3°C higher-than-present temperatures have coincided with sea levels 25 ± 10 m relative to today. Hansen's estimate is that carbon emission rates would need to decrease by about 60-80% to prevent warming of more than 1°C above present.
The estimate of 200 to 2000 years in the current "Carbon offset" is based on the evidence presented by Hansen, et al. that sea level rose 20 m in 400 y during Meltwater Pulse 1A (14k-15k y ago), that "it is unlikely that the response time for significant ice sheet change could exceed centuries," and that "long-term global ice volume changes tend to lag global temperature change by a few thousand years (Mudelsee, 2001), but these changes are in response to weak forcings varying on millennial time scales" whereas "GHG climate forcings in the IPCC BAU scenarios are far outside the range that has existed on Earth in millions of years."
Hansen's estimate of 60-80% is similar to the 70-80% estimate published 9Nov2006 by the Centre for European Policy Studies ( http://www.policypointers.org/page_4487.html).
An estimate of around 80% is implicit in recently adopted governmental goals:
Lesikar 04:06, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
I would suggest you actually read your citations. The figure of +1DEG is quoted from the summary from what I can tell, and is in the context of an absolute expected sea level change of approximately (+4.5~5.5 m / +1DEG). This is not the projected temperature rise over the next 100 years. According to the IPCC, who are widely regarded as being on the concervative side of the argument on global warming suggest that over the next 100 years we are guarranteed to see a 1.4 DEG rise in temperature, regardless of emissions, because global warming does not mean that more CO2 today means that it will be hotter today, but that more CO2 today means it will be hotter in two decades time. The concervative realist science lobby in Europe, China and Africa are suggesting that the temperature could easilly get to 3DEG over the next centuary, and there are a number of climatologists who I work with who are suggesting that political inaction over the past five years means that we should expect to see between 7 and 11 metres of sea-level rise.
IPCC (1.4 guarranteed, 5 likely before 2100) http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html#Q11 REALclimate: (4 guarranteed, 6 likely before 2100) http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/03/catastrophic-sea-level-rise-more-evidence-from-the-ice-sheets/ Environmental lobby group in USA: ( http://www.whrc.org/resources/online_publications/warming_earth/potential_outcome.htm
Let's put it like this: Since 1900 CO2 levels in the atmosphere have gone up from approx. 0.5GT to about 7GT, which is a fourteen fold increase. Temperatures went up by almost exactly 0.7°C. Over the next 100 years at current rate of development, projections are that we will be having levels in the region of 25-27GT, which assuming that CO2 levels linearly cause temperature increase, (which isn't far off) and that the major "tipping points" of the ice-caps melting, which will reduce reflection, the sea-absorbtion rate reversing, which would triple effective emissions over a five year period, or sea-level increase which increases the black-suface area absorbtion-rate of high-energy light-waves, we would be looking at an increase of temperature of about 2 - 3DEG, which would correspond according to your citation as about 5.5 - 8.5m of water over the next centuary. This sea-level rise would be during the next centuary (IPCC) which clearly contrasts with your statement of over the next 200-2000 years.
Note that the level of reduction proposed by political bodies should not be taken to be a scientific consensus on the matter. Neumann (author The Skeptical Environmentalist) suggests that we reduce CO2 levels to the levels we had in 1970, or should get a job in real estate buying up inland property. Neumann has studied climate change since 1965, and has advised the Clinton and Bush administration on their climate change policy, as well as effecting change in France, the UK, Ireland, California, Germany and China).
Another little point. When you use this quote:
"long-term global ice volume changes tend to lag global temperature change by a few thousand years (Mudelsee, 2001), but these changes are in response to weak forcings varying on millennial time scales"
you forget that since then maps have had to be redrawn of the Antarctic regions due to a substantial section of it slipping into the sea, which on its own raised sea levels by 0.078m. It is also suspected that the greenland central glaciers are due to slip into the gulf stream during the next hundred years, and indeed, have already started doing so. Suspecting that global warming is a thing which will affect us in the long term but not the medium term does no longer apply.
