Carbonfund.org Speaks at Nat’l Press Club on Offsets, an Integral Climate Change Solution
Ivan Chan on June 30th, 2009Carbonfund.org President Eric Carlson today appeared with author and professor Robert H. Frank at a National Press Club Newsmaker Event. The topic, selected by a committee of the Press Club, was an economic assessment of carbon offsets, particularly in context of the cap-and-trade climate legislation in Congress. Last Friday, the House of Representatives passed the landmark climate bill, which now awaits debate and a vote in the Senate.
Speaking at the event, Eric said, “The great thing about cap-and-trade is that the environment gets its piece upfront. The cap is set at the right level with slow reductions and the market has to figure out how to get there.” For example, quality carbon offsets can be a cost-effective way to reduce carbon footprints. Carbonfund.org offers third-party validated and certified offsets meeting the highest accepted standards. To reach the approx. 80% reduction in 2050 set by the climate bill recently passed by the House, about a 2% – 3% reduction annually would be required. This goal, said Eric, is extremely doable.
Dr. Frank, who recently published The Economic Naturalist’s Field Guide: Common Sense Principles for Troubled Times and is a New York Times economics columnist, noted that the climate bill incentivizes emissions reductions through cap-and-trade. It’s a sensible approach that places a set level of overall reductions for the nation. In addition, the most efficient operations, or companies, are rewarded while less efficient companies in terms of their energy use and carbon emissions, are encouraged through this process to be more efficient.
Read more about the climate bill in this blog post.
Like what you see? Check out these related posts:
Follow @Carbonfundorg on Twitter!
An 80% reduction to be sure, but compared to what level? The 2005 level I believe. The US up to that point had been ferociously denying climate change, so their emissions have been sky high at that time.
I'm not nay-saying the bill though; I think it's an important step forward. We just need to be very clear about what is being targetted.