Selling Carbon Credits?

I just read the new article on scoutrees(http://www.scouts.ca/ca/scoutrees) as we are looking at doing it this year. It was a very well written article providing info for people wanting to donate but had no info for leaders.

It states that the money goes directly to purchasing trees. There is no mention that money goes to the world scouting fund or local groups.
It would appear that we are in the business of selling carbon credits. Prices are laid down as:
$25 for 12 trees = home heating for a year
$50 for 25 trees = driving for a year
$100 for 50 trees = paper use for a year
I have never done scoutrees before so perhaps this is the standard donation rate.

The thing that irks me is that Scouts Canada has bought into the POLITICAL idea of selling carbon credits. The idea that we can simply pay a business that has not used up their share of credits when we use up ours misses the point. The goal is to reduce our impact.

My understanding of scoutrees was that it was an environmental project for our youth where people or business made a donation to the group as a thank you not as a payment to ease their conscious.

I hope this is only the view of the writer and few(/none as seen by the broken links) people who proof read the page.

The idea that we can simply pay a business that has not used up their share of credits when we use up ours misses the point.

That assumes that companies are allotted an amount of carbon credits they can use up annually. It is true that that system would just move carbon production around, and not reduce carbon emissions. That would be a political system.

This is different. Credits are not handed out by the government, but are a function of the market. An entity that is a net-negative carbon producer, something that takes carbon out of the environment, can sell it's capability to other entities. Companies don't like to spend extra money. If they see the cost of being carbon neutral as beneficial to their bottom line (increased income), they will purchase credits at the best market rate they can.

This is like any other service out there, such as insurance, legal council or book keeping. No company wants to spend extra money on these if they didn't need to; it does nothing to actually help deliver a product or service.

Eventually, this investment in carbon sequestering will reduce our overall carbon footprint, as smart companies will reduce their own carbon usage because of the cost.

My understanding of scoutrees was that it was an environmental project for our youth where people or business made a donation to the group as a thank you not as a payment to ease their conscious.

Correct. If they get something more out of the exchange, then we have created more value for our potential donors. It's all about being strategic with our actions.

The idea that we can simply pay a business that has not used up their share of credits when we use up ours misses the point.

That assumes that companies are allotted an amount of carbon credits they can use up annually. It is true that that system would just move carbon production around, and not reduce carbon emissions. That would be a political system.

This is different. Credits are not handed out by the government, but are a function of the market. An entity that is a net-negative carbon producer, something that takes carbon out of the environment, can sell it's capability to other entities. Companies don't like to spend extra money. If they see the cost of being carbon neutral as beneficial to their bottom line (increased income), they will purchase credits at the best market rate they can.

This is like any other service out there, such as insurance, legal council or book keeping. No company wants to spend extra money on these if they didn't need to; it does nothing to actually help deliver a product or service.

Eventually, this investment in carbon sequestering will reduce our overall carbon footprint, as smart companies will reduce their own carbon usage because of the cost.

My understanding of scoutrees was that it was an environmental project for our youth where people or business made a donation to the group as a thank you not as a payment to ease their conscious.

Correct. If they get something more out of the exchange, then we have created more value for our potential donors. It's all about being strategic with our actions.

Carbon Credits is perhaps the most mis-understood aspect of the issue of international treaties on carbon reduction. Industries and politicians who are opposed to carbon reduction strategies have capitalized on that misunderstanding. The fact is that if a company produces too much carbon, they have carbon debits; if they are a net-negative carbon producer, they have credits. What this allows for is on the path to having a neutral carbon impact, those that are doing better than neutrality can earn money for their efforts, thus encouraging them to produce as many credits as possible. Those companies that produce carbon debits then must purchase the credits to achieve neutrality, thus costing them where it hurts the most: the bottom line, but at the same time allowing them to comply with the law while they are working towards making their operations as carbon-neutral as possible. Those industries that produce the most carbon (e.g. oil and gas production), also tend to make a lot of money, so the cost is absorbable by them.

Nothing makes a company improve its behaviour better than giving them the financial incentive to do so. Shareholders own shares in order to make money, and if the company doesn't make enough, the board gets fired by the shareholders. Making polluting companies pay for credits achieves three things: they pay for the privilege of polluting the planet, thus honestly reflecting that cost in their bottom line; secondly, it encourages them to improve their operations; thirdly, it encourages companies to actually MAKE money by having a positive impact on the environment, thus making shareholders happy. And the market bears the costs, not the taxpayer. Carbon absorption is then marketed as a desirable commodity. It is quite a brilliant idea, actually, and much more effective than a pollution or carbon tax. It is a pity that it was politicized, because it will work to reduce pollution. Just about every political persuasion can agree that reducing a pollution is a good thing, especially when you don't have to use the blunt instrument of tax policy or government intervention to do it.

Not a bad thing at all for Scouts Canada to make money on.

I view Carbon Credits as a "Shell" game and have no interest in supporting it. I absolutely support REAL environmental efforts such as tree planting, waterway cleanups, resource conservation, and particularly clean power. For the latter, clean power, I truly believe that Nuclear Fission is the best short term answer, followed by Nuclear Fusion (when feasible) or Space-Based Solar for long term.

Alan Aslett, P.Eng.

Alan, no doubt Carbon Credit/Debit is a shell game. But shell games is what capitalism is all about: Why does Warren Buffet pay 17% in taxes on his $40 million annual income when his employees making a fraction of his income pay 35-40%? Why do so many people pay retail prices instead of bargaining, or finance a brand-new car that they can't afford (I don't do either). For once, one of the shell games will have the advantage of encouraging good corporate behaviour. Why shouldn't we take advantage of that, raising funds to support our programs?