My whole point in introducing the idea of a 60-80% reduction into this article is to stimulate a realizatiion that now is the time for very strenuous action to mitigate global warming.
I think we're in basic agreement here, because what I see from Hansen et al is that a 20 m rise is sea level could happen in as little as 200-400 years. I know that the projected increase in temperature is 3°C or more over the next 100 years. The sources referenced by Hansen et al in Section 6.1.1 indicate that if temperature held steady at 3°C above present, then the consequent sea-level rise would be 25 ± 10 m. The hope is that if the rate of carbon emissions were reduced 80% over the next 20 to 50 years that the increase could be held to 1°C or less, which—based on paleoclimatogeologic findings—would result in a sea level rise of at most 5 m.
In my prior posting, I was trying to make the point that not only could a 20 m rise in sea level happen in as little as 200-400 years, but also that historical global ice volume changes lagged global temperature change by a few thousand years only because they were in response to weak forcings varying on millennial time scales, whereas expected human-caused GHG climate forcings are far above the range that has existed on Earth in millions of years. In spite of this, I felt it was prudent—in light of the uncertainties—to indicate that it might take 200-1000 years for a 1°C rise to raise sea levels by up to 5 meters. Lesikar 06:49, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
It is wrong to state that there is unanimous agreement in serious science journals that serious sea-level changes are imminent. See S. J. Holgate; published in the American Geophysical Union. [ http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2007/2006GL028492.shtml On the decadal rates of sea level change during the twentieth century] Goggsie 08:46, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
A few of the offset providers that I've seen rely almost solely on the Climate Exchange for their reductions. They pool funds from their contributors, purchase carbon credits, and sit on them until they've expired. Some, such as Carbonfund.org, suggest that ultimately, contributors' actions will make the credits more scarce, and thus more expensive, forcing companies to make reductions of their own. It seems to me that the article concerns itself with criticizing tree-planting projects more than anything else, and more or less skips over renewable energy & carbon credits. Are there any plans to expand this area? Akbeancounter 04:20, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
The assertion, "After roughly 50 years, newly planted forests will reach maturity and remove carbon dioxide more slowly, if at all" in particular is a powerful statement that could be interpreted in many different directions(Then shouldn't all trees be chopped down every 50 years?) and needs validation in context. I modified the post to reflect the need for a citation.
Digitalsmear 16:26, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
I came here to get a summary of the skepticism concerning this topic (please google 'carbon neutral myth' or 'carbon offset myth' for verification). My NPOV dispute comes from the fact that this article makes no mention of such a myth. The criticisms section has been entirely neutered. This article needs a summary of the logic which myth proponents use. Thanks. Yeago 03:58, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
The NPOV flag has recently been removed, however, the tone of the article doesn't really push the division that exists over Carbon Neutrality. I am glad to see more of the "feel good" perspective. However, can someone acknowledge this perspective in the opening paragraphs, since it is by no means a minority or one-party-bias opinion? Yeago 23:47, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Yeago, I think you're begging the question here. There is an emerging consensus that certain types of offsets (viz. boreal or temperate forest reforestation) are based on a faulty premise (i.e. they don't actually offset anything), but there is no such agreement on other types of offsets such as alternative energy sources or methane capture. While the approaches are certainly still evolving, these latter approaches do seem to have validity (even if they are only a modest interim step; the ultimate solution to reducing anthropogenic gas emissions will have to involve a wholesale shift in sources and deployment of energy systems). Not sure if you are still working on this but thought this might help clarify. Cheers. Arjuna 06:56, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
I still think that this article is mildly obsessed with tree planting, so I added a section regarding methane capture and combustion. I know
TerraPass,
Carbonfund.org, and
NativeEnergy fund such projects♦, but I can't speak for others, so I kept it short for now. In the not-too-distant future, I want to add to the wind and solar power sections, and probably a small section regarding the secondary benefits (e.g., clean power in impoverished countries is often cheaper, too).
-- A.
