September 15, 2007

Carbon-neutral status shouldn't be for sale

By Steven F. Greenwald and Jeffrey P. Gray

While elected officials in Washington debate the politics of climate change, state legislators and regulators have been busy putting in place programs to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. For the most part, the goals of the programs reflect desired changes to power supply and consumption: increasing the efficiency of electricity generation and delivery, using less fossil fuels and more renewable resources, making end users' appliances less energy-wasteful and shifting their use to off-peak periods, and basic conservation practices—turning off unneeded lights and resetting the thermostats of air conditioners and space-heating systems.

 

Of the new programs, one type is unique because it represents an indirect approach to mitigating climate change. Such programs solicit electricity consumers to buy carbon credits to offset the CO₂ emissions associated with their own consumption and thus make themselves "carbon-neutral."

Recently, the California Public Utilities Commission authorized Pacific Gas and Electric Co. (PG&E) to implement "ClimateSmart," advertised by the utility as "an innovative voluntary program that will provide customers the option to neutralize greenhouse gas emissions associated with their energy use." If an individual or business agrees to pay a small surcharge on its monthly electricity bill (to be used to fund other emissions-reducing programs), PG&E promises to designate the ClimateSmart participant "climate-neutral."

To be successful, greenhouse gas emission reduction programs require both macro (government and corporate) and micro (individual and family) support. Does allowing electricity users to buy carbon-neutral status represent an effective and cost-effective approach to climate change, or is it a distracting and wasteful placebo?

---