Energy Justice Materials on False Solutions to Climate Change:
Resources on the problems with market-based climate solutions such as offsets and carbon trading
Some history on the first major climate legislation to almost pass in the U.S.
In 2009, the House of Representatives passed the American Clean Energy and Security Act, a filthy energy bill sold as a climate solution and promoted by the largest (and most compromised) environmental groups. The bill used a flawed and unjust "cap and trade" policy to allow the trading of the right to pollute, which has not only been a failed policy for many reasons, but is unjust because of the way in which emissions reductions in certain communities create "hot spots" (usually in low-income communities and communities of color) where pollution would continue while companies buy credits to allow their continued pollution. While CO2 is a "global pollutant" -- meaning that the impacts aren't felt locally -- all of the other pollutants released from the same smokestacks have negative health consequences for communities.
Many environmentalists opposed the bill, and even climate scientist James Hansen called the bill "worse than nothing." Why? Because the bill failed to rise to the challenge, offered absurdly weak targets, provided ludicrous quantities of corporate handouts to polluters, funded a slew of dirty false solutions (carbon capture and sequestration, biomass burning, nuclear, etc). Overall, it sought to maintain business as usual, rather than putting the nation on the path to avoid catastrophic warming.
Despite this and many other problems with the policy, other filthy bills in the Senate were introduced by Kerry, Graham, Lieberman and others -- getting dirtier as they made further compromises in order to attract votes.
Many concerned citizens supported the passage of these bills, calling stridently for "strong action on climate change," unaware of the devil in the details. The devil dwells in the fact that many powerful industry and government interests view climate change not as a serious problem to be resolved by all means possible, but rather as an opportunity to maintain and enhance profits. They would seek to build more polluting incinerators, continue mountaintop removal and coal burning, expand industrial agriculture, drill our coastlines, mine uranium and build more nuclear reactors, leaving us to cope with more cancer, asthma and other health problems, and an altogether questionable future for our children.
When Kerry-Boxer introduced a companion bill largely mirroring "worse than nothing," it was entirely rejected by some Senators, who, unbelievably, fail to recognize climate change as a problem worthy of addressing, and are entirely beholden to their fossil fuel and other industry supporters. Kerry went back to the drawing board, this time inviting the participation of industry and the deniers who have made it clear that in order to win the needed 60 votes, they would require fulfillment of their "wishlist." We were then faced with a bill written to fulfill the wishes of the worst polluters and denialists and guaranteed to be FAR worse than nothing.
The Kerry-Graham-Lieberman bill even aimed to take away EPA's authority to regulate greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act -- our one proven tool for regulating air pollution, which industry fears because it will be more effective than the carbon trading schemes in this legislation. The Kerry-Graham-Lieberman bill even would have invalidated any state and local-level laws that are stronger than the weak policies in their bill!
Now that Obama, in his second term, made a speech in favor of a new effort at a climate bill, some are getting excited again about passing national climate legislation. We need to look no further than the text of Obama's speech, and his accompanying policies, to see how dirty it would be. He promoted his "all of the above" strategy of more nuclear power, more oil drilling and fracking for natural gas, trash and biomass incineration, unjust cap-and-trade policy, and trade agreements that undermine democracy and enshrine corporate power globally.
We need to be savvy and recognize that, until we get corporate money out of politics, real climate solutions will not be coming from the federal level of the U.S. government.
- Fatal Flaws and Common Loopholes in Federal Climate & Energy Policies (2021)
- Hoodwinked in the Hothouse: Resist False Solutions to Climate Change -- with significant contributions from Energy Justice (3rd Edition, 2021)
- What Planet of the Humans got Right, Wrong, and Missed (2020) [the popular film features us on biomass, and while the rest of the film has issues, that section is accurate, as we document]
- Energy Justice Factsheet: U.S. Climate Legislation Worse Than Nothing (2015)
- Are Carbon Taxes Another False Solution? (2014)
- Fossil Fuel Divestment: How to Evolve the Campaign Beyond its Shortcomings (2014)
- Open Letter to Citizens Climate Lobby (2013) - calling out the problems with a carbon tax
- EPA: NO Fracking, Nukes & Incinerators in the Clean Power Plan! (2013)
- False Solutions to Climate Change Powerpoint (also available in PDF)
"Offsets are an imaginary commodity created by deducting what you hope happens from what you guess would have happened." -Dan Welch, Ethical Corporation
Resources on the problems with market-based climate solutions such as offsets and carbon trading
- Some humorous videos that get some points across...