02:00, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
♦ These are links to the offsetters' project summaries, not intended as advertisements.
I was thinking of adding a separate section but may be this one can be modified to add Biofuels wih Methane. Biofuels, especially from non-edible fuel crops such as jatropha are very attractive to reduce dependence on fossil fuels and GHGs reduction. Jatropha plantation can benefit the environment by the afforestation of marginal lands where it can easily grow and by replacing fossil fuels for transportation and electricity generation. Carbon offset can make these activities economically viable for poor farmers in developing countries who otherwise are forced to abandon their unused wasteland. To the best of my knowledge
plantjatropha is the only website that is focussed on supporting poor farmers to carry out such projects from the individuals and companies who volunteer to offset their carbon footprint.
As I wrote in the main article, BusinessWeek wrote an article questioning the additionality of offsets, specifically those given to presenters and performers at the Oscars. FYI, the provider of said offsets, TerraPass, is conducting a follow-up review of the project primarily discussed in the article, to ensure that their pre-investment review came to the right conclusions. They're putting a wiki together [4] to chronicle the investigation. The results of this investigation could have significant implications for the offset industry. -- A. 18:57, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Moved this statement from Tree Planting section of article:
This is not a valid argument because "it ignores the long-term carbon-neutral cycle of new trees replacing the ones that have died, either by replanting or regeneration. In this carbon-neutral cycle, the new trees re-absorb the same amount of carbon dioxide that the dying trees released." [5] -- Barrylb 07:18, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
References
The List of carbon offset providers is nominated for deletion and will soon be deleted unless it is made more fit for an encyclopdia. Take quick action if you wish to keep it. Jens Nielsen 09:43, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
There's a typo or two in this sentence -- I'm making it grammatical but somebody may want to tweak my fix: "The project is certified under the Forest Stewardship Council scheme as well managed by SGS Qualfor, the world's largest leading verification and certification company." -- 201.19.40.176 00:39, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
I've inserted a piece on the recent research [7] showing that when also albedo and cloud forming impacts of planting trees is considered, planting trees may not benefit the climate at all. It would be useful for this article's editors to keep an eye on further developments, and link to the full report when available. Jens Nielsen 12:18, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
89.240.138.104 rewrote: "... found little or no climate benefit when trees are planted in temperate regions alone. However, the study found that planting all over the planet surface including focus on tropical regions was very beneficial to the climate."
89.240.138.104 changed quote to the following: "I like forests. They provide good habitats for plants and animals, and tropical forests are good for climate, so we should be particularly careful to preserve them, But in terms of climate change, we should focus our efforts on things that can really make a difference, like improving efficiency and developing new sources of clean energy"
Jens Nielsen 12:18, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
What is this discussion of benefit for the climate? The global climate or local climates? How can a climate benefit from anything? Who is benefiting? Is it meant that this maintains a (the) climate's current state which happens to be beneficial to -us-? This is just sloppy speech. Mintal 18:34, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
I believe the albedo section could be better. It starts by citing a 2005 modelling study which suggests that if all the earth was covered by forests there would be a net warming effect - but which distinguishes between the cooling effect of trees in the tropics and the warming effects of trees in high latitudes.
The section then goes on to say that this is being challenged by ... and then cites a 2002 article in a non peer referenced magazine. It is difficult to see how someone in 2002 would have had the foresight to challenge something that was not going to be published until 2005. It then cites another article in a non peer referenced newsletter as evidence of a challenge when the article supports the view in the 2005 study that trees in the tropics cool.
Would it not be better to start with the 2000 study? Something like:
"In 2000 a UK Met Office scientist suggested that the gain from carbon capture as a result of tree planting was offset in higher latitudes becauses forests were generally darker than other soil cover ie had a lower albedo Cite error: The <ref>
tag has too many names (see the
help page).
