Talk:Carbon offsets and credits/Archive 1

Link farming for offset providers?
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)

Estimate of emission reduction needed to prevent sea-level rise of > ~5 m
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)
 * The 2005 Executive Order (S-3-05) by the Governor of California calls for an 80% reduction by 2050 (http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/energy/ExecOrderS-3-05.htm).
 * The EU's goal is apparently the same (http://www.socialfunds.com/news/article.cgi/2191.html).
 * "In 2001 Maine Gov. Angus King signed an agreement between eastern Canadian premiers and other northeastern states to reduce GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2010; to 10% below 1990 levels by 2020; and in the long-term make 75-85% reductions below 2001 emission levels" (http://www.climate.org/topics/localaction/grnhs.shtml).
 * New Mexico’s target is 75% emissions reduction below 2000 levels by 2050 (http://www.usclimatenetwork.org/stateaction).

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)


 * Intriguing as the discussion of required mitigation effort is, it belongs in other articles, such as Mitigation of global warming and Sea level rise. This article is about carbon offsets and while no discussion about the required mitigation effort is in its place here, we could perhaps include a single sentence with an uncontroversial statement. See article for my suggestion and please bring your insights to bear on those other articles. Jens Nielsen 10:08, 13 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)

Bottom line: "60-80%" and friends do not belong here

 * I agree with Jensbn. The purpose of this article is to describe a concept, NOT to "stimulate a realization". Global warming is the main impetus for buying offsets; that (and the bit about boreal forests) is all it needs to say about climate. Frankie 20:16, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

CCX
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)

Accounting for and verifying reductions - citations needed
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)

NPOV dispute
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)


 * Yeago-


 * At your suggestion, I've taken a look at some of the articles found via google 'carbon neutral myth' or 'carbon offset myth', and I see that those arguements have validity in themselves.


 * Right up in the top of the second paragraph, Wikipedia "Carbon offset" indicates that the most important goal is "efforts to reduce [actual] emissions by the 60–80% necessary to prevent dangerous levels of global warming. The second pargraph also indicates that carbon offsets are directed toward those "who want to compensate for their carbon emissions that remain after their best efforts to reduce their emissions."


 * As to permanance of carbon sequestration in forests—as it relates to concerns about carbon added to the active carbon pool from the fossil carbon pool—the Wikipedia article "Carbon dioxide sink" notes that "Mature forests, made up of a mix of various aged trees as well as dead and decaying matter, may be carbon neutral above ground. In the soil, however, the gradual buildup of slowly decaying organic material will continue to accumulate carbon, but at a slower rate than an immature forest." It was through processes like this that fossil fuels formed over the millenia, and it is through processes like this that we can begin to partially undo the damage done by carbon already released from the fossil carbon pool.  Here's a link from "Carbon dioxide sink" to a scientific article that analyzed carbon pools and the role of forest carbon sequestration, which is limited by the fact that a massive global forestation effort would run out of available land sometime in this century and the rapid growth phase of newly planted trees lasts only 40 to 50 years: Drastic reduction in emissions by mid-century is the imperative.


 * As an aside, it seems that the majority of currently offered carbon offsets support not forestation, but renewable energy or energy conservation.


 * The content of the Criticisms section (which has never been more than two sentences long since this article was created in July 2005) is still in this article: The intro contains a statement taken from the Criticisms section: "many environmentalists have criticised the use of forestry carbon offsets as a substitute for the fossil-fuel use reductions that are the essential longer-term solution."  The intro continues: "In addition, many forestry offset projects have been conceived and/or conducted in ways that are vulnerable to criticism, drawing their net benefits into question."


 * In addition, the New Internationalist special issue (July 2006) that outlines major criticisms of carbon offsetting that was cited by the Criticisms section is now in the External links section.


 * I look forward to your further contributions of verifiable information to "Carbon offset."-Lesikar 05:51, 13 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Hey there. Thank you very much for your illustration of the issue, its very helpful. However, I'm not sure how it illustrates the logic of critics. There is a slight implication of fraudulent or incompetent methods on the part of forestry offset projects. Is this the extent of Criticisms? I ran into a quote by either Philip Stott or Patrick Moore (environmentalist which stated that the offset of forests was actually negative. Since I have not yet researched this topic (its for a research paper), I cannot provide any verifiable information at this time. I simply noticed a void. You say that the criticisms are outlined in New Internationalist, and I think that the we need more than simply a link to it, but an illustration.Yeago 21:16, 13 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, the negative to neutral offset of trees outside of the tropics is a large problem, which is addressed in the "Climate impacts" section of Wikipedika "Carbon offset".Lesikar 05:21, 14 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I just looked for links—in the "carbon offset" Google search—that are critical of carbon offsets. The top-ranked such link was "You feel better, but is your carbon offset just hot air?" . The gist of it was that although "There are plenty of projects out there that are rigorous and have no problems at all", some carbon offset providers are misleading or fraudulent. So, I've added a caution to the second paragraph to beware of misleading or fraudulent offset providers.


 * I'll incorporate more criticisms (except for any criticism in which I can't find any validity) as I have time. I intend to look further into your leads into Google 'carbon neutral myth' and 'carbon offset myth'.Lesikar 05:25, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Carbon Neutral Myth
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)


 * Could you describe in more detail what you're looking to see? IMO the second paragraph of the intro covers what you seem to be asking. There is no serious dispute that replanting tropical forests and reducing the use of combustion will decrease CO2 levels. The only question is whether buying offsets actually induces those steps. If you have a specific choice of words in mind, please say so. Frankie


 * Google 'carbon neutral myth'. Its rather extensive and can say more than my unknowledgable self can. But the sources seem to come from all over... right, left, indifferent.Yeago 15:02, 23 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Nope. The entire first page (and more) of Google results are all green-left sites discussing either of two works with that title, an essay by Jutta Kill and a book by Kevin Smith. They all offer the same pair of complaints:


 * 1) More trees aren't as good as burning less oil.
 * 2) Many tree projects go bad, through either malice or incompetence.
 * Both of these concepts are addressed in the article. Perhaps more could be said, but they're there. Frankie
 * I feel like you're not really reading what I'm saying. I revert to my previous comment, that while the information is contained in the article, it is not presented with any weight. The consensus seems to be that Carbon Neutrality is a 'feel good' exercise as a rule and not an exception. The fact that this is coming from green-left only underlines is importance. Yet one must dig deep into this article to discover that point.Yeago 17:47, 23 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)

Methane
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.

Additionality Investigation
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 to chronicle the investigation. The results of this investigation could have significant implications for the offset industry. -- A. 18:57, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Update: The offset provider's research showed that the landfill did have to do something to solve a groundwater problem, but that (a) their investment in the methane flaring system far exceeded the amount required to address the groundwater problem, (b) 99% (literally) of the methane captured and combusted comes from that additional area, and (c) the landfill owner invested more money into expanding the system last year, with no regulatory pressure at all.  Long story short, buyers are getting what they paid for.  Seeing as the allegations in the BusinessWeek article appear to be groundless, I think I'll move them to the TerraPass article for historical context, but take them off of here because there's no real controversy to be had. -- A. 20:18, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Rotting trees
Moved this statement from Tree Planting section of article:


 * Significant concern arises from the fact that carbon sequestered in the newly planted trees will be again released as CO2 when the tree dies and decays, thus merely postponing the negative impact of the man-made increase in CO2.

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."  -- Barrylb 07:18, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

list of carbon offset providers up for deletion
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)
 * Eh. I could take it or leave it, as long as somebody patrols the article for commercial links.  Maybe one day when there are a few clear leaders in the industry, they'll earn their own pages. -- A. 02:02, 22 March 2007 (UTC)


 * It'll soon go, and it also means the commercial providers will flock to this page instead. I propose we keep out offset providers (commercial and otherwise) from the external links section, maybe except one link to an overview page like the soon defunct List of carbon offset providers. Jens Nielsen 09:42, 23 March 2007 (UTC)


 * there needs to be a list of the 100,000 providers of offsets.CorvetteZ51 08:32, 30 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I want to bring this page back. I think this page would, help Wiki readers decide for themselves if carbon offsets are a fraud, or not. comments? CorvetteZ51 10:04, 2 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not a mere link farm; its main purpose is to collect and present information with the intention to create or broaden knowledge and understanding of a topic — I don't see that any knowledge or understanding is gained by having a sundry list of offset providers. A simple list is just an invitation to spam (as it has been in the past), and would take great effort to maintain. The Open Directory in the external links section provides an excellent overview of carbon offset methods and providers that Wiki readers can use as a further resource. Malljaja 10:42, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Typo
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)

Planting tropical forests cools Earth — Planting boreal forests warms earth
I've inserted a piece on the recent research 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."
 * I reverted this rephrasing, which is misleading and conceals the main finding that planting in non-tropical regions may be outright harmful. Jens Nielsen 12:18, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

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"
 * Why use the quote in the above form? It has no direct bearing on tree planting, and seems only an attempt to pick the most tree-positive quote from the report. Let's rather use a quote that conveys the main message of the report: "To plant forests to mitigate climate change outside of the tropics is a waste of time".