- Carbon capture and storage (and longer interview version)
- "Net Zero" by 2050
- Cheat Neutral (parody on carbon offsets)
- Climate Ad Project videos on infidelity and murder offsets
- An (Even More) Inconvenient Truth - Why Carbon Credits For Forest Preservation May Be Worse Than Nothing
"If a power plant in Canada needed to shave 10% off of its emissions but didn't want to pay for technology upgrades, it could buy offsets from projects in the developing world. Investors planning to build a coal plant in India could instead decide to build a solar plant, using the money from the anticipated sale of carbon credits to cover the higher costs of developing solar power. The gap in emissions between the hypothetical coal plant and the actual solar farm would be converted to offsets.
A 2016 report found that 85% of offsets had a "low likelihood" of creating real impacts.
Another global program, Joint Implementation, has a similar track record. A 2015 paper found that 75% of the credits issued were unlikely to represent real reductions, and that if countries had cut pollution on-site instead of relying on offsets, global CO emissions would have been 600 million tons lower."
- How a California climate program lets companies keep polluting
- Environmental Justice Members Resign from CARB Task Force on Carbon Offsets
- The Hidden Disequities of Carbon Trading: Carbon Emissions, Air Toxics, and Environmental Justice
- Environmental Justice And Human Rights Organizations Address Global Leaders Ahead Of COP26: Carbon Offsets Don't Stop Climate Change
- Indigenous Environmental Network's resources on carbon trading and offsets
- Why I refuse to collude with polluters in the carbon offsetting lie
- Carbon Pricing: A Critical Perspective for Community Resistance (Indigenous Environmental Network, 2017)
- What we can learn about carbon taxes from British Columbia’s experiment
Some history on the first major climate legislation to almost pass in the U.S.
In 2009, the House of Representatives passed the American Clean Energy and Security Act, a filthy energy bill sold as a climate solution and promoted by the largest (and most compromised) environmental groups. The bill used a flawed and unjust "cap and trade" policy to allow the trading of the right to pollute, which has not only been a failed policy for many reasons, but is unjust because of the way in which emissions reductions in certain communities create "hot spots" (usually in low-income communities and communities of color) where pollution would continue while companies buy credits to allow their continued pollution. While CO2 is a "global pollutant" -- meaning that the impacts aren't felt locally -- all of the other pollutants released from the same smokestacks have negative health consequences for communities.
Many environmentalists opposed the bill, and even climate scientist James Hansen called the bill "worse than nothing." Why? Because the bill failed to rise to the challenge, offered absurdly weak targets, provided ludicrous quantities of corporate handouts to polluters, funded a slew of dirty false solutions (carbon capture and sequestration, biomass burning, nuclear, etc). Overall, it sought to maintain business as usual, rather than putting the nation on the path to avoid catastrophic warming.
Despite this and many other problems with the policy, other filthy bills in the Senate were introduced by Kerry, Graham, Lieberman and others -- getting dirtier as they made further compromises in order to attract votes.
Many concerned citizens supported the passage of these bills, calling stridently for "strong action on climate change," unaware of the devil in the details. The devil dwells in the fact that many powerful industry and government interests view climate change not as a serious problem to be resolved by all means possible, but rather as an opportunity to maintain and enhance profits. They would seek to build more polluting incinerators, continue mountaintop removal and coal burning, expand industrial agriculture, drill our coastlines, mine uranium and build more nuclear reactors, leaving us to cope with more cancer, asthma and other health problems, and an altogether questionable future for our children.