The Swedish utility Vattenfall did a study of full life cycle emissions of Nuclear, Hydro, Coal, Gas, Solar Cell, Peat and Wind which the utility uses to produce electricity. The net result of the study was that nuclear power produced 3.3 grams of carbon dioxide per KW-Hr of produced power. This compares to 400 for natural gas and 700 for coal (according to this study). [3]
Claims exist that the problems of nuclear waste do not come anywhere close to approaching the problems of fossil fuel waste. [4] [5] A 2004 article from the BBC states: "The World Health Organization (WHO) says 3 million people are killed worldwide by outdoor air pollution annually from vehicles and industrial emissions, and 1.6 million indoors through using solid fuel." [6] In the U.S. alone, fossil fuel waste kills 20,000 people each year. [7] A coal power plant releases 100 times as much radiation as a nuclear power plant of the same wattage. [8] It is estimated that during 1982, US coal burning released 155 times as much radioactivity into the atmosphere as the Three Mile Island incident. [9] In addition, fossil fuel waste causes global warming, which leads to increased deaths from hurricanes, flooding, and other weather events. The World Nuclear Association provides a comparison of deaths due to accidents among different forms of energy production. In their comparison, deaths per TW-yr of electricity produced from 1970 to 1992 are quoted as 885 for hydropower, 342 for coal, 85 for natural gas, and 8 for nuclear. [10]
Nuclear Power is not eglibale to create carbon offsets under any offsetting scheme and should therefore not come up in an article on offsetting. You can ad this type of information on a more general entry on energy and climate change. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.132.214.48 ( talk) 15:20, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
References
(reprinted from Environmental Practice, vol. 3, no. 2 (June 2001), pp.86–88 {Oxford University Press))
{{
cite web}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |month=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher=
(
help)CS1 maint: extra punctuation (
link)
{{
cite web}}
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |month=
(
help)
I think deleting the specific instances of controversy was probably not the best solution. I like what you have done with the more theoretical approach, but the specific instances of problematic behavior is instructive nonetheless. Your wholesale deletion makes me wonder which of those offset companies you work for. mlhwitz ( talk) 18:15, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
mlhwitz ( talk) 21:32, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
Anybody interested?
TimS TimS ( talk) 15:29, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Carbon offsets and carbon credits are quite different things, and since I see no discussion to warrant the label which is present on the article, I am removing the merge suggestion. Andipi ( talk) 13:20, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
The article does not properly differentiate or define carbon offsets and carbon credits. In fact it gives a misleading portrayal that equates carbon credits and carbon offsets. However, they are different stages of the same thing.
Carbon credits are the tradeable instrument that represent an amount of CO2e/GHG removed or prevented from entering the atmosphere. They do not offset or reduce anyones carbon footprint until they are retired (used up). If this were not the case, everyone who touches the carbon credit as it's traded from person to person (on an exchange, etc) could claim a reduced carbon footprint and it would end in severe double counting.
Carbon offsets are the non-tradeable and retired version of a carbon credit. Once a carbon credit is retired, it has the effect of reducing the carbon footprint of the person who had last purchased and retired that carbon credit. Ie, when a carbon credit is retired, it offsets the holder/retirer of that credit, and at that retired point becomes known as a carbon offset. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.159.131.34 ( talk) 04:45, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
( TimS TimS ( talk) 07:54, 4 October 2010 (UTC))
While it's true that trees absorb carbon as they grow, it's also true that dead, decaying trees release that carbon back into the air.
I added this to the article, but someone else took it out. I think it deserves to be included. Grundle2600 ( talk) 19:00, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
A May 19, 2008 article in Wired magazine stated, "A tree absorbs roughly 1,500 pounds of CO2 in its first 55 years... Left untouched, it ultimately rots or burns and all that CO2 gets released... A well-managed tree farm acts like a factory for sucking CO2 out of the atmosphere, so the most climate-friendly policy is to continually cut down trees and plant new ones... Plant seedlings and harvest them as soon as their powers of carbon sequestration begin to flag, and use the wood to produce only high-quality durable goods like furniture and houses." [1]
I could add quite a bit of information on forest credits - but have a COI (I´m working part time for an offset supplier & am a researcher in the field). Would appreciate if another author without COI would volunteer to double check any information I put in. ( TimS TimS ( talk) 14:51, 1 October 2010 (UTC))
Would suggest to add a reference to the VCS guidelines on permanence: "The Voluntary Carbon Standard requires all tree and other land use based projects to set aside a risk adjusted share of the carbon credits they create into a global buffer account. This buffer acts a an insurance to replace issued credits in case individual projects ends up non-permanent."
