I would like to thank our witnesses for joining us this morning.
The “cap-and-trade” plans we’ve seen so far rely -- to varying degrees -- on carbon offsets, both international and domestic. For example, USCAP who testified before this committee a month ago is calling for 1.5 billion metric tons of domestic and 1.5 billion metric tons of international offsets. The theory behind these offsets is that they decrease emissions from un-capped sectors, allowing greater emissions from capped sectors. In theory this is a zero-sum game.
In 2008, the offset market in developing countries derived from the UN Framework on Climate Change was over $12 billion. These offsets have been subject to criticism on the grounds that projects have not achieved real emission reductions. The role of offsets in climate legislation could mean a multi-billion dollar windfall for China and other countries that won’t necessarily be subject themselves to a cap on carbon. In exchange for these billions, there may not be real emission reductions. It defies reality that we are even considering spending money on offsets to offshore entities as our own economy is hemorrhaging. We should be investing in our own infrastructure here at home.
Just last year, Congress got a taste of what the carbon offset market is all about. The Chief Administrative Officer (CAO) of the House cut an $89,000 check out of the taxpayers’ checkbook to buy “carbon credits.” Some of the money went to farmers in North Dakota for tilling practices that they were already using.
According to the Center for American Progress -- a group that strongly supports climate legislation: “It didn’t change much behavior that wasn’t going to happen anyway. It just demonstrated why offsets are controversial and possibly pointless. . . . This is a waste of taxpayer money.”
In conclusion, there are a number of problems with carbon offset markets both in the United States and abroad that need to be examined and addressed. If we’re relying on offsets, we must ensure that the money spent on offsets is having a real, tangible, and verifiable environmental benefit that would not have otherwise occurred. Seeing the issues we’ve had with our voluntary domestic carbon offset market, I can only imagine how these issues will be compounded when the value of potential offsets increases and we’re relying on verifying offsets in the developing world.
I look forward to hearing the testimony today. I yield back.