When Kerry-Boxer introduced a companion bill largely mirroring "worse than nothing," it was entirely rejected by some Senators, who, unbelievably, fail to recognize climate change as a problem worthy of addressing, and are entirely beholden to their fossil fuel and other industry supporters. Kerry went back to the drawing board, this time inviting the participation of industry and the deniers who have made it clear that in order to win the needed 60 votes, they would require fulfillment of their "wishlist." We were then faced with a bill written to fulfill the wishes of the worst polluters and denialists and guaranteed to be FAR worse than nothing.
The Kerry-Graham-Lieberman bill even aimed to take away EPA's authority to regulate greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act -- our one proven tool for regulating air pollution, which industry fears because it will be more effective than the carbon trading schemes in this legislation. The Kerry-Graham-Lieberman bill even would have invalidated any state and local-level laws that are stronger than the weak policies in their bill!
Now that Obama, in his second term, made a speech in favor of a new effort at a climate bill, some are getting excited again about passing national climate legislation. We need to look no further than the text of Obama's speech, and his accompanying policies, to see how dirty it would be. He promoted his "all of the above" strategy of more nuclear power, more oil drilling and fracking for natural gas, trash and biomass incineration, unjust cap-and-trade policy, and trade agreements that undermine democracy and enshrine corporate power globally.
We need to be savvy and recognize that, until we get corporate money out of politics, real climate solutions will not be coming from the federal level of the U.S. government.
Why we (and lots of other groups) opposed the 2009 federal climate legislation
- The Story of Cap & Trade (Story of Stuff Project, 2009)
- Business As Usual (2009 Greenpeace report showing how House and Senate Climate Bills do more harm than good)
- "Subprime Carbon" -- Rethinking The World's Largest New Derivatives Market (Friends of the Earth)
- The Climate Movement is Dead: Long Live the Climate Movement! (Rising Tide publication)
- EJ Matters: The environmental justice movement's critique of carbon trading
- Cheat Neutral (after getting your laughs, see their 'about' page)
- Environmental Justice Leadership Forum on Climate Change - Climate Justice Principles
- Gar Lipow: Emissions trading: A Mixed Record With Plenty Of Failures"
- ClimateSOS Analysis of Cantwell-Collins CLEAR Act
- Carbon Trade Watch
- The Cornerhouse - UK group with lots of great info critical of carbon trading
- NASA climate scientist, Dr. James Hansen's statements against the climate bill:
- Tribal elders: carbon trading not ethical (YouTube video)
- Carbon taxes
- World People's Conference on Climate Change and the Rights of Mother Earth
The Facts on False Solutions:
- Biomass / incineration:
- Biomass Factsheet
- No Biomass Burning in Climate Legislation
- Incineration
- Biomass Effects on Forest Cutting, and the Myth of Carbon Neutrality
- Stop Spewing Carbon campaign against Biomass Burning in Massachusetts
- Biomess: Massachusetts Forests and Environment Threatened by Forest Biomass Incinerators
- How much of your “clean, renewable” energy comes out of a smokestack?, Partnership for Policy Integrity, 10/4/2011
- New Biomass Energy Regulations in Massachusetts: Context for the Northeast, NRDC & Partnership for Policy Integrity, 10/22/2012.
- "Barriers" to Biopower, TVA Renewable Energy Information Exchange, Partnership for Policy Integrity, 4/24/2013.
- Testimony of the Partnership For Policy Integrity and The Project For Energy Accountability Regarding Proposed Substitute Bill No. 1138 (LCO No. 4767) An Act Concerning Connecticut’s Clean Energy Goals, Mary S. Booth and Margaret E. Sheehan, 3/19/2013.
- Landfills and incinerators
- Landfill gas
- Carbon Capture and Sequestration (CCS):
- Natural Gas:
- Nuclear Power:
- Biochar
- Biodiesel
- Ethanol
- Cellulosic ethanol
- Climate Geoengineering with "C negative" Bioenergy (Biofuelwatch)