Source: http://www.v-c-s.org/afl.html ( TimS TimS ( talk) 08:03, 4 October 2010 (UTC))
References
The section on offset markets overall was woefully thin, and despite my edits remains so, considering the market for trading carbon offsets is one of the handful of defining characteristics of offsets as a topic. It also had unsourced (and false) assertions regarding the voluntary side of the market especially. I have cleaned up, corrected, and provided clear citations for the added information. The only problem now is that my section on the voluntary markets may be disproportionately large. I believe it's about the right size as a quick overview and primer of this sub-topic, which barring a lot more writing isn't ready to be split into an entirely new topic of its own. But if someone would like to do similar work to flesh out the compliance side of the market this section would be comprehensive and well-balanced TobinMarchbanks ( talk) 08:18, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Again, I could do that easily but have a COI (see my posting on forestry credits above) - would need a double check from an independent author. ( TimS TimS ( talk) 14:53, 1 October 2010 (UTC))
I would suggest to adapt to the "State and Trends of the Carbon Market 2010" report by the World Bank. The text is currently based on the 2007 Version, while the article refers to the 2010 version further down (source number 20). => Would make it 8.7 billon tCO2e + 143.7 billon US$.
When using the 2009 numbers, it should be mentioned that it has been the year of the VAT fraud, which artificially increased the traded amounts.
(
TimS TimS (
talk)
07:46, 4 October 2010 (UTC))
The section on the voluntary carbon market includes links to an arbitrary list of commercial offset retailers. They should either be deleted or replaced by a link e.g. to " http://www.carboncatalog.org/" which hosts a much more complete list. ( TimS TimS ( talk) 08:08, 4 October 2010 (UTC))
Would it not be appropriate if there is a section on ways to reduce Carbon Offset in daily activities? For example - Travel Sites such as " http://www.thomascookessentials.com/questions/carbon-offset-reduction.asp" explain the the benefits of trains versus buses? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattravel ( talk • contribs) 08:46, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
http://www.thenation.com/article/164497/capitalism-vs-climate
“Free-market climate solutions,” as they are called, will be a magnet for speculation, fraud and crony capitalism, as we are already seeing with carbon trading and the use of forests as carbon offsets. And as climate change begins to affect not just the poor but the wealthy as well, we will increasingly look for techno-fixes to turn down the temperature, with massive and unknowable risks.
99.190.86.244 ( talk) 09:57, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
Talk:Carbon credit#resource ... example
99.56.122.24 ( talk) 09:05, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
I believe the article has systemic bias on these points:
In addition, I added a criticism section template to the controversies section. That should be integrated with the article anyway, regardless of the outcome of this particular debate.
-- Therealelizacat ( talk) 21:20, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
The reference for the statement "Deforestation, particularly in Brazil, Indonesia and parts of Africa, account for about 20 per cent of greenhouse gas emissions" does not seem to back up that assertion. And even if there were statements to that effect within the webpage cited, its not exactly a reliable primary source. Though after looking through the citation guide, nothing sticks out as the proper way to flag it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nickwbrown ( talk • contribs) 18:24, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Carbon offset. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 10:06, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 10 external links on Carbon offset. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 00:38, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Carbon offset. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 06:34, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
The section "perverse incentives" is badly written. It should be rephrased to reflect that the emission baselines for the various industries need to be revised regularly and often are not due to political pressures. -- 83.145.195.17 ( talk) 10:13, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 10 external links on Carbon offset. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://cdm.unfccc.int/public_inputs/inputam0001/Comment_AM0001_Schwank_081004.pdf%2CWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 18:12, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Carbon offset. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 23:52, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
The lead section of the article is currently 8 paragraphs, much more than the 3-4 paragraph length recommended by Wikipedia's style guide ( /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Lead_section#Length). Worth cutting down, maybe moving most of the content into sub-sections? If so, what should the sub-sections be?