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 . He suggested that in some areas where forests broke up winter snow cover that planting trees would contribute to global warming. This work was supported by a 2005 US modelling study that suggested that whilst increased forest cover in the tropics had a cooling effect that increased tree cover in higher latitudes would have a warming effect 

Ref X - Betts, R (2000) 'Offset of the potential carbon sink from boreal forestation by decreases in surface albedo' Nature

Ref Y - this would be the existing Gibbard et al (2005)'Climate effects of global land cover change'

Possibly with http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6184577.stm added as well to give a link for readers who do not want to grapple with the hard core scientific language--

Strathdon Sunday 11 July 2010 ~

Arbitary Title
Excuse me but the first paragraph of this article contains unwarranted vituperous assertions against carbon offsets. An encylopedia should offer a more balanced definition of a concept/category. While today's carbon offset market is far from perfect (and please by all means point out every flaw the exists later in the article), it is not inherently elitist...or at least no more elitist than any other market/non-market based system. The concept of paying someone else to do something you cannot or prefer not to do has actually become foundational to our way of life. A ton of C02 emitted by Al Gore (the example used) is no different from a ton of CO2 emitted from anyone else, what the world should be concerned with is that global C02 emissions are reduced. As long as many ways to emit and trap carbon dioxide exist, some ways of reducing CO2 in the atmosphere will be cheaper than others. Carbon offsets allow society to pursue the least costly/disruptive methods of reducing CO2.

What the hell is a carbon offset? Please see the Wikipedia article on Carbon Offsets. mlhwitz 04:45, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

It's a fraud. Can't you read?

Please use the 4~ to sign your name so we can really get a good debate on how to rank these schemes Snozzer 14:51, 31 October 2006 (UTC) Does anyone know enough to do a Comparison of carbon offset companies? - Dan


 * I suppose the key is to identifying suitable metrics to compare them, some are nothing more than simple tree planting schemes, others are 3rd world sustainability projects. The trouble is, each of the for profits (and the non profit) will all claim to have their unique selling point that makes them totally different from the others, so getting balanced metrics could be problematic. Snozzer 15:08, 29 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Good point. I think assigning a numerical metric - i.e. a score - would be impossible. A qualattative comparison table - in essence, an overview of the different companies - would still be valuable. Wikipedia has comparison tables for other 'products' (I'm thinking of software products such as Comparison_of_revision_control_software). We could attempt something similar. Columns in the table might be:

Profit/non-profit. What types of project do they support? E.g. energy trading (via the EU or Chicago markets), reforestation, development grants for 3rd world emissions reduction programs, outreach/education projects, etc, etc. Verification: what do they verify, and who stamps the certificates? Supporters: a short list of expert bodies who support the company. Critics: a short list of any expert criticisms levelled against the company. All of the above would need references to verifiable sources in order to prevent abuse. - Dan


 * Some sort of quantitative indicator would be useful The daily telegraph (UK) has such a list, and give the equivalent cost of offsetting a return seat on a flight from London to New York. There is a surprising variety (£8.88 - £46.20) (one company has a different value for some reason (the equivalent is £11), but I have pointed that out to the newspaper, so it may change shortly) regards, Lynbarn 16:52, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Junk Science
User:67.120.51.46 added a vigorous POV section on the 'junk science' of anthropogenic climate change. I removed the section but retained a sentence which links to the CC controversy page. Recording the existence of the opposing viewpoint is very valid for this article's controvosy section (but not the detail), so I felt a brief cross-reference would be useful. Ephebi 13:17, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

critics of global warming
The article states "A minority in the scientific community disagree with the significance of anthropogenic climate change and so do not hold with the usefulness of offsetting on principle." However, this article isn't on global warming, but on carbon offsets. My understanding of the critics (e.g. Lomborg) is not so much that they deny the phenomenon, but they caution that it is overblown in relation to other problems and that some of the proposals are astronomically expensive. Now, if this is a fair summary of most of the criticism, then that would play into how much carbon emissions should be reduced by, and at what cost; not that it's irrelevant to reduce it. E.g. it would translate into a consideration for how much carbon offsetting it's worth doing. That's not the same, however, as saying that those critics are against "the usefulness of offsetting on principle." --Psm 19:10, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

elasticity of demand
As long as carbon offsetting is a small activity, the laws of supply and demand dictate that the most economically efficient offsetting methods will be leveraged first. But they won't suffice for anything significant. So an article on carbon offsets should at least mention the notion of price elasticity. Anybody know of any good references on that? --Psm 19:12, 4 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Your comment is a good one. However offsetting on an industrial scale is just one type of carbon credit activity, and it would be more relevant to have a description of elasticity there. Though I note that it isn't described there either 8-( Ephebi 08:57, 5 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Good point, it's relevant there too. But I would really like to find some mainstream references on it, I don't want to be doing OR here. --Psm 20:36, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Certification
One of the big issues when it comes to carbon offsets is whether or not they are third-party certified, if so by whom, if not why the organization could not get or chose not to seek third-party certification, whether governments should regulate certification, etc. A section dealing with this could be useful. Thumbtackz (talk) 19:34, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Guidance on developing a robust offset strategy
Hi

This article is strong on the science/policy, but doesn't have much in the way of sign-posting guidance for how people should go about offsetting. The UK's Carbon Trust has developed an excellent guide (see http://www.carbontrust.co.uk/carbon/briefing/offsets.htm), and the Sustainable Development Commission have recently updated their website (http://www.sd-commission.org.uk/pages/carbon_neutrality.html). I noticed that the page asks not to post new links, so I thought I'd put this here to see what others think. I'm sure there are other good guides out there.

Thanks,

Oliver —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oliver.knight (talk • contribs) 14:36, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Trees Grow Faster in the Tropics
This sentence seems suspect.

"Trees grow three times faster in the tropics than in temperate zones; each tree in the rainy tropics removes about 22 kilograms (50 pounds) of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere each year.[8]"

The citation is from the webpage of an organization that will take your money and plant trees as an offset. The webpage offers no evidence to support this. More importantly, the source does not directly make the claim. The organization claims that per dollar the organization can plant 5 times as many trees and remove 15 times as much CO2 in the tropics.

Also, I don't think the sentence really adds anything either. I am tempted to remove it. Any objections? Josh 76.102.138.25 (talk) 06:03, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Structural and factual issues
New here, so getting a feel for how this works. I know a fair amount about offsets (work in a related field), and I can't help notice that there are some pretty basic structural issues with this page. These are just the first that occur to me:


 * Carbon offsets are never defined. The term "carbon offsetting" is defined, but carbon offsets themselves are never defined. There are some very basic features of carbon offsets (such as the fact that they have a "vintage," or date) that simply never get mentioned.
 * The article doesn't really distinguish between the voluntary and compliance offset market. This is an important distinction, particularly as the compliance market is much larger and better developed. The general mixing of statements about the two markets also leads to a lot of somewhat questionable assertions, such as, "carbon offsets generally refer to acts by individuals or companies that are arranged by commercial or not-for-profit carbon-offset providers." This describes only the voluntary market, which, again, is much smaller and arguably less important than the compliance market.
 * The article tends to focus overly much on somewhat shallow "controversies" (the Oscars?) and completely ignores huge controversies, such as the use of HFC-based offsets to satisfy Kyoto obligations. This was a really big deal, but it gets no mention here at all.

So, I'd like to try to fix some of these things, particularly as I think this topic is going to get more important over time. But I thought I'd alert people first. Any questions/comments?