The article cited by Scouter Richie in his post notes only what human activity accounts for in carbon emissions, and the amount of donation to Scoutrees required to offset that activity, and is not advocating the selling or buying of carbon credits. A pretty good marketing tool, I think, to encourage conservation-minded Canadians to donate to Scoutrees. Scroll back up and click on the link in Scouter Richie's post. I don't think that it is talking about supporting carbon credit markets, rather, it is encouraging donations to offset your own household's carbon-producing activities (driving a car, use of paper products, heating your home, etc.). That is an entirely different thing all together.

Comments on the Scoutrees link:

1. "Stopping climate change" is impossible and it is misleading to mention it. Climate change is ongoing and will continue even without human activity.
"Stopping climate change caused by human activity" or "stopping anthropogenic global warming" are more appropriate expressions.

2. Planting trees to offset current carbon dioxide emissions sounds good but if it takes 100 years for a tree to sequester a tonne of CO2, ofsetting a current emission, it is a rather slow response to what is considered an urgent problem.
The time factor is mentioned but would like to see truth in advertising - how long is it before the dollar investments given in the examples offset this year's emissions?

3. The value of a carbon credit quoted is based on a figure from two years ago - why not a more recent value?

Tree planting is a great activity for Scouting youth and certainly helps the environment. But we need to be careful in presenting the benefits accurately.

Bob Gordon
25th Dunbar Heights Colony
Vancouver

Bob hit the main sticking point here - while Scoutrees is nice, it's not a real solution for lowering our impact on the environment. Canada doesn't lack trees, rather, it burns too much fossil fuel. It's that simple. We burn a lot of fossil fuels and have done nothing siginicant in the past decade, on a national level, to cut back on the oil addiction.

Scouting has a long way to go if it can claim to be responsible on the climate change front. Scout camps can be quite wasteful in terms of kit and transpor,t not to mention food.

I've made a deal with a local food-delivery company that deals in local produce to get their weekly surplus before a camp. By doing this, we buy no imported vegetables for the camps I organise. The most extravagant thing we get is canned tomato sauce. Also, we now organise carpools to camps, reducing the number of drivers.

There are just two small examples, but, it's a beginning.

we now organise carpools to camps

Illegal from national's perspective; but we do it too.

we now organise carpools to camps

Illegal from national's perspective; but we do it too.

Not illegal, just not covered by Scouts Canada insurance, so you are taking the risk into your own hands. If you are carpooling, ensure that your 3rd party liability limits are cranked up. In Ontario, we have two minimum coverage limits, namely 1 million for 3rd party liability, and 1 million for accident benefits (2 million in the event of catastrophic injury). If you have three or four passengers in your vehicle, this is waaaaaaay too low.

If you carpool regularly for camps (which makes perfect sense, economically and environmentally), and if it tends to be the same people, up your coverage for 3rd party liability. How much? ask a good independent insurance broker. Don't forget to be "2 deep" in your vehicle. If parents are doing the driving, then additional coverage is up to them.

All your recommendations are good.

just not covered by Scouts Canada insurance, so you are taking the risk into your own hands.

I don't believe national is worried about leaders as much as they are about being sued themselves. As soon as the person runs out of money, the family would go after Scouts Canada. I would place a good bet that most leaders don't increase their liability coverage from the minimum amount.

Two deep leadership in vehicles ain't gonna happen most of the time (not that it is a bad idea). Now one on one in a car is a very bad idea, but one to four ain't so bad. We do the latter all the time. e.g Two leaders taking six Venturers on a canoe trip that is a 12 hour drive away. Too big for everybody in one car, thus one leader in each car and split the Venturers. Alternative, find two more leaders to take a week off work, not gonna happen.

All your recommendations are good.

just not covered by Scouts Canada insurance, so you are taking the risk into your own hands.

I don't believe national is worried about leaders as much as they are about being sued themselves. As soon as the person runs out of money, the family would go after Scouts Canada. I would place a good bet that most leaders don't increase their liability coverage from the minimum amount.

The family could try, and fail. Proximity of cause would prevent success in such an ill-thought law suit. Scouts Canada would have to be found to be negligent, and thus to be the proximate cause of any car accident. It would also be hard to argue that Scouts Canada has a duty of care to people driving in cars that are not owned by Scouts Canada, or operated by its employees, when on the way to a Scouting event. The drive itself is not a Scouting event, and therefore not insured. Also, it would not be reasonable (an important word in negligence cases) to expect Scouts Canada to assume responsibility for the driving skills of volunteers. If a Scouts Canada employee were the driver, and they were in the course of their duties as an employee, that would be different, and Scouts Canada would be vicariously liable for the acts or omissions of that employee.

I speak from professional experience in conducting personal injury lawsuits involving catastrophic injuries in motor vehicle collisions.

There is a lot of case law to suggest that volunteer organizations cannot be successfully sued because an individual volunteer braked when they should have swerved. The weight of the negligence falls on the driver of the car and the owner of the car, not on Scouts Canada. I am sure that Scouts Canada's insurer has this well covered, and that this very question has been litigated in Scouts Canada's favour in the past, which is why Scouts Canada's insurance does not cover car trips. As a driver/owner, you take the risk into your own hands if you don't have sufficient coverage. If you don't increase your limits, then you take on additional risk of losing your personal assets, instead of transferring it to an insurance company.

Angus, I remember now that you mentioned in another post that you were a solicitor by trade. Nice to have professional opinions around.

Given your professional experience, I am curious as to what are your thoughts on Scouts Canada trying to prevent parents from signing waivers for their kids to participate in activities with 3rd parties. Since every other organisation that I know signs waivers, is national out in left field with their position, or do they really know something everybody else in the world doesn't?

Allan, to prevent this thread from getting further off track, I'll start a new thread in the General Discussion area. It's a good question, and there is a good answer.