69.202.129.134 ( talk) 17:15, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
Most citations and information appear to date from 2011 or earlier. Could use a major refresh on this article, including updates to the vast majority of cites.
69.202.129.134 ( talk) 17:26, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
Can anyone define the difference concisely enough for a hatnote and also check the hatnote on Carbon credit which may be wrong? Chidgk1 ( talk) 07:38, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
I added the tourism heading along with a few sentences. Please let me know if there is a better way of incorporating the information about how the tourism industry effect the environment.
-- Nightlymist ( talk) 20:20, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 14 January 2021 and 11 April 2021. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Nightlymist. Peer reviewers:
LisaTruong3,
Trentjohnson17.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 16:46, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 4 July 2022 and 16 August 2022. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Ninamn7 (
article contribs).
— Assignment last updated by Sqlo123 ( talk) 15:24, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
I started a new section and moved the following here as I think it is out of date and would really confuse the reader:
Renewable energy offsets commonly include wind power, solar power, hydroelectric power and biofuel. Some of these offsets are used to reduce the cost differential between renewable and conventional energy production, increasing the commercial viability of a choice to use renewable energy sources. Emissions from burning fuel, such as red diesel, has pushed one UK fuel supplier to create a carbon offset fuel named Carbon Offset Red Diesel.
There is no technology up to date that is perfect for each scenario, there will be negative effects and positive effects with pollution and carbon offset. [1] By 2050, the renewable shares are predicted to be 57–71% of the global electricity production. [2] This is done to reduce the levels of CO2 and this planned by the International Energy Agency (IEA) Energy Technology Perspectives. This will only occur if there is a global action will follow this scenario. The wind and solar power are the most common of new renewable technology being installed. [2] On the other hand, wind and photo-voltaic (PV) technologies are especially known to be unreliable. Recently there has been research towards finding a solution towards having a source of generated power being able to withstand the effects of oscillation and being reliable electricity services.
Sustainable biomass can be a transitional source of energy for a more renewable resource for electricity. [3] The SWITCH optimization model is used to determine the realistic goals for 2050 to lessen the carbon emission produced. In this model, the areas that were assessed were western electricity council. There are models in where the figure implement a carbon neutral and carbon negative plan.
Nuclear energy is another option that could serve as a renewable energy offset option. While renewable energy offsets such as wind power and solar power do not produce any carbon into the atmosphere, nuclear energy has the potential to capture the carbon already present in our atmosphere. A nuclear energy source would have such a low carbon footprint that it could power the capture and transformation of the carbon dioxide, resulting in a carbon-negative process. Many carbon offset programs like the Gold Standard [4] and the Clean Development Mechanism exclude nuclear power from generating carbon offset credits. [5]
Renewable Energy Credits (RECs) are also sometimes treated as carbon offsets, although the concepts are distinct. Whereas a carbon offset represents a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, a REC represents a quantity of energy produced from renewable sources. To convert RECs into offsets, the clean energy must be translated into carbon reductions, typically by providing evidence that the clean energy is displacing an equivalent amount of fossil fuel produced electricity from the local grid (of the energy user applying RECs). There are compliance and voluntary markets for RECs. Compliance markets in the United States have been established by Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) policy requirements on a state or regional level. Voluntary RECs have been researched with similar outcomes that largely disregard the claim that RECs cause emission reductions that would not have otherwise occurred. [6] [7] [8] For a REC to be used as a carbon offset, it must cause emission reductions that would not have occurred without the REC. [9] This concept is termed "additionality" and the research literature shows additionality to be lacking with RECs (see compilation of research provided by the University of Edinburgh Business School). Intel corporation was the largest purchaser of renewable power in the US as of 2012. [10] Chidgk1 ( talk) 18:01, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
References
Question to all: who has ideas for adding more images to the article? Do you find the image that is currently in the lead ideal (a wind turbine)? Would maybe a 2 x 2 image collage be better for the lead (like we have at climate change mitigation? EMsmile ( talk) 07:07, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
It seems like the redirect from carbon credit to here can now be put in place. However, as the redirect wonn't point to a specific section within the article but to the article in general then I have two suggestions:
As part of the project “Improving communication of climate change knowledge through Wikipedia”, I would like to propose that this article and the carbon offset article be combined into one article, perhaps titled “Carbon offsets and credits”. Am posting this proposal to both this page and the carbon credit talk page.