GreenSarah (talk) 22:02, 25 March 2008 (UTC)


 * You are right - though the article on carbon credits is the better place to major on the features of the CDM/compliance market. This article attempts to cover the general theory, which is much more woolly when you address the voluntary sector, IMHO, as it covers the both ideas of industrial & personal offsetting. The lead-in paragraphs here are also not very encyclopedic & could do with a bit of re-focussing. Ephebi (talk) 22:45, 25 March 2008 (UTC)


 * OK, I'll take a look at the carbon credit article as well, although I'm not sure the credit/offset distinction is all that meaningful. They're used fairly interchangeable, although credit could also refer to allowances. Also, when I mention compliance markets, I'm not really limiting my comment to the CDM. RGGI will incorporate offsets, the WCI will likely incorporate offsets, etc. It's a big topic. I'll start making some edits. GreenSarah (talk) 23:06, 25 March 2008 (UTC)


 * OK, inserted a definition up top, and started to flesh out a clearer distinction between the voluntary and compliance markets (with actual numbers!). The article is still overly focused on trees, which are really a very minor area of project activity. And there's no mention at all of the industry standards under development. And the controversy section is still sort of a hodgepodge of small-picture stuff. I'll take a whack at some of that stuff next. GreenSarah (talk) 16:33, 26 March 2008 (UTC)


 * This has come along a bit further. I reorganized the controversy section so it highlights the issues involved better than it did previously. I also pulled some of the info from the tree-planting section down into the controversy section, and I added a few new controversies. There's still too much about trees in this article. I'm trying to see whether it makes sense to pull some of the stuff into one of the reforestation or treeplanting articles. And there's nothing on offset standards yet. I'll probably take that on next. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GreenSarah (talk • contribs) 21:54, 26 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Moved some of the tree stuff to the treeplanting article, although it could have gone in the LULUCF article as well. I also reorganized it a bit to make more clear that treeplanting is subset of LULUCF, not vice versa.
 * I just noticed that the external links section has been entirely taken over by commercial web sites that rate carbon offset vendors. As a decision has already been made to exclude the vendors themselves, these other commercial services also seem inappropriate. Removing them all.GreenSarah (talk) 22:33, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Self-editing?
Ummmm. A bunch of very specific changes were just made, all with the result of presenting a single carbon offset retailer in a more flattering light. For example, the following was a brief but factual summary of some of main points of an article critical of offset retailers, in line with the other summaries of similar articles:

"An article in the Baltimore Sun criticized retailer Carbonfund for claiming reductions based on tiny donations to large energy projects. For example, Carbonfund contributed $8,000 to an $81-million wind farm in Nebraska. One organization that received money from Carbonfund, the National Arbor Day Foundation, objected to their project being cited as a source of carbon reductions, and denied that trees purchased by Carbonfund had been planted."

The paragraph was changed to this:

"An article in the Baltimore Sun criticized retailer Carbonfund for claiming reductions based on tiny donations to large energy projects. Carbonfund's purchase and claim were in fact proportionate, paying for and receiving a share of the project's renewable energy certificates (RECs), not the entire amount, an important element of the carbon offset and REC market goal of pooling resources to support large-scale clean energy investment"

There are few things wrong here:


 * The changes are suspiciously selective. There are other changes sprinkled throughout article praising the business model of a specific vendor.
 * The new paragraph is poorly written. I'm not even really sure what it means, but it doesn't seem to relate to the section's focus on lack of regulation in the carbon offset industry.
 * The change presents unsourced assertions as fact.

The changes aren't major, but they do seem to have been made with an agenda. What's the appropriate recourse here? Should I just revert them?

(oops forgot to sign my changes) GreenSarah (talk) 21:03, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, under advice of RyRy5, I kept the changes that seemed factually accurate (for example, I kept the reference to the fact that the Voluntary Carbon Standard includes tree projects), I removed stuff that was either unsourced opinion or just redundant, and I reverted the excisions of factually accurate info after confirming its accuracy in the referenced sources. Hopefully the info sticks this time. GreenSarah (talk) 22:12, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Sarah, there was no agenda other than to correct the facts. I made these edits because the original story in the Baltimore Sun was inaccurate. First, the story acknowledged a senior person had corrected the story that the trees had been planted before print (it is in the story). Second, senior Arbor Day officials also confirmed with reporter that they do in fact quantify carbon in their work, but the reporter did not use it and instead used a quote from an uninformed junior staffer. View ArborDay's relationship with Memorex, which came out at the same time as the Sun story and you can see they absolutely plant trees to offset carbon. http://www.memorexelectronics.com/renew/plant.html The reporter had a POV, I am just correcting it. Removing piece until this is clarified. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.15.63.27 (talk) 01:23, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. This still seems problematic, though. The question isn't whether the reporter had a POV. All of the other articles cited have POVs as well -- they're critical of the carbon offset industry. The question is do the articles cite credible sources. If you can provide references that make counter-claims, by all means please include them in the entry. Press releases, letters to the editors, that sort of thing. But just declaring that the story is inaccurate doesn't seem to wash. (By the way, I updated the Arbor Day info to indicate that the article gave conflicting accounts of whether the trees had been planted.)

Regarding the offset claim from the project: the situation is somewhat confusing, but it doesn't appear that Arbor Day is involved with offsets in any way. I searched their entire web site, and found no reference to selling carbon offsets. After a lot of googling, I did locate this forum page in which the Arbor Day moderator says:

Our organization is just beginning to address the complex issues surrounding tree planting and carbon sequestration. I can say the Foundation's mission is and will remain focused on tree planting & care, and the celebration of the tree planter's holiday - Arbor Day.

The Foundation has always worked to spread the word about the many benefits that trees provide us. Sure trees are able to store carbon, but don't lose sight of the bigger picture.

That's dated October 11, 2007. I also found this, on their global warming FAQ page:

What are carbon credits?

Carbon credits are quantified, verified and certified reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, typically expressed as metric tons of CO2 equivalents (source: EPA). Calculating carbon credits for planting trees is very complex because of the diversity of tree species and growing conditions. The earth needs many trees, and whether we plant one tree or thousands, each one helps create a healthier planet.

Basically, it seems Arbor Day is aware of offsets, but doesn't sell them. The Memorex announcement does refer to efforts "to help offset the carbon footprint" through a partnership with Arbor Day, which is confusing. But Memorex doesn't make any real claims here. It just talks about how Memorex is planting trees, and trees absorb carbon. It's pretty generic.

Perhaps I'm missing something. If you can provide any program info from Arbor Day, please post it here. GreenSarah (talk) 16:53, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Memorex's announcement and website clearly show they are "help[ing] offset the carbon footprint" by planting trees, and that, according to Arbor Day, "over the course of its lifetime, a single mature tree may remove more than one tone of CO2 from the atmosphere. By planting trees, we are able to help offset the carbon footprint from these products." It's clear Arbor Day is planting trees on behalf of Memorex, not necessarily selling credits, to offset the carbon footprint of these products. Under "products" it shows how many trees per product. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Greencanoe (talk • contribs) 17:21, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Ummm...I'm not sure what to do here. This doesn't seem that complicated. Arbor Day doesn't mention carbon offsets anywhere on their web site, and has made several statements indicating that they don't sell offsets. What am I missing? I understand that the Memorex site confuses the issue, but if Arbor Day sold offsets then it would be pretty easy to tell, wouldn't it? You'd be able to find more info about their offset program than one line on an external web site, right? GreenSarah (talk) 18:57, 7 April 2008 (UTC)


