Last night we had a discussion on sustainable website design at the monthly Adobe User Group Meeting. We talked about the traits of a successful sustainable web design. I’ll mention some of my colleagues in attendance by their titles to give you an idea of the qualifications of the group.

In attendance were local business owners, a local writer of a popular green section of a local paper, an executive producer with a focus on sustainable television programming, an event/conference coordinator, a licensed eco-tour operator, a veteran video documenter and small business owner, an artist, naturopathic healer, online marketer/blogger, personal trainer/coach. It was an interesting slice of Hilo to say the least.

We discussed what a sustainable web design means to small business and what defines a sustainable web design or website. The group was not focused on standards but clearly understands the need for standards and the role standards play. Which reminds me. I still haven’t come across any organization that is willing to be the “building inspector” for so-called, “standards-based” websites. That’s another discussion on best practices, I suppose. Quick assertion: If we’re moving our brick and mortar businesses online, shouldn’t these online version have similar building practices? Please notice I did NOT use the word, “requirement.” Section 508 already mandates this in an absolutely ridiculous, impractical and unenforceable manner.

Okay, back to our sustainable web design dicussion.

One of the discussion points was carbon offsets. The carbon offset market creates a trading scenario whereby individuals and companies can asses and trade carbon footprints. It works something like this.

Here’s the wikipedia definition for carbon offsets Halfway down the page you’ll find the following statement:

Due to their indirect nature, many types of offset are difficult to verify. Some providers obtain independent certification that their offsets are accurately measured, to distance themselves from potentially fraudulent competitors. The credibility of the various certification providers is often questioned.

When a particular process creates more energy than it uses, it gets a credit. If it’s produced using a green technology or a renewable energy source, it’s deemed a carbon-negative activity and is allowed to sell those credits to someone else.

For instance, if you produce more solar power than you can use (or store), you can sign up and indicate that you have carbon offsets to offer. The EPA even provides a carbon footprint calculator that attempts to provide a “rough “ballpark estimate of your emissions and the savings you may achieve.” They even provide a calculator to help you improve which it uses EnergyStar ratings as some sort of a basis point. Ugh, they don’t even list largest energy sucker in the home -hot water heaters. Of course not! The EnergyStar ratings for hot water heaters are only a few weeks old and are still being determined. At least the EPA attempts fend off short-term litigation by placing the following statement at the bottom of their page:

“For an explanation of the assumptions and sources used by this calculator, click here. Keep in mind that average per person emissions estimates or per capita emissions estimates are usually derived from national estimates of GHG emissions, which include GHG emissions from all sources in the U.S., including industrial emissions (emissions from manufacturing of goods and services). As a result, if you compare your estimates from the personal emissions calculator to per capita emissions in the U.S., they may differ significantly.”

Basically, the owner of the Carbon Offset calculator, website or carbon market (these are still regional plays) acts as an intermediary will then sell those offsets to a company that produces too much carbon according to a different calculator. The carbon market provider determines the value, mediates the process, makes the deal and receives money from doing so. My prediction is that the FTC will be knocking on their doors as soon as enough people are hurt when the agreements are found to be unenforceable by the companies that make them. Again, that’s just my prediction. It’s far from reality at this particular time.

So if you use too much carbon when you fly or pretty much any activity deemed carbon-positive, you can pay to feel better by purchasing a carbon offset. That’s basically how it works. But it quickly becomes complex. Really complex. The carbon market calculators help you figure out how much carbon you use without any assurances of quality performance or usability.

The term, “fuzzy math” would be an understatement.

These carbon calculators, currently group entire classes of carbon usage together. CO2 and SO2 for instance are grouped together. They use terms like, national average, typical home usage, typical car, and typical flight to describe the activities that make up your footprint. Now there’s no doubt in my mind that we can create a perceived accuracy in these calculators for 80% of our activities. However, the challenge gets complex very quickly when just a few extra variables are introduced, such as:

• Did you personally bring about eco-awareness when you flew or drove somewhere? Did this increased awareness cause a loss or gain in greenhouse gasses as measured by the calculator?
• Standardization of the formulas used in unregulated calculators. Calculator providers have different methodologies based on their interpretation of “averaged” data.
• Many of the organizations behind the calculators have “greenwashed” mission statements.
• Much of the data used by each calculators is new. Garbage in, garbage out?

These kinds of calculations could never be used to get a loan. Similar methodologies are used to help folks trade futures and penny stocks on the stock market but that’s also called, “gambling.” The term, “Calculator” appears to be favored over the term, “Estimator ” which I personally believe a direct reflection of the integrity of the companies offering these services. Where there is no logic, there’s opportunity. When logic is intentionally obscured or obfuscated there are additional implications.

Why hasn’t anyone created an integrity-offset calculator?

My goal is not to bring down the idea of carbon offsets or carbon footprint calculators. However, I feel it is wrong to charge money for these services. These are entirely or can be entirely digital processes.

Sorry for the diversion.

None of this is really the problem I want to address. When people start charging prematurely for carbon offsets on the web, that really compels me to write. I’m already over my personal limit on the length of a post but just getting started.

I’m mostly interested in hearing your thoughts on transparency, ethics and integrity in relation to carbon calculators. I’ll keep the posts unmoderated for the next few hours, then you’ll have to register to leave a comment.

Additional Resources

• Personal Emissions Calculator by the Environmental Protection Association
• Wikipedia Definition for Carbon Offsets
• U.S. Department of Energy
  Renewable Energy Certificates Retail Products – comparison table
• Center for Resource Solutions – proprietors of the green-e logo
• Evolution Sage – The New Green – Oahu-based carbon offset offering
• GreenWashing – Six Sins
• New Carbon Standard Guarantees Environmental Integrity and Transparency for Global Offset Market
• Voluntary Carbon Standard (VCS)
  The Voluntary Carbon Standard provides a robust, new global standard for voluntary offset projects.
• International Emissions Trading Association (IETA)

Important!
Much of what is written above is the opinion of Brent Norris and not necessarily the opinion of all the stakeholders, partners, advertisers, readers, writers at Green Collar Technologies -but it should be!