Institute Activities Related to Offsets
Additional Useful Resources on Offsets >
- Conquering Cost Workshop: Evaluating Optimal Policy Approaches to the Cost of Climate Change
Memo: Addressing Uncertainty in Investment in Initial Offsets Projects >
Presentation: Reducing Offset Supply Uncertainties (.ppt) >
-
Working Group on Early Offsets Implementation
The American Clean Energy and Security Act (HR 2454), as passed by the House of Representatives, includes several provisions to help contain the cost of the bill. The Nicholas Institute is holding a series of workshops with various stakeholders to examine these cost containment measures in three broad areas: offsets, a strategic allowance reserve, and provisions to protect the competitiveness of domestic industry. The Nicholas Institute has convened a Working Group to explore issues concerning offsets raised during the first workshop. learn more >memo # 1: Background information and questions for first call >
memo # 2: Summary of discussion from the first call and questions for the next call >
memo # 3: Summary of discussion from the second call >
memo # 4: Discussion questions for third call > 
“The Effects of Performance Standards on Offsets Supply Under H.R. 2454” - August 2009
The American Clean Energy and Security Act (H.R. 2454), recently passed by the House, contains potentially contrasting provisions for uncapped activities: offsets for the cap-and-trade program and regulatory performance standards for stationary sources. If performance standards regulate uncapped activities that would otherwise be allowed to produce offsets, the standards could impact offsets supply. The magnitude of the impacts, however, will depend on how the standards are set.
“Transaction Costs and Forest Management Carbon Offset Potential” - July 2009
“Mitigation Beyond the Cap”
A Series of Briefs on Expanding Climate Mitigation Opportunities
read news release >The potential economic benefits of offsets in a cap-and-trade policy may be critical for the success of a robust climate policy in the United States. The voluntary market, the international regulatory markets, and recent analyses of a possible U.S. market provide a foundation for our understanding of this important piece in the climate policy puzzle, but more work is needed. We introduce this series of policy briefs to provide in-depth assessments of remaining questions and concerns regarding how to best incorporate and benefit from sectors and actors that are outside of a regulatory policy.
-
Offsets: An Important Piece of the Climate Policy Puzzle – August 2008.
This short policy brief, written by the Nicholas Institute’s Lydia Olander and Brian Murray, is the first in this series, and is intended to provide an overview of the substantial benefits that can come from using offsets to incorporate outside-the-cap mitigation and the very real remaining concerns.
read the brief > -
Treatment of Early Agricultural and Forestry Actors in a Federal Cap-and-Trade – October 2008.
By Lydia Olander and Brian Murray
Treatment of early actors is a critical and at times contentious part of the climate policy discussion. Fairness suggests that parties who have been good actors thus far not be penalized for their good deeds by being left out of the opportunity for compensation in a compliance regime. But efficiency and system integrity require that payment be focused on activities and emission reductions incremental to those already being achieved. This 12-page brief addresses this conflict and examines four considerations policymakers could use to frame their discussions: 1) What will qualify as an early action? 2) Can early actions be eligible for credits after the compliance period begins? 3) Can early actions be credited for pre-compliance activity? 4) Are there ways to compensate for non-additional greenhouse gas (GHG) mitigation activities?
read the brief > -
Addressing Impermanence Risk and Liability in Agriculture, Land Use Change, and Forest Carbon Projects – October 2008.
By Brian Murray and Lydia Olander
Greenhouse gas mitigation projects in agriculture, land use change, and forestry (AgLUCF) achieve GHG reductions that can offset emissions elsewhere in the system. But there can be a catch. Carbon stored in soils and vegetation is subject to re-emission, or “reversal,” back into the atmosphere as the result of natural risks such as fires and floods, man-made risks arising from the ease with which a land manager can revert to conventional emitting practices, or contractual risks if projects have a finite time span and the mitigation contract between seller (the farmer or landowner) and buyer (a party wishing to buy credits to offset its GHG emissions elsewhere) expires with no further incentive for keeping the carbon stored. This 14-page brief examines impermanence in AgLUCF carbon projects and reviews options for managing the risk.
read the brief > -
Addressing Leakage in a Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Offsets Program for Forestry and Agriculture – April 2009
By Aaron Jenkins, Lydia Olander and Brian Murray
Leakage is the phenomenon through which efforts to reduce emissions in one place simply shift emissions to another location or sector where they remain uncontrolled or uncounted. It occurs “whenever the spatial scale of the intervention is inferior to the full scale of the targeted problem.” The potential for leakage arises when rules, regulations, and incentives for action affect only part of the potential pool of participants or emissions sources. As complete coverage by a policy is difficult, leakage is a problem common to many policies.
read the brief > -
Greenhouse Gas Offsets for a Federal Cap-and-Trade Policy: Frequently Asked Questions – July 2009
By Lydia Olander and Christopher Galik
Brief answers to some of the most frequently asked questions about offsets for those relatively new to how offsets work in a cap and trade climate policy.
read the faq's > -
The Economics of Offsets in a Greenhouse Gas Compliance Market - July 2009
by Brian C. Murray and W. Aaron Jenkins
The nuts and bolts of offsets economics, defines commonly used terms, and addresses a broad range of questions associated with offsets, including their expected market impact, price effects and environmental co-benefits.
read the brief >
-
- Presentation from U.S. Senate Briefing - February 2009
Offsets for Cap and Trade Policy: Addressing Emission Sources Outside the Cap
Speakers: Bill Chameides PhD, Dean of the Nicholas School of the Environment, Duke University; Brian Murray PhD, Director for Economic Analysis, Nicholas Institute for Environmental Policy Solutions, Duke University; and Lydia Olander PhD, Senior Associate Director for Ecosystem Services, Nicholas Institute, Duke University.
“A Critical Comparison and Virtual “Field Test” of Forest Management Carbon Offset Protocols” - October 2008
A paper by the Climate Change Policy Partnership comparing seven existing forest management offset protocols
“Offsets Improve Flexibility” - October 2008
In the Nov./Dec. issue of The Environmental Law Forum, a publication of the Environmental Law Institute (www.eli.org), Brian Murray explains how integrating cap-and-trade internationally with a robust market for high-quality offsets from uncapped sources can most efficiently achieve GHG reductions.
“Designing
Offsets Policy for the U.S.” - May 2008
Principles, Challenges, and Options for Encouraging Domestic and International Emissions Reductions and Sequestration from Uncapped Entities as part of a Federal Cap-and-Trade for Greenhouse Gases
read paper >
read descriptive summary >
The Role of Offsets in Meeting Duke University's Commitment to 'Climate Neutrality': A Feasibility Study
EVENT: Carbon Offsets: Opportunities and Challenges for State Carbon Trading Schemes >
Harnessing Farms and Forests in the
Low-Carbon Economy
download excerpts from the book >
purchase book (Duke University Press) >
learn more >