 * By way of an external opinion: This is a tricky one.  I don't think the article cited gives a neutral point of view, therefore without a counter from Carbonfund, it would be unfair to cite only the article itself.  In all honesty, this bullet point is somewhat trumped by the one coming before it, and as the section reads something like a list of trivia, I'd argue that we could avoid this discussion by simply axing this point. By the by, the section would read a lot better if the lists were incorporated into the flow of paragraphs. Verisimilus  T  20:03, 7 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Point taken. The laundry list is pretty unnecessary in the context of the whole article. And the financial times article provides a decent round-up of issues, so I'll just collapse the whole section. I confess that I'm not really seeing the POV issue. This section is about criticisms of the industry. Criticisms are bound to be, well, critical. But maybe we can sidestep the whole thing. GreenSarah (talk) 20:43, 7 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Great stuff. I've trimmed it a little further to improve the flow. By the way, thought I should congratulate your efforts on this difficult article - barely a check of the watchlist seems to go by without you fighting off more vandalism or bias! Keep it up. Verisimilus  T  21:10, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Controveries section
I've just expanded and renamed the controveries section. While I see the previous work to remove the POV issues with the article, it still lacked a comprehensive look at the criticisms some people raise on this issue. Best, --Alabamaboy 21:26, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
 * This is more or less what I was looking for in this article. Thank you very muchYeago 04:38, 1 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Just removed link to article on Mount Elgon National Park as said article referred to the Mount Elgon National Park (Kenya) not the one of the same name in Uganda. Also added some brackets to remove this ambiguity. 15.50, 11 October 2007  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.114.20 (talk) 14:51, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for removing your update at 87.194.114.20, whoever you are, as your update was not inappropriate as I first assumed. However, it was not the linking article which was amibiguous (Uganda being already stated in that sentence) but the linked article (Mount Elgon National Park). The latter has been amended to indicate that it straddles the border between Kenya and Uganda.Dirkbb 15:20, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

The passage dealing with indulgences fails to address one of Mobiot's main points, which is "To claim a carbon saving, you also need to demonstrate that these projects would not have happened without you -that Mexico would not have decided to capture the methane from its pig farms, or that people in India would not have bought new stoves of their own accord. In other words, you must look into a counterfactual future. I have yet to meet someone from a carbon offset company who possesses supernatural powers." Responding to this criticism with a comment about the analogy of indulgencies being flawed hardly addresses the issue.

In addition, I think this article by businessweek might shed a little light on some of the reasons for carbon offsetting failures... http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/07_44/b4056001.htm?chan=search —Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.112.16.62 (talk) 18:27, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

That quote from Monbiot refers to the additionality controversy, not the indulgence criticism. Additionality is pretty well covered in the entry, including links to five outside articles. Nothing wrong with the Business Week article, but not sure it brings anything new. GreenSarah (talk) 19:56, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Additionality & Fraud
I have moved this subsection text here: A May 26, 2008 article in The Guardian reported on a study of carbon offsets by Stanford University. The article refers to "the UN's clean development mechanism (CDM), an international system established by the Kyoto process that allows rich countries to meet emissions targets by funding clean energy projects in developing nations." David Victor, a law professor at the university, was quoted as saying, "It looks like between one and two thirds of all the total CDM offsets do not represent actual emission cuts." Billions wasted on UN climate programme, The Guardian, May 26, 2008
 * Fraudulent accounting of offsets

The problem with the above piece is that it is misrepresenting the research. The Stamford research was into applications for CDM funding, not for projects that have actually been approved nor for reductions that have been actually achieved. If, as the newspaper article claims, a project would be undertaken regardless of CDM funding, then the CDM executive board would reject it as failing its additionality criteria. There are no underlying claims that 2/3 of approved projects fail this criteria. This point is already made in the previous section on additionality. Ephebi (talk) 15:23, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Controversies
As of August 28, 2007 there was a pretty large section on controversies with carbon offsets. I am worried these have been deleted due to self editing.mlhwitz (talk) 14:05, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Carbon project merge
I don't see any discussion of this proposed change, but I'm in favor of it. A carbon project and a carbon offset are closely related concepts, and the material in the two entries is highly redundant. What do other people think? TinyHelmsman (talk) 09:03, 8 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Some people maintain a business perspective and would like to "first" investigate how to start, manage and make money from a carbon project. These people may already know about the concepts around carbon offset. I see benefit (and no harm) in keeping the carbon project page as a referential starting page for these people. Redundant or duplicate material can always be removed. To position these pages accordingly: The carbon offset page can have more technical details, international protocols, etc. whereas the carbon project page can have more business, alternative approaches, examples, finances, etc. excluding any non-business details.Ismailari (talk) 08:13, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Add Maywa Montenegro in Seed (magazine) from August 13, 2009?
Add Five experts debate if carbon offsetting is the quick, efficient way to decarbonize the global economy, or the loophole that will derail such efforts. by Maywa Montenegro in Seed (magazine) from August 13, 2009? 99.190.91.161 (talk) 06:59, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Accounting
I have added a small subnote that as no formal guidelines or regulations being in place, identifying offset is not achievable. "TheNose | Talk" 10:16, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

One of the bullets in this section used to read:

''Permanent - are some benefits of the reductions reversible? (Examples: cutting down trees, finite lifetime of wind-powered generators)''

I have removed the wind generator portion of the example; unlike the burning of wood (in which most of the sequestered carbon is returned to the atmosphere), the decommissioning of a wind generator does not nullify the environmental benefit it created over its operational lifetime. Yabbadab 18:23, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

You can still argue that energy projects do not permanently reduce emissions due to the rebound effect - more energy availability triggers more energy demand => the only "true" reduction is leaving coal in the ground, not producing more renewable energy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.132.214.48 (talk) 15:11, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

This article is biased against nuclear power
I noticed that the article mentioned solar power and wind power, but not nuclear power. That is odd, because nuclear power generates far more carbon free energy than wind and solar power combined. So I added some stuff about nuclear power, with sources. But then someone ereased it. That's bias. Grundle2600 (talk) 12:43, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

For the record, here is what I added:

Since the earth has enough uranium to last until the sun blows up in 5 billion years, some scientists consider nuclear power to be a form of renewable energy.



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).

Claims exist that the problems of nuclear waste do not come anywhere close to approaching the problems of fossil fuel waste. 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." In the U.S. alone, fossil fuel waste kills 20,000 people each year. A coal power plant releases 100 times as much radiation as a nuclear power plant of the same wattage. It is estimated that during 1982, US coal burning released 155 times as much radioactivity into the atmosphere as the Three Mile Island incident. 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.

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)

March 2008 GreenSarah Edits
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)


 * These sorts of accusations are pretty bad form. The article is in much stronger shape than it was before, and adding a laundry list of fairly random criticisms about offsets doesn't enhance the entry.


 * Incidentally, it was CarbonFund.org that was self-editing the entry, removing any negative stories about their offsets, and inserting biased information about their project types. Ironically, you've managed to leave those stories out. Perhaps we should be wondering who you work for? (Joke)


 * Point being, inserting tangents about specific projects or companies has been a mechanism for abuse in the past, and in any case the article is much better now than it was before. Please respect the decisions that have been made. TinyHelmsman (talk) 22:18, 14 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The specific instances seem important to me. GreenSarah's user page says she is in the industry, she deleted the content, so I made the inference.  I didn't selectively add that content, it was pulled from a much older version of the page.  I do not work for the industry (or presently any other industry at all). Specifically, I think the TerraPass content was worth including.  Of course, I am biased in that I originally wrote it, but there have been several large scale investigative reports on that incident.  In my opinion, nothing in this article adequately addresses that sort of issue(to wit, claiming a preexisting action as an offset).  The TerraPass methane project was already in existence at the landfill before TerraPass contributed any offset money and no additional benefit was accrued once TerraPass started paying for it (that is, no benefit to anyone other than TerraPass).


 * The second thing I really think needs to be highlighted is the disparity between the retail cost of offsets and the amount paid to the offsetting party (for example, the farmers doing methane capture). There are serious dollars being tossed around, but the omitted literature indicates that the middlemen offset companies are pocketing the bulk of money paid.

mlhwitz (talk) 21:32, 30 July 2008 (UTC)


 * This issue is specifically addressed in the section "Additionality and lack of regulation in the voluntary market" in a way that is more general and informative, and includes links to five primary source articles with further information about the problems described.


 * Further, the whole question of mentioning specific incidents has been deeply tainted by the fact that carbonfund keeps editing the entry to paint themselves in a more flattering light. Verisimilus addressed the issue above by saying:


 * By way of an external opinion: This is a tricky one. I don't think the article cited gives a neutral point of view, therefore without a counter from Carbonfund, it would be unfair to cite only the article itself. In all honesty, this bullet point is somewhat trumped by the one coming before it, and as the section reads something like a list of trivia, I'd argue that we could avoid this discussion by simply axing this point.


 * Personally, I don't 100% agree with this, but I will say that the article is in better shape now than it was, and the edit war has died down. So far reasons of both quality, fairness and consistency, it seems to make sense to apply this standard generally.