I’m suggesting this because:
Carbon credit | Carbon offset |
---|---|
Carbon Credit TOC
Key Points in Lead 3rd paragraph – drive to lower emission processes (credits and offsets), and discussion of trading partners (more relevant to credits). 4th paragraph- carbon offsets in voluntary markets & credits in Kyoto CDM and EU-ETS (covers both offsets and credits). 1-Definitions – three different definitions given (all are relevant to both credits and offsets, and in fact the term “offset” is used as part of the second definition). 2-Types – VERs and CERS (distinction between credits and offsets here is muddled, VER description uses both offset and credit in same sentence) 3-Background 3.1-Emission allowances (credits), 3.2-Kyoto's 'Flexible mechanisms' (credits) – 3.3-Emission markets (mostly credits discussed here, but markets cover both credits and offsets) -3.4-Setting a market price for carbon – (ideas cover both credits and offsets). 4-How buying carbon credits propose to reduce emissions – (unclear if it relates to credits of offsets - Maintenance template for lack of citations, and much of this seems off topic – I would propose to eliminate most of this section). 5-Creating carbon credits – intro discusses both credit and offset programs; 5.1-Additionality and its importance (applies to both credits and offsets – there is also a template for no citations); 5.2-Criticisms (generally covers credit type issues – maintenance template for out of date information). 6-Fraud allegation – (Although it appears credit related, not sure how this text contributes to the article – suggest deleting it or moving under the criticism section). 7-See also – (mixture of credit related and offset related links). |
Carbon Offset TOC
Key Points in Lead 1st paragraph - definition – compensating for emissions elsewhere (could be offsets or credits, though citation is referring to offsets); one ton of CO2e (both credits/offsets); neutralizing discrepancies on price of carbon (unclear if offset or credit); 3rd and 4th paragraphs - types of projects and need for due diligence to identify “good quality” offsets (applies to both credits/offsets). 1-Features -gases covered, vintage, project type, co-benefits (generally applies to both credits and offsets), certification regime (covers both credit and offset mechanisms). 2-Markets – (Text describes both carbon credit markets (Global, UK) and voluntary (offset) markets). 3-Types of offset projects – (types of projects described in sections 3.1 to 3.6 are common for both carbon offsets and carbon credits). 3.7–Links with emission trading schemes (relates more to carbon credits). 3.8- Carbon retirement (covers similar issue for credits and offsets, though there are some differences). 3.9-Small-scale schemes, and 3.10-Other (don’t seem particularly relevant, and could probably be deleted). 4-Accounting for and verifying reductions –(the issues and concepts described here apply to both offsets and credits, though there are some minor regulatory aspects that are specific to credits). 5-Quality assurance schemes – (this section appears outdated, and most of the citations do not appear to go to active links. Suggest it be deleted). 6Controversies – (Nearly all of the issues described in this section, which has a template on it for potential NPOV issues, apply to both offsets and credits. This section as a whole needs to be rewritten to address the maintenance template). 7-See also – (most of these links are applicable for both offsets and credits). |
Dtetta ( talk) 20:14, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for those thoughts, based on the feedback to date, I would suggest this be approached in the following steps:
I think this approach would be a low risk way to address current concerns with the two articles in terms of overlapping coverage as well as address the maintenance template flags for outdated material, lack of citations, and NPOV. Dtetta ( talk) 14:43, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
I’ve nearly finished an outline for a combined article tentatively title “Carbon Offsets and credits” (still need to flesh out the “Recent Trends” section). It’s located at: User:Dtetta/Carbon offsets and credits. I think this effort shows the tightly intertwined nature of these two concepts, and why it would make sense to have a combined article.
