Feb 04, 2008

Taking the Measure on the Environment

by Laura Starita

Effective philanthropy requires more than just measurement. The metrics have to be the right ones and encourage the right kinds of behavior.

As environmental concerns continue to climb the list of philanthropic priorities, metrics in this sector are receiving increasing scrutiny. The use of “food miles” as a metric for sustainable agriculture is one area of concern we’ve discussed in a previous post. Another is emissions offsets, otherwise known as carbon credits. The United States’ Federal Trade Commission, which overseas such things as advertising claims, recently announced an investigation into the marketing of carbon credits. The concept of carbon credits is simple: the carbon emitted from one activity (say, driving a car) is offset by paying for activities that take carbon out of the atmosphere (planting a tree, for example). A functioning carbon-trading market could be of huge benefit in reducing carbon emissions by allowing individuals, governments and companies to take steps, of their own free will, to reduce their carbon footprint. Unfortunately there are no standard definitions for carbon credits. Furthermore, a company in the United States is usually buying its offset from an entity in the developing world, reports the Wall Street Journal, an amorphous trade dynamic which is impossible to verify. As a result, it is dubious for any company to claim that they will offset carbon emissions with carbon credits.

Another frontier in the global warming battle has been a push for increased use of biofuels. Biofuels are fuels made from plants (e.g. Corn- or sugar cane-based ethanol; palm oil-based diesel). The idea behind them is again appealingly simple: if we make fuel from plants we reduce carbon emissions from burning oil and create a sustainable source of energy. To encourage the production and use of biofuels many governments have put subsidies and quotas in place. Yet now The New York Times reports that “Australia, Britain, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Switzerland, as well as parts of Canada — have removed or are revising incentives for farmers, biofuel refiners and distributors,” as experts begin to question whether biofuel production isn’t creating more environmental damage than previously anticipated. The United States’ encouragement of corn-based ethanol is particularly problematic when the costs of corn subsidies, the environmental toll of fertilizers, and the energy-intensive process of turning corn into ethanol are considered. Many scientists believe that once everything is added in corn-based ethanol is actually worse than simply using gasoline.

The current chaos is the environmental arena suggests that there is huge opportunity to invest in the creation of standards for measuring biofuels, food miles, carbon credits and the other tools needed to unleash positive—and effective—action.