 * If you want to include something about the disparity between retail and wholesale costs, then I'd recommend adding a new section. I'd caution, though, that you're going to have to find a better reference than an industry hit piece that is several years out of date. It doesn't really make sense that middlemen pocket the bulk of money paid -- competitive industries just don't work this way, and I'm pretty certain the offset industry doesn't either. There's always a big disparity between retail and wholesale costs, and that's because selling retail is expensive. TinyHelmsman (talk) 13:50, 1 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I could offer to bring in some up-to-date information on these issues (especially additionality / verification trade off, bankability, PoAs etc.) + a couple of other edits that are outdated / inaccurate.


 * Anyway, I have a COI (working in the industry part-time & writing a PhD on forestry carbon payments) - would suggest that I work with another independent author who verifies my contents before publishing (-> as suggested in the COI rules of Wikipedia)

Anybody interested?

TimS TimS (talk) 15:29, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Carbon credit merge suggestion
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)


 * I agree strongly, an offset is a security, along the lines of a financial instrument. It's possibly a subsection of carbon credits, but not entirely. In any event they're clearly different though closely related topics, and seeing as how nobody seems to have made a compelling case to the contrary (or said anything at all for two years now) I'm going out on a limb and killing the label. If anyone reinstates it please be persuasive and specific as to why two lengthy articles with dozens of active contributors should be mashed together, and let's see at least a few users that share that view, which the lack of support during intervening two years seems to suggest is not overwhelming.TobinMarchbanks (talk) 08:29, 8 April 2010 (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)


 * I'm not so sure this is true. These questions of usage can get complicated, because it's not always clear that there is one standard definition of a slightly generic term like "carbon credit." But generally I would say that a carbon offset is in fact a type of carbon credit. Likewise, carbon allowances (which you seem to be referring to) are also a type of carbon credit.


 * Beyond that, this is definitely wrong: "Carbon offsets are the non-tradeable and retired version of a carbon credit." Carbon offsets are tradeable, and they're referred to as carbon offsets even before they're retired. Carbon offsets do need to be retired if they're used to satisfy obligations under a carbon cap. But the same is true of carbon allowances. Basically, this is not a meaningful distinction.


 * The defining characteristic of offsets is that they are project-based reductions from activities that aren't covered under a cap. The article does do a reasonable job of explaining this, I think, although maybe it could be made clearer. TinyHelmsman (talk) 13:07, 16 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Agree with Tiny. This difference should be made clear in the first paragraph, including a link to carbon credit. Could e.g. enter this sentence:
 * "A carbon offset is a type of carbon credit produced in a place and/or industry not covered by a mandatory cap, typically in a Non-Annex I Country. Mandatory carbon compliance schemes such as the EU ETS allow certain amounts and types of offsets."
 * (Refering to the Kyoto-Protocol Annex I) & EU ETS restrictions on the use of CERs - would need to double check for the sources.

(TimS TimS (talk) 07:54, 4 October 2010 (UTC))

This article is biased against tree farming
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."


 * I'd say that this article is biased in favor of tree-planting projects, which aren't very well-regarded by practitioners. Wired Magazine isn't a great source for this sort of stuff. Carbon offsets and carbon offset projects are a technical topic. Wired is written for a popular audience and tends to focus on speculative or flashy technology. So far as I know, no credible organization is putting forth wooden furniture as a solution to climate change (or a source of offsets). TinyHelmsman (talk) 12:45, 2 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Tree planting projects have drawn criticism across the board. The section doesn't hinge on wired magazine, it cites David Suzuki, who those knowledgeable in this field know well as arguably the most authoritative or at least "famous" voice on climate change short of Al Gore, and the citation leads to his critique which is argued forcefully and shored up with information. Just for reference (my point of view follows) forestry projects may have a fatal design flaw, which is the requirement that the trees be under stewardship for 100+ years, and their mitigation effects are not defensible unless such oversight (lasting longer than the average human lifespan) is near-certain.


 * It may well be that defenders of forestry projects with a contrasting opinion should be better represented in this section, but within the field the concerns about tree farming are becoming universal, with Climate Action Reserve, the most respected US standard and the only one singled out in Waxman-Markey, joining many others sharing the same reservations. It's certainly a controversy rather than consensus but it seems like the solution is for those wishing to see more of the counter arguments to add and source them, rather than gut references to the criticism. TobinMarchbanks (talk) 08:11, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

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))

Voluntary Market Overhaul
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))
 * I have acted on your suggestion. Mrfebruary (talk) 10:18, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Reduce Carbon Offsetting
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)

Naomi Klein potential resource
http://www.thenation.com/article/164497/capitalism-vs-climate

99.190.86.244 (talk) 09:57, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * This article appeared in the November 28, 2011 edition of The Nation. See Effects of climate change on humans and Effects of global warming in general, geoengineering and Climate change mitigation in general.  97.87.29.188 (talk) 00:23, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Carbon credit, related resource?
Talk:Carbon credit ... example

99.56.122.24 (talk) 09:05, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Systemic bias?
I believe the article has systemic bias on these points:
 * It concentrates its criticism in one place, and rebuts the criticisms that are there.
 * It seems to imply offsets are a good thing (there are paragraphs sprinkling it throughout, one that stuck out on me was the "good quality" offset part - what constitutes one?); Wikipedia is not here to spew a viewpoint in either direction.
 * It seems to go to great lengths to tout the benefits of carbon offsets and reads a little bit like an advertising to me.

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)

Bad reference
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)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Carbon offset. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120524042849/http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20100106-712782.html to http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20100106-712782.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 10:06, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 one 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110719044934/http://www.eci.ox.ac.uk/research/climate/cop07/offsets.php to http://www.eci.ox.ac.uk/research/climate/cop07/offsets.php
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121018211612/http://www.epa.gov/highgwp/scientific.html to http://www.epa.gov/highgwp/scientific.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120707073809/http://pacificcarbontrust.com:80/what-we-do/offsets-and-climate-change/what-is-a-carbon-offset to http://www.pacificcarbontrust.com/what-we-do/offsets-and-climate-change/what-is-a-carbon-offset/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120307113640/http://www.odi.org.uk/resources/details.asp?id=11&title=can-standards-voluntary-carbon-offsets-ensure-development-benefits to http://www.odi.org.uk/resources/details.asp?id=11&title=can-standards-voluntary-carbon-offsets-ensure-development-benefits
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120307113714/http://www.odi.org.uk/resources/details.asp?id=23&title=making-voluntary-carbon-markets-work-poor-case-forestry-offsets to http://www.odi.org.uk/resources/details.asp?id=23&title=making-voluntary-carbon-markets-work-poor-case-forestry-offsets
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081220111441/http://gristmill.grist.org:80/story/2007/7/11/0138/18222 to http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2007/7/11/0138/18222
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100704044058/http://www.vidalocatravel.co.uk:80/charity-statement to http://www.vidalocatravel.co.uk/charity-statement
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100212232904/http://www.davidsuzuki.org:80/Climate_Change/What_You_Can_Do/trees3.asp to http://www.davidsuzuki.org/Climate_Change/What_You_Can_Do/trees3.asp
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131315235400/http://www.wrm.org.uy/countries/Ecuador/face.html to http://www.wrm.org.uy/countries/Ecuador/face.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120209141920/http://www.wrm.org.uy/countries/Uganda/Place_Store_Carbon.pdf to http://www.wrm.org.uy/countries/Uganda/Place_Store_Carbon.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 00:38, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090921050744/http://offsetting.defra.gov.uk:80/cms/approved-offsets/ to http://offsetting.defra.gov.uk/cms/approved-offsets/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 06:34, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Perverse incentives
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)

