While climate change policy is not one of my strongest and core areas of research, I am familiar with the literature, particularly as it applies to my other pursuits. Integrated assessment (IA, the methodological framework I used when I wrote my PhD dissertation) is a series of heuristics used to integrate knowledge from natural and social sciences in order to inform policy design. IA can be used in a variety of knowledge domains. IA has been extensively used in climate change policy, but in my doctoral research, I applied it to a problem normally situated within the realm of environmental economic geography. While conducting research for my doctorate, I made extensive use of climate change literature.

I preface this post with the disclaimer that climate change and in particular carbon offsetting is not precisely my area of expertise because I am not commenting on the actual content, but I want to comment primarily on the way in which the recent publication by Deborah Carlson and Paul Lingl from the David Suzuki Foundation and Rich Wong from the Pembina Institute “Purchasing Carbon Offsets: A Guide for Canadian Consumers, Businesses, and Organizations” should be used. As the authors of the analysis very aptly indicate:

This guide offers general information for individuals, businesses, and organizations interested in voluntarily using carbon offsets to mitigate their climate impact, and compares specific offset vendors on the basis of criteria established by staff from the David Suzuki Foundation and Pembina Institute. The results presented in this guide are meant only to illustrate the performance of the vendors with respect to these criteria at the time of the survey, and are not intended to replace due diligence on the part of individuals or organizations that wish to purchase offsets.

It’s easy for consumers to go check a scorecard written and endorsed by a prestigious organization (and ENGO). However, it is very important as well for the potential buyer of carbon offsets to do his/her due diligence. I emphasize this aspect because, no matter who conducts the analysis and who writes the guide, scorecard ranking methods may be fraught with elements of subjectivity. The way I see it, the guide is intended to start a process to inform the public on the elements that they might want to consider when buying carbon offsets. It’s NOT intended to replace due diligence.

Scorecards have definite value. Eco-labelling schemes like Ocean Wise and scorecard systems like Sea Choice help consumers make informed choices. But they don’t substitute the need for individuals to research and educate themselves. I think this guide is a good and worthy first step towards comparing how different carbon offsetting systems work.