What to do about the Poker Run?

I wrote a letter to the Kingston Whig Standard today concerning an event this weekend in the Kingston Canada and Thousand Islands region called the "Poker Run". Large powerful motorboats are shown off to spectators while they travel up and down the St. Lawrence River. About 100 boat crews and tens of thousands of tourists come to the area to see the boats and come especially to Kingston, Ontario. On the other hand, this event and its gas-guzzling marine craft are not very compatible with Kingston's official vision of being Canada's most sustainable city.

For a little background, read this article in the Whig
and this TV news report and This editorial in the Whig

I've tried to propose an idea that I think could help make some progress. It's based on local greenhouse gas offsets and triple bottom line accounting: finding solutions with financial, environmental, and social benefits.

Dear Editor,

Several readers of the Whig-Standard have written about this past weekend's
Poker Run event.

I would like to take the discussion about the Poker Run, its greenhouse gas
emissions, and Kingston's vision to be Canada's most sustainable city, in a
different direction.

First, I would disagree with one of the letter writers. The planet is not
doing fine. Global warming is a real threat, especially to future
generations. The greenhouse gas emissions from the Poker Run impose a real
cost on the whole world by contributing to global warming.

On the other hand, the Poker Run contributes a lot to local economic
activity in the Kingston region.

I would suggest that if we, the City of Kingston, benefit so much from the
Poker Run, it is only fair that we assume the responsibility for its
greenhouse gas emissions. I would further suggest, therefore, that we, and
perhaps not the powerboaters, purchase high quality greenhouse gas offsets
that cause the reduction of the greenhouse gas emissions elsewhere, and
cancel the emissions from the Poker Run.

That elsewhere could be in Kingston itself. In fact, based on some
calculations that I have done, the total amount of greenhouse gas emissions
from the Poker Run boats is roughly comparable to the greenhouse gas
emissions coming from one year's venting of anaesthetic gases from surgeries
at Kingston's hospitals. Technology, from an Ontario company called
Blue-Zone, exists to recover and recycle these expensive chemicals, but it
costs a little money up front, and who can blame our hospitals for having a
hard time coming up with extra money to recover anaesthetic gases. So (and
this is the crucial point) if someone provided the funding to do that every
year, then emissions would be prevented that otherwise would continue. As an
aside, hospitals would actually benefit in the future from being able to
obtain anaesthetics at lower cost.

Perhaps there is a way for local merchants, people concerned about global
warming, Kingston hospitals, powerboating enthusiasts, an Ontario technology
startup, and Kingston's branding as a sustainable city to make a little
progress together?

Why Dion's election campaign carbon offset makes Canada richer, fairer, and greener

There has been some criticism coming from Conservatives about the Liberal Party's purchasing of credits to offset the greenhouse gas emissions of Stephane Dion's election travel. Basically the criticism is that the purpose of this purchase is simply to appear environmentally friendly, while the jet that the Liberal Party procured for this election is older and less efficient than the jets obtained by the NDP and the Conservatives (it's the only jet the Liberals could get).

The criticism is invalid and here are the reasons:

First of all, Dion committed the cash-strapped Liberal Party to offsetting his campaign travel as far back as February-March 2007. The point is that this commitment was made before decisions were made about campaign travel. Therefore, it gave an extra incentive for the cost-conscious Liberal Party to make his campaign travel as efficient as possible.

Second, the projects that generate voluntary offsets should satisfy a property called "additionality". This means that the money from the sale of offsets (or the anticipated sale of offsets during project planning) should make a difference in whether the project goes ahead or not. The offset vendor used by the Liberal Party, Carbonzero, says that all of its projects are additional. (By the way if you are interested in their voluntary offset methodology document, which contains a very good definition of additionality, look here.)

So the money from the Liberal Party's offsets really made greenhouse gas emissions go down somewhere else. That is how voluntary offsets are supposed to work. According to a Carbon Zero news release, "The offsets purchased by the Liberal Party of Canada will be directed by Carbonzero to a Quebec project which replaces inefficient gas boilers in heating systems with new units employing heating controls and new energy efficient piping systems...the project includes new solar heating collectors and retrofits the buildings to allow heat recovery from domestic wastewater, and switches heat generation systems from natural gas to electricity."
I'm also told that the offset project involves retrofitting non-profit housing - these are people who would have a hard time putting money upfront to make energy retrofits. Money spent on retrofits would otherwise be taken out of money spent on providing non-profit housing. So we can see why this project satisfies "additionality".

Look at what is happening with the money from Stephane Dion's campaign travel offsets:

• Stephane Dion is reducing Canada's greenhouse gas emissions and fossil fuel consumption. Good for the environment, making Canada greener.
  
• Stephane Dion is making it cheaper for low-income people to live in non-profit housing. Good for social justice, making Canada fairer.
• Stephane Dion is supporting businesses and workers that do energy retrofits, and supporting Canadian manufacturers that build green technology (e.g. see Enerworks, Renewability Energy, ECO GFX, Quantum Renewable, Ecoalternative Energy) Good for the economy, making Canada richer.

Making Canada greener, fairer, and richer: these are the promises that Stephane Dion has been making for a long time, and I think that he has kept his promise in deciding to purchase voluntary greenhouse gas offsets for his campaign travel.

How not to offset the Green House Gas emissions from your campaign travel

In mid-January of 2006, during the federal election campaign, Canadian Green party leader Jim Harris released the following:

The Green Party will completely offset the greenhouse gas pollution produced by the leader's tour by planting enough trees to absorb all of these emissions, said Green Party of Canada leader Jim Harris today.

Tree Canada Foundation certified the Green Party of Canada's leader's campaign carbon-neutral today in Ottawa. Harris submitted the total number of travel miles he and his media team will have covered in this election to be offset by an investment in carbon reserves that trap greenhouse gas emissions responsible for climate change.

The Tree Canada Foundation had the following news release:

The Tree Canada Foundation certified the Green Party of Canada's leader's campaign carbon-neutral today in Ottawa. Harris submitted the total number of travel miles he and his media team will have covered in this election - Tree Canada calculated that in 20 years, the 131 trees planted in the Spring of 2006 will absorb the 16 tonnes of carbon dioxide Harris produced in the travel for his campaign.

In addition, Tree Canada certified the 14 Saskatchewan Green Party candidates as well, overseeing the planting of 314 trees to offset their campaign travel as well.

Oops, that 20 years got lost in the Green Party press release. The problem with the Green party's rather sloppy offset is that the offset will only have occured if, after 20 years, the trees survive insects, fire, cutting, and then mature into a permanent forest. Who is there to guarantee that? If the land had been left to itself, would it not have sprouted trees on its own? Does this forestry project satisfy additionality? Unfortunately the Tree Canada website does not answer these questions and does not record any details of the trees it 'planted'. I've sent an email to them (March 21, 2007) asking for information. One clue is that Tree Canada sells offsets through cleanairpass.com. That organization buys credits on the Chicago Climate Change (CCX) I believe and perhaps bought afforestation or reforestation credits on the CCX from some counterparty. I believe it is a fair statement that tree-planting is a controversial Green House Gas offset, and requires at minimum a careful accounting, best made public so that it can be verified.