External links modified
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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091122070446/http://ecosystemmarketplace.com/documents/cms_documents/StateOfTheVoluntaryCarbonMarkets_2009.pdf to http://ecosystemmarketplace.com/documents/cms_documents/StateOfTheVoluntaryCarbonMarkets_2009.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090417032716/http://www.ecosecurities.com/Standalone/Carbon_Offsetting_Trends_Survey_2008/default.aspx to http://www.ecosecurities.com/Standalone/Carbon_Offsetting_Trends_Survey_2008/default.aspx
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091122070446/http://ecosystemmarketplace.com/documents/cms_documents/StateOfTheVoluntaryCarbonMarkets_2009.pdf to http://www.ecosystemmarketplace.com/documents/cms_documents/StateOfTheVoluntaryCarbonMarkets_2009.pdf
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.pacificcarbontrust.com/what-we-do/offsets-and-climate-change/what-is-a-carbon-offset/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090517113556/http://www.ecosecurities.com/Standalone/Forest_Carbon_Offsetting_Trends_Survey_2009/default.aspx to http://www.ecosecurities.com/Standalone/Forest_Carbon_Offsetting_Trends_Survey_2009/default.aspx
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141005094244/http://www.greenwisebusiness.co.uk/news/decc-to-close-carbon-offset-accreditation-scheme-2356.aspx to http://www.greenwisebusiness.co.uk/news/decc-to-close-carbon-offset-accreditation-scheme-2356.aspx
 * Added archive http://arquivo.pt/wayback/20091224192831/http://offsetting.defra.gov.uk/ to http://offsetting.defra.gov.uk/
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2007/7/11/0138/18222
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.vidalocatravel.co.uk/charity-statement
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.davidsuzuki.org/Climate_Change/What_You_Can_Do/trees3.asp
 * Added tag to http://cdm.unfccc.int/public_inputs/inputam0001/Comment_AM0001_Schwank_081004.pdf%2C

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 18:12, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140225103422/http://www.redd-monitor.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/cs-new-forest-company-uganda-plantations-220911-en.pdf to http://www.redd-monitor.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/cs-new-forest-company-uganda-plantations-220911-en.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090912080347/http://www.counterpunch.org/checker09092009.html to http://www.counterpunch.org/checker09092009.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 23:52, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Length of lead section
The lead section of the article is currently 8 paragraphs, much more than the 3-4 paragraph length recommended by Wikipedia's style guide (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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)

Recency of citations and information
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)

Difference from Carbon credit?
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)

Tourism heading
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)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
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)

Wiki Education assignment: Research Process and Methodology - SU22 - Sect 202 - Tue
— Assignment last updated by Sqlo123 (talk) 15:24, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Renewable energy
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
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. By 2050, the renewable shares are predicted to be 57–71% of the global electricity production. 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. 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. 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 and the Clean Development Mechanism exclude nuclear power from generating carbon offset credits.

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. For a REC to be used as a carbon offset, it must cause emission reductions that would not have occurred without the REC. 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. Chidgk1 (talk) 18:01, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Suitable images
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)

After redirect from carbon credit is completed
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:
 * 1) I think we ought to mention carbon credit in bold in the first para to ensure people know they have come to the right place and to ensure they immediately understand the relationship between carbon offset and carbon credit. I have added a sentence for now but this can be be improved upon. I hadn't heard of the term offset credit before but it might be quite a good one as it implies that credits are used for offsets.
 * 2) We could think about about a possible name change for the article. User:Dtetta had previously suggested carbon offset and carbon credit as a new title. I personally don't favour this construct with the "and" but feel that the pros and cons of a name change ought to be discussed in more depth. EMsmile (talk) 07:12, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Proposal to Merge this Article and Carbon Credit Article
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.

Justification for Proposal
I’m suggesting this because:
 * As shown in the comparison outlines below, these two terms are often used interchangeably in these articles, and leads to confusion. This seems to be more common in the offset article, but it’s an issue with the credit article as well. A combined article that provides an overall definition of both terms, describes the common features (and differences) for them, and makes distinctions where they are appropriate, would provide a better overall coverage of this field.
 * The two topics have several features in common, such as: project type; key principles such as additionality; markets and regulatory drivers (there are distinctions here as well, of course); and criticisms (again also some distinctions too). However, the two articles provide different approaches in describing these common features. These need to be presented in a more consistent manner, ideally in one location.
 * Both articles need updating, as many of the references in more than 10 years old. Although some are still relevant, there is a lot of information developed over the past 10 years that should be incorporated into these articles, such as the developments around crediting and offset mechanisms under the Paris agreement, the role of net zero goals, as well as a variety of recent criticisms of both crediting schemes and voluntary offset projects.
 * These articles have a host of other issues that could be addressed at the same time – there are currently four maintenance templates in each article.
 * Below are outlines from the TOC for each article, I’ve tried to briefly summarize some key points about the contents and list, in italics, where each article is talking about credits, offsets, or both credits and offsets. There are also some italicized notes about issues such as maintenance templates.

Description of Proposal
Dtetta (talk) 20:14, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I would propose to create a combined outline for both articles, and use the following definitions from Carbon Offset Guide as an inro concept. This description is also consistent with definitions from this Corporate Finance Institute webpage. From the offset guide: “A carbon offset broadly refers to a reduction in GHG emissions. . . that is used to compensate for emissions that occur elsewhere. A carbon offset credit is a transferrable instrument certified by governments or independent certification bodies to represent an emission reduction of one metric tonne of CO2, or an equivalent amount of other GHGs.” This is consistent with wording in the lead of carbon offset article, and roughly consistent with wording in the lead of the carbon credit article.
 * The combined article outline would then cover the main features, such as principles, project types, markets/drivers, and criticisms. Where there are differences between offsets and credits in one of these sections, that would be explained in the appropriate section. Similar to a recent proposal for revising the Carbon accounting article.
 * Prior to developing an outline, I wanted to see if there were strong concerns with combining the articles, or whether any of the information I have presented here seems off-base. Please let me know if you have questions or concerns about any of this., and - pinging each of you, as it looks like you have been recent contributors to this article, as you have been on the carbon credit article.

Discussion

 * Thanks for this. When typing into google "what's the difference between carbon offset and carbon credits" a lot of helpful pages come up, e.g. this one: https://carboncredits.com/carbon-credits-vs-carbon-offsets-whats-the-difference/. It starts off with "At their core, both carbon credits and carbon offsets are accounting mechanisms. They provide a way to balance the scales of pollution.". So having said that, dealing with both instruments in one article might be useful for us editors as it could become more efficient in keeping one article updated and well maintained, not two. So I think it could work but I have some caveats:


 * We should think long and hard about the title of the combined article. A title of "carbon offsets and carbon credits" is not very elegant in my opinion. For comparison, I have a similar problem with carbon sink and carbon sequestration which overlap a lot. But combining both into one article called "carbon sink and carbon sequestration" is not elegant. Instead one could ponder over which article is the "parent article" and which is the "daughter article" or if they are both on the same level. E.g. if carbon offset is more important than carbon credit, then the combined article could be "carbon offset", and the term "carbon credit" could then just redirect to a particular section in that article. - Note also a new discussion at carbon neutrality where a new editor (pinging User:Our2050World) has proposed to split off net zero because they are saying it is not the same thing. 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.
 * Or is there perhaps an overarching term that could be used for both of them, like Carbon accounting mechanisms (well, from that perspective, one might as well merge them into carbon accounting, someone might argue (not my position but just playing devil's advocate).
 * We need to think about the incoming links to both articles. Would all the incoming links be OK with now coming to a combined article rather than two separate ones?
 * FYI, I've used Google Trends to compare the two terms (both in terms of "search term" and in terms of "topic"). It's interesting that the terms where used much more back around 2007, then declined in usage and since about mid 2021 they're getting more common again. Carbon credit seems to be looked up much more than carbon offset. EMsmile (talk) 08:42, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Regarding google trends, I just did a five year search on the two terms, and they show as relatively similar (credit-29, offset-27, over the past year it's credit-47, offset-39). Credit has become relatively more common over the past couple of months, but I don't think that's necessarily significant, there is a lot of variation in these lines. Dtetta (talk) 15:14, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
 * P.S. On the talk page of carbon credit, there was a recent proposal to rename it to carbon allowance. Would that work as a combined title for carbon offset and carbon credit together? Pinging User:Chidgk1. Or maybe not; it seems to be a synonym for "carbon credit" (see e.g. here) EMsmile (talk) 08:54, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
 * As I understood it
 * voluntary carbon credit = carbon offset
 * compliance carbon credit = carbon allowance
 * So I thought there should be an article called “carbon offset” and another called “carbon allowance” with “carbon credit” as a disambig page. But I may be wrong and at the moment I am mostly editing earthquake related stuff so I am afraid I have not read all your discussion. So you had better do what you think best as I don’t expect to have time to think about and discuss this properly Chidgk1 (talk) 16:17, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I thought the summary paragraph from ChatGPT’s reponse to my query:“What is the difference between carbon credits and carbon allowances” was pretty good. It reads: “In summary, carbon allowances are a set number of permits to emit a certain amount of greenhouse gases, while carbon credits represent a reduction in emissions below what would have otherwise occurred. Both are used to regulate emissions within a cap-and-trade system, but carbon credits can be generated through emissions-reducing projects, while carbon allowances are allocated by the government.” This also seems consistent with the Carbon Offset Guide pages on allowances and How to Aquire Carbon Offset Credits. Dtetta (talk) 19:26, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for those thoughts, based on the feedback to date, I would suggest this be approached in the following steps:
 * I will create a detailed outline (with citations) for a combined article in the User:Dtetta/Carbon offsets and credits subpage of my user space. I realize EMsmile thinks this is not an elegant title, but I am going with it for demo purposes only at this point.
 * On this talk page, we could then have discussion about the merits of this combined article/outline, with the benefit of seeing a fuller presentation of the similarities and differences in the two concepts.
 * If it seems like a combined article is not appropriate, the contents of the User:Dtetta/Carbon offsets and credits outline could still be used to revise the two existing articles.
 * If it seem like a combined article does makes sense, based on the contents of the outline, I would then work with whoever is interested to create a complete article, replacing the outline in User:Dtetta/Carbon offsets and credits with that full text article.
 * There could then be discussion and decisions about the appropriate title of that combined article, where it should be placed, and any needed redirects or name changes for the two existing articles. For instance, one possibility would be to place the newly created contents in the current offset article (since that is the broader concept, I believe), rename that article to the new name decided on, and then create a redirect for the existing carbon credit article.

