My grandfather Julian Conover was a mining lobbyist in the glory days of the mining industry. Old photographs show him on a cruise ship in the 1940s standing with FDR’s Secretary of the Interior Harold Ickes (the father of the Clinton appointee of the same name), no doubt convincing him of the merits of the 1872 mining law that has caused environmentalists so many problems.He was also a member of something called The Old Timers Club, formed in 1938, the written purpose of which was to “perpetuate friendships formed within the coal industry and to promote worthy activities directed toward the betterment of coal mining.”

Grandpa was a geologist in an era when mining was big business in the US, and protecting the interests of coal (and other mineral) mines was his job. That meant keeping regulation to a minimum. Colorado was built, in part, on that extractive industry. Today, Colorado is leading the way in the mitigation of the carbon emissions produced by burning coal and other fossil fuels. Mitigating carbon emissions, whether voluntarily or by regulatory requirement (as in California) , has become a major concern for companies around the world, and a major business enterprise at home.

Coal is still relatively plentiful, as you know if you’ve ever had to wait for a coal train to pass a road crossing in Colorado. And yet, as a major source of carbon dioxide emissions, conventional coal is facing increasing regulatory and financial pressure. Utilities, the primary users of coal for electricity, are canceling or delaying plans for new coal-powered plants, instead seeking greater efficiencies in existing plants, and encouraging conservation among their customers to lower demand. The Wall Street Journal recently reported on the fact that banks are now putting a price on carbon emissions when assessing financing for coal plants and other high emission investments - a new risk factor for lending, and one that business can’t afford to ignore.

What’s it all mean to you and me and the carbon produced between us?

Visualize it: the Denver Museum of Nature and Science estimates that average per capita carbon “footprint” (what each of us puts into the air on a yearly basis in the course of our daily lives) is 25.3 metric tons of CO2, or the same amount of carbon as that present in a block of coal about 7 feet on each side. Museum VP Kirk Johnson recently penned a children’s book (Gas Trees and Car Turds, Fulcrum Press 2007) that described it in a more direct way… for every mile you drive, your car contributes an amount of carbon the size of an average dog dropping to the atmosphere.

What are we to do? The current options seem to be threefold: reduce, tax or offset. Each is challenging in its own way.

Reduce It (voluntarily): The New York Times featured a story last week on Ecomoms: groups that are meeting voluntarily to find ways to reduce their impacts, as a response to general anxiety about global warming, and that we need to do something to address it. In the UK carbon rationing groups self-impose behavioral changes. In Denver, Green Teams play a similar role, and a growing number of online carbon calculators allow individual families to understand where their carbon emission come from and options to reduce them. Individual consumer demand has driven city policy discussions about banning plastic bags, and an improved energy efficient building code, among other carbon-reducing activities.

Tax it: In 2006, Boulderites passed the nation’s first carbon tax, a surcharge on electrical use that helps pay for education and activities that reduce community carbon emissions. A recent poll showed that a majority of Coloradans support a statewide carbon tax, though politically this may be challenging.

Offset it: An estimated $100 million per year (as reported by BusinessWeek) is spent nationally to “offset” carbon emissions produced by companies and individuals, in pursuit of the now-popular tag “carbon neutral“. The carbon contribution of a specific activity is measured and an offset is purchased to pay to support activities that will, in theory, reduce atmospheric carbon by an equivalent amount. Common offset projects include tropical tree planting (where trees will absorb carbon) and construction of wind and solar energy projects (which will replace the need for coal-generated electricity).

Critics of offsets (see Businessweek link above) point out that not all offset companies are created equal, and many so-called offsets are hard to verify or fully account for - many of the projects from which credits are drawn take place far from their place of purchase. A lot of money is being made by offset companies, and there is increasing scrutiny as to the quality and credibility of offsets provided .

Others link offsets to Catholic Church “Indulgences” of the 15th and 16th centuries, whereby sinners paid to atone for their behaviors. These critics point to the fact that buying offsets allows individuals or companies to buy their way out of bad behavior, and doesn’t actually change that behavior in any way.

A very funny parody of carbon offsets along the line of the “indulgences” idea can be found at www.cheatneutral.com, which offers a parody in the form of “infidelity offsets” whereby more faithful individuals sell their “cheating credits” to those who “need” to be unfaithful but want to feel better about it. An excerpt:

What is Cheat Offsetting?

When you cheat on your partner you add to the heartbreak, pain and jealousy in the atmosphere.

Cheatneutral offsets your cheating by funding someone else to be faithful and NOT cheat. This neutralises the pain and unhappy emotion and leaves you with a clear conscience.

Can I offset all my cheating?

First you should look at ways of reducing your cheating. Once you’ve done this you can use Cheatneutral to offset the remaining, unavoidable cheating

Five ways that Cheatneutral is like carbon offsetting:

1. Cheatneutral tries to make it seem acceptable to cheat on your partner. In the same way, carbon offsetting tries to make it acceptable to carry on emitting excess carbon.
2. Cheatneutral doesn’t really do much to reduce the amount of cheating in the world. Carbon offsetting does very little to reduce global carbon emissions.
3. It seems impossible to measure how much harm cheating on someone does. With carbon offsetting, there is currently no practically feasible way of measuring how much carbon offset projects actually save.
4. Having Cheatneutral’s services available could actually encourages you to cheat more. If the carbon offsetters persuade you that it’s possible to offset your emissions, you’ll carry on emitting excess carbon through your lifestyle rather than think about reducing your emissions.
5. Cheatneutral is fundamentally the wrong way to go about solving problems with your relationships. Carbon offsetting is fundamentally the wrong way to go about tackling climate change.

Etc… you get the idea.

Proponents of offsets (including me) point out that it’s a good thing to channel public concern about emissions into funding for projects that otherwise may not exist, and an opportunity to voluntarily engage companies in fighting global warming.

In 2008 GEO (the Colorado Governor’s Energy Office) is working to develop a voluntary offset fund in Colorado (the Colorado Carbon Fund) whereby emissions can be offset with local investments in renewables and energy efficiency projects. The state will broker offsets through a third party contractor, thereby encouraging local investment in renewable energy and energy efficiency through offsets and allowing for more direct and credible project accounting. This model also reduces the likelihood of bad players. Barring national carbon regulation that renders offsets moot, this model could be a strong prototype nationally. GEO is likely to base their fund in part on the success of the ZGreen Tags program in Aspen.

In demonstration of the fact that offsets are big business, the British offset company CAMCO Global has recently opened a Colorado office and is helping to calculate and offset the emission produced by the 2008 Democratic National Convention in Denver.

Another local program to watch is the development of flight emissions offset kiosks at Denver International Airport - the implementation of a recommendation in the Denver Climate Action Plan of 2007. It is already possible to purchase offsets for your flight with Continental, Qantas and other airlines, or for any ticket purchased through Expedia, but the DIA program is the first city-sponsored airport based program offering travellers a similar option.

Interested in your carbon footprint? Check out these carbon calculators.