This week the Boulder-based marketing communications firm Sterling Rice Group announced that it’s offsetting 100% of its electricity use by purchasing renewable energy credits (RECs) from Renewable Choice Energy, also based in Boulder.

RECs are a popular way for people and organizations to shrink their carbon footprint. One reason why RECs (and a similar kind of offering, carbon offsets, which help fund other kinds of projects that reduce greenhouse gas emissions) are popular is that all the buyer has to do is write a check. That’s certainly much easier and faster than trying to make your home or building more energy efficient, or rearranging your life so you can drive less. And if these programs are properly audited (for instance, Green-E certifies the RECs sold by Renewable Energy Choice), chances are good that buyers’ dollars are yielding measurable greenhouse gas reductions.

Still, some people question whether buying RECs and carbon offsets are the best use of the money people want to spend to help mitigate climate change.

Here are some issues commonly raised by critics of RECs and carbon offsets…

• Additionality. This is a fancy way of saying that it can be difficult to prove whether renewable or emission-cutting projects would have happened anyway. Therefore, the dollars provided by selling RECs and carbon offsets may not actually be adding to emissions reductions.
• Benefit over time? If you purchase RECs to help support an existing wind farm (rather than build new wind energy generation capacity), are you really investing in ongoing emissions reductions — or just buying a one-time reduction? In other words, will a one-time REC purchase shrink your carbon footprint permanently (or at lease for several years), or just for one year? Many REC and carbon offset programs address this by requiring customers to make ongoing payments in order to maintain their emission reductions. However, not all customers understand that a one-time payment probably won’t yield ongoing reductions, and thus calculate their carbon footprint incorrectly. Also, it’s a common greenwashing strategy to misrepresent one-time purchases of RECs or carbon offsets as permanent carbon footprint shrinkage.
• Reliability. In April, Boulder-based REC broker Clean and Green went out of business (and their site is now defunct) — leaving the worth of RECs purchased by area residents and businesses in doubt.
• Not necessarily helping the local environment. Sterling-Rice Group’s REC purchase is helping to support the development of wind energy projects in Idaho, Kansas, Minnesota, Oklahoma, and Wyoming — but not Colorado. Climate change is a global issue, so from that perspective it may not matter much precisely where greenhouse gases get cut. However, projects to cut greenhouse gases also generally yield myriad other local environmental benefits (such as lower emissions of sulfur dioxide, nitrous oxide, ground-level ozone, methane, mercury, and other pollutants from nearby sources.)
• Action or absolution? Some critics of RECs and carbon offset programs argue that these are a modern equivalent of selling indulgences. As George Monbiot wrote in The Guardian in 2006, “You buy yourself a clean conscience by paying someone else to undo the harm you are causing.” Similarly, the New York Times asked about carbon offsets: “Guilt-Free Pollution. Or Is It?”
• For a more detailed criticism of RECs from a local perspective, see Eric Johnson’s Mar. 8 letter to the Daily Camera.

Initially, Boulder’s Climate Action Plan embraced RECs:

“Energy efficiency alone is not enough to reach the [Kyoto Protocol goal]. …The city and community could choose to purchase renewable energy credits or carbon credits as the primary strategy to achieve the necessary reductions. These options likely requires less capital investment, but do not affect people’s behavior or make lasting improvements to Boulder’s buildings.”

However, the Climate Smart Program 2008 progress report signaled a change in approach:

“When adopted, the CAP anticipated a gap in emissions reductions necessary to meet the City Council goal by 2012. To address this gap the CAP suggested a purchase of renewable energy credits or RECs in 2013 and beyond, in order to achieve and maintain the GHG objective. City Council chose to eliminate the REC purchase and asked for more aggressive action to reduce emissions. Among other factors, this decision related to a desire to limit the maximum annual tax revenue indicated on the ballot, and also a desire to maximize other emissions reduction strategies and avoid purchasing RECs that require ongoing investment.

“Because the CAP assumed that programs, service levels and budget would be adjusted over time, and because City Council requested more aggressive measures as an alternative to RECs, CAP staff is working with the CAPAG (and the city’s Environmental Advisory Board) to evaluate additional program and policy options which will inform a City Council study session in spring 2008. Strategies to maximize emissions reductions will likely result in an update to the Implementation Plan in 2008.”

What do you think? Should the city count RECs and carbon offsets (purchased either by the city or by Boulder residents and organizations) toward our total emissions reduction goals? Why or why not?

Also, would you buy (or have you bought) RECs or carbon offsets? Would you encourage your neighbors, employer, or local government to buy them? Why or why not?

Please comment below.

This entry was posted on Wednesday, June 11th, 2008 at 6:53 am and is filed under Uncategorized. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.