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)

Proposed outline for combined article
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:
 * After looking at this outline do you think it make sense to have a combined article?
 * If not, how would common areas such as “Background and General Features”, “Project types”, “Ensuring quality and identifying value”, and “Effectiveness and limitations” be captured in each of the articles? IMO even the “Programs and markets” section is difficult to separate cleanly. As I was going through the outline, I looked for areas where there seem to be clear distinctions between credits and offsets. The clearest would be in the compliance programs. But offsets are even intertwined within those programs.
 * Are there concepts in the existing articles that you don’t see represented here, but think should be?
 * Should I copy the outline and put it on this talk page, or is it easy enough to go back an forth between pages for the purposes of this discussion?

and - 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)
 * Hi, I've looked at your outline and feel that I am unable to do it justice as I just don't have enough expertise in this area. But on a more practical level: which Wikipedia article would you merge into which (carbon offset into carbon credit or vice versa?). Could you add the merger tags to both articles accordingly? Also, it wasn't clear to me which content from the two articles would be kept and moved into your new structure and which content would be deleted? I wonder if it might be easier to first delete any unsuitable material from both articles, in effect trimming them down before working on the merger? But like I said I feel quite out of my depth here. I suggest you also write on the talk page of WikiProject CC and move the thread to the bottom of the talk page in an attempt to get more attention for it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Climate_change#Proposal_to_merge_carbon_credit_and_carbon_offset EMsmile (talk) 12:35, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Sorry too difficult for me too - hope you get well soon Chidgk1 (talk) 14:57, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify: The current leaning is to say that carbon credit should be merged into carbon offset. Perhaps User:Dtetta could briefly explain the rationale for this (i.e. why not the other way around). I would be happy with such a merger. EMsmile (talk) 11:00, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
 * As I understood it
 * voluntary carbon credit = carbon offset
 * compliance carbon credit = carbon allowance
 * So I thought there should be an article called “carbon offset” and another called “carbon allowance” with “carbon credit” as a disambig page.
 * Am I misunderstanding something? Chidgk1 (talk) 15:51, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
 * As I mentioned earlier, I think the carbon offset guide definition is a good one, it states “A carbon offset broadly refers to a reduction in GHG emissions. . . that is used to compensate for emissions that occur elsewhere. A carbon offset credit is a transferrable instrument certified by governments or independent certification bodies to represent an emission reduction of one metric tonne of CO2, or an equivalent amount of other GHGs.” In this context I’m not sure that “voluntary carbon credit” has any real meaning.
 * Regarding the terms compliance carbon credit and carbon allowance, I tried to clarify what seems to be the distinction between those terms in a February 12 post, namely: “carbon allowances are a set number of permits to emit a certain amount of greenhouse gases, while carbon credits represent a reduction in emissions below what would have otherwise occurred. Both are used to regulate emissions within a cap-and-trade system, but carbon credits can be generated through emissions-reducing projects, while carbon allowances are allocated by the government.”
 * I’m not sure if “carbon allowance” merits its own page, I think that is fairly well covered in the Distribution of allowances] portion of the Carbon emission trading article. But I would be happy to look at strengthening that coverage, if you think there are areas that need improving.
 * In terms of a disambiguation page for carbon credit (as opposed to using the merge process), I have to say I don’t understand that process well enough yet to have a good opinion, so I will read up further. But I would agree with EMsmile that the contents of the carbon credit article should be merged into the carbon offset article. Again, if you look at the citations in the definitions portion of my outline, I think it’s reasonable to present carbon credits as a subset of things within the overall set of things that are carbon offsets. Without a carbon offset, you can’t really have a carbon credit, while you can have a carbon offset without a carbon credit being involved. So that’s why I think it makes most sense to merge the usable text from the carbon credit article into the carbon offset article. In my outline at: User:Dtetta/Carbon offsets and credits, I tried to note the sections from the carbon credit article that makes sense to keep and merge into the offset article.
 * Hope that helps. Dtetta (talk) 14:08, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Comments from experts on outline
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
 * The two articles (offsets and credits) should be combined, with a title that includes both offsets and credits in the wording - Michael G.
 * Include a discussion of offset origins in context of US Clean Air act amendments, including 1977 PSD program.
 * Mention Energy Transition Accelerator
 * In discussion of Article 6, include the following points:
 * 6.2 - Recognition of ability of signatories to trade on their own terms, although UN oversight involved.
 * 6.4 - Involves the SDM, a UN administered crediting program. Still working out rules for methodologies under that program.
 * Tradeoffs with crediting mechanisms - every country has a pledge now, so it’s a zero sum game, current struggle is how to create policy frameworks to ensure increased ambition.
 * How to update CDM - Derik has a paper on this to be published soon.
 * Re: Voluntary market trends:
 * Discuss initiatives such as ICVCM ( multstakeholder effort to put quality label) VCMI - DISCUSS Carbon offset integrity ratings.
 * Function/purpose of ratings agencies - startups include BeZero, Calyx global, Silver, Renoster.
 * Discuss TNC survey of credit buyers.
 * Markets as a means for finance and investment into mitigation and compensate for a harm.
 * Historically, offsets viewed as a cost efficiency effort - in voluntary markets lingering question whether that logic still applies. VCMI to address this - responsible offsetting - not ok unless on science aligned pathway
 * Parallel debate - can you claim a offset on removals that are part of NDCs? If you buy a carbon credit and want to claim as an offset to you need acknowledgment from country that it won’t be part of NDC pledge?
 * Efforts to reframe market around “mitigation contributions”. As part of COP 27 - acknowledgement that roles for voluntary credits could be “mitigation contribution”.Dtetta (talk) 00:36, 20 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Support merge. Joyous! Noise! 21:29, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Ready to merge articles
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 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 and  support the merger proposal, as do I. Dtetta (talk) 02:50, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi, thanks for carrying out this merger. I don't have the capacity to look at this in detail but wanted to make some superficial comments:
 * I spotted some references errors which probably came from a short ref style merger; you probably seem them too and will fix them later?
 * Don’t think they came from that, but some have already been fixed by others - much appreciated! Dtetta (talk) 20:44, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
 * There are only 3 refs under "works cited". Maybe better to change them into the long ref style and have it consistently as long ref style?
 * That’s a possibility - I prefer how the short cite style when you click on the citation link, but you suggestion might work as well. Dtetta (talk) 20:44, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
 * What do you mean with "I prefer how etc."? If I look at the section "works cited" and want to know WHERE the second publication in that list is cited exactly then this is not possible with a simple click, right? Whereas in the reference list above I can click on the little superscript letter and see where it is cited. EMsmile (talk) 21:03, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
 * We've already had this discussion here and I think we both agreed to disagree on this point. Dtetta (talk) 22:37, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
 * The "see also" list could be shortened.
 * Agree. Dtetta (talk) 20:44, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Why have "effectiveness and limitations" in the same section when they are opposed to each other? I think the content that is currently under "effectiveness" could be integrated into "Origins and general features".
 * I think having them together provides a more balanced presentation, and is more consistent with NPOV guidance. Dtetta (talk) 20:44, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Maybe split "Origins and general features" into two (I am not a bit fan of section headings with "and" in them).
 * Don’t feel strongly about this either way. Dtetta (talk) 20:44, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Would you be able to delete in the carbon credit article those sections that have now been copied across to carbon offset? Then we can see what remains there before setting up the redirect. I am particularly interested in the sections on additionality and criticism. Has that content been moved and utilised for the carbon offset article or was it unusable?
 * If you recall, that section had a maintenance template for problems with it being out of balance in terms of WP criticism policies. I did move additionality and portions of the criticism section over, and updated some references. Not sure if I can easily do what you are asking for. But I did go through the entire article and moved the parts that made sense to move over to this article. Dtetta (talk) 20:44, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
 * OK, then I guess now is a good time as any to place the redirect at carbon credit. EMsmile (talk) 07:14, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Do you have any plans and ideas for adding more images to the article? Do you find the image that is currently in the lead ideal? Would maybe a 2 x 2 image collage be better for the lead (like we have at climate change mitigation?
 * I don’t have plans to do that, but would be happy to see other give it a go. Dtetta (talk) 20:44, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Would the redirect from "carbon credit" in future go to a specific section in this article or just to the article in general?
 * I think it would be a general redirect to the whole article. Dtetta (talk) 20:44, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Would we change or remove the hatnote from the article? (see also my question below)
 * Yes, I can look into that. Dtetta (talk) 20:44, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I am sorry that I can't offer a more in-depth feedback, just these superficial points from a lay person's perspective. EMsmile (talk) 10:59, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for those comments EMsmile - have responded to each in italics above. Dtetta (talk) 20:44, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
 * That's all good, thanks. The only thing I still disagree with, and feel slightly strongly about, is having "effectiveness and limitations" together in one section. I don't see how this would help with WP:NPOV. The NPOV needs to be ensured within the section on "limitations" itself and doesn't get balanced out by stressing the pros of the carbon offset approach at that point. Compare also with how I did it at SDG. I have a section there called "challenges" rather than a section called "Positive aspects and challenges" together in one. (Remember you had it together at carbon accounting as well but later agreed to split it there which I think is good.) EMsmile (talk) 21:00, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
 * If you want to split that section into two separate sections, I won't object. IMO it's not an improvement, but I don't feel that strongly about it. Dtetta (talk) 21:47, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
 * - Just want to check and make sure you are not opposed to the merger. Dtetta (talk) 21:36, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Per Copying within Wikipedia these are the portions of the Carbon credit article that I have copied, modified, and inserted into this article.
 * The second and third paragraphs of lead.
 * The one paragraph in the “Types” section.
 * The second paragraph and bullets from the “Kyoto’s flexible mechanisms” subsection.
 * The third paragraph of the “Emission markets” subsection.
 * The third paragraph of the “Creating carbon markets” subsection.
 * The first paragraph of the “Additionality and its importance” subsection. Dtetta (talk) 04:07, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