Regarding the proposed title, there are several examples of other WP articles covering closely related concepts that use “and” in the title, such as: Provinces and territories of Canada, 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake and tsunami, and List of United States counties and county equivalents. There may be another way of describing this combination of terms, I just have not been able to think of a better one.
Within the outline, notes in italics indicate what portions of the existing two articles I have included at various point. Where a reference is described using citation numbers, it is referring to citations from the current articles that I would propose to keep in this article.
I would appreciate thoughts on the following:
EMsmile and Chidgk1 - wondering what are your thoughts on this, since you both have been previously involved in this discussion.
Dealing with COVID, so will probably wait a few days to check back in to this talk page. Thanks. Dtetta ( talk) 17:14, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
I sent a link to the outline I posted to Michael Gillenwater, Greenhouse Gas Management Institute, and Derik Broekhoff, Stockholm Environmental Institute, and asked them to provide comments. Below are those comments:
General
Recent trends
Relation to climate finance
I have revised the offset article, and moved the portions of the carbon credit article that seemed appropriate over to the offset article. Ready to close the discussion and determine consensus per section 2.4 of Wikipedia:Merging. Would be interested in feedback on whether there is any material in the carbon credit article that does not appear in the offset article, but should. So far it appears that EMsmile and Joyous! support the merger proposal, as do I. Dtetta ( talk) 02:50, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
Per Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia these are the portions of the Carbon credit article that I have copied, modified, and inserted into this article.
The merger proposal pointed out the overlap between these two topics, and Dtetta's outline clarified the definition of both concepts, with carbon credits generally being a subset of carbon offsets. EMsmile, Dtetta, and Joyous!Joyous supported the merge. There were no objections.
Currently the hatnote says "This article is about voluntary schemes. For carbon credits for international trading, see carbon credit. For carbon credits for individuals, see personal carbon trading.". Is this still correct? EMsmile ( talk) 17:10, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
This section is in need of revision and review by experts from Kew Botanical Gardens. ForestsareGreen ( talk) 15:00, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
In Scandinavian countries, carbon taxes and carbon credits have been practiced since the 1970's. It is worthwhile to describe this in more detail ForestsareGreen ( talk) 19:45, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
ForestsareGreen - would be happy to look at incorporating this kind of text into the article. Are you aware of any reliable sources that support that statement? I did a quick search and could not find anything. Dtetta ( talk) 23:34, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
The Scandinavian journals are NOT published in English, but in Swedish and other Scandic languages. Kew Botanical Gardens have published and can be approached directly. ForestsareGreen ( talk) 01:55, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: moved. ( closed by non-admin page mover) -- Maddy from Celeste ( WAVEDASH) 13:35, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
Carbon offset → Carbon offsets and credits – Information from the “Carbon credit” article has been merged into this article. This rename would capture the titles of both articles. These are closely intertwined concepts, as shown on the justification portion of the 9 February 2023 proposal on this talk page to merge “Carbon credit” with this article. There are several examples of other WP articles covering closely related concepts that use “and” in the title, such as: Provinces and territories of Canada, 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake and tsunami, and List of United States counties and county equivalents. The use of this particular wording has been briefly mentioned in the post immediately preceding this, and this post is intended to formalize the discussion. Dtetta ( talk) 15:28, 5 April 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. Material Works (contribs) 16:15, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
So this would be a change in the opposite direction where two concepts that are similar (but not the same) are requested to get two articles not one, no, the change under discussion here is not that kind of change at all. A question of whether to have two articles or one is a wp:merge discussion. We are not having a merge discussion here. We are having a wp:move discussion. Clayoquot ( talk | contribs) 23:17, 17 April 2023 (UTC)