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.

Question about hatnote
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)
 * Just complete the merge from Carbon credit and edited the hatnote appropriately. Dtetta (talk) 13:01, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Concerns with forestry projects
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)

- 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)

Requested move 5 April 2023

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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)
 * Relisting comment: Relisting due to minimal participation. Material  Works  (contribs) 16:15, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: WikiProject Climate change has been notified of this discussion. Material  Works  (contribs) 16:15, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: WikiProject Environment has been notified of this discussion. Material  Works  (contribs) 16:15, 12 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Agree per nom. — RCraig09 (talk) 20:17, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Mild oppose. I copy here something that I had said earlier on this talk page: We should think long and hard about the title of the combined article. A title of "carbon offsets and carbon credits" is not very elegant in my opinion. For comparison, I have a similar problem with carbon sink and carbon sequestration which overlap a lot. But combining both into one article called "carbon sink and carbon sequestration" is not elegant. Instead one could ponder over which article is the "parent article" and which is the "daughter article" or if they are both on the same level. E.g. if carbon offset is more important than carbon credit, then the combined article could be "carbon offset", and the term "carbon credit" could then just redirect to a particular section in that article. - Note also a new discussion at carbon neutrality where a new editor (pinging User:Our2050World) has proposed to split off net zero because they are saying it is not the same thing. 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. I guess the question is that if a user puts "carbon credit" into the search field and they end up at the carbon offset article, would that lead to a lot of confusion for them? EMsmile (talk) 13:44, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
 * That’s an interesting perspective, but you don’t really offer a solution to the issue that these two concepts are intertwined. On 6 March you stated: ”I've looked at your outline and feel that I am unable to do it justice as I just don't have enough expertise in this area.” Yet you provide an opinion that requires some expertise to effectively carry out. Your solution makes me think that you have not read the article completely, which anyone who is voting should do per WP guidance. If you had, you would see there is clearly no one section for a redirect from carbon credit. If you see one in the article, or see a way of organizing the article to accomplish that, please say so. Having spent considerable time writing this article, I don’t think it’s possible, and your comment doesn’t provide any insight re: how to do that. The examples you are describing are a poor analogy to the situation here. Very unhelpful. Dtetta (talk) 14:21, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
 * A rather hasty response. Editor EMsmile has been on wiki for over 8 years, during which time she's been bestowed several barnstars due to her high quality contributions, both direct to articles and to improvement related discussion. She may lack specific expertise on carbon markets, but she has a strong understanding of the general principles that underpin article improvement, as well as a good eye for intangibles like elegance. It's invariably helpful when she graces a page with her insights. FeydHuxtable (talk) 17:09, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Note to the person who closes this discussion: If you choose to take FeydHuxtable's comment above into consideration, please also consider the recent comments from Femke and myself on User talk:EMsmile. Clayoquot (talk &#124; contribs) 20:20, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Re 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 &#124; contribs) 23:17, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
 * In fact it was a merger discussion previously, now followed by a move discussion. But no problem if I am the only one who opposes the move. I don't feel strongly about it so don't mind being overruled. It was more of a gut feeling and not liking the "and" construct but I can't think of a smarter solution so I'll just keep quiet now. Thank you, FeydHuxtable, for your analysis of the different aspects as well and for thinking it through. EMsmile (talk) 10:05, 20 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Mild support Acting on EMsmile's helpful suggestion, I've considered which out of 'Carbon offset' or 'Carbon credit' is the parent. Sadly, a case can be made for either, or neither! If we take the educated lay reader perspective, Offset might seem the parent. One normally hears 'Carbon credits' only in a specific sense tangible sense to mean permits or certificates, whereas individuals & small unregulated orgs sometimes use the term 'carbon offset' in a wider sense, to refer to something like planting a tree to offset their personal carbon footprint, i.e. they interpret 'offset' in the regular dictionary sense.
 * This article though seems to largely focus on how the term is used in the carbon markets. In that context, some sources imply 'carbon credit' is the parent - because in some parts, 'offsets' are said to be sub types of 'carbon credits' used only in voluntary markets, whereas different types of 'carbon credit' are used in compliance markets like the EU ETS. Other sources though, state that offsets & credits are distinct things example. I dont see value in going into much more detail about this - we dont yet have widely agreed international standards on these things. Per progress at COP 27 thrashing out the details for Paris's Article 6, we might start to get better clarity around 2025, and at that point we can restructure the article accordingly. For now though, despite agreeing that the proposed new title is inelegant, I support the proposal per nom and as it seems it would be helpful for the main editor currently working on the page. FeydHuxtable (talk) 17:09, 17 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Support This article explains the relationship between offsets and credits in a way that I can understand, which is quite an accomplishment. The concepts are obviously intertwined so there is no single section to redirect Carbon credit to. If someone clicks a link called carbon credit, they will be less surprised to get a page with "carbon credit" in the title than a page without it. Clayoquot (talk &#124; contribs) 23:09, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.