Take the 2025 EA Forum Survey to help inform our strategy and prioritiesTake the survey

This is my first post in this forum about a topic that I have been thinking about for quiet some time. And recently, when I increased my monthly donations, I again realised that there might be an imbalance with Co2 compensation / offset models and maybe a solution?  

I offset my yearly Co2 consumption. Fortunately, it is rather easy today to find out how much to offset with calculators from the UN[1] or the German Federal Environment Agency[2]. On average, each German is responsible for emitting 10.35t of Co2 each year[3]. Even though I am vegetarian, not flying, living in a small flat, heating electricity from an eco-friendly supplier, my emissions are still round about 7t. Our planet could bear below 1t per person globally.[4] My personal share of the public infrastructure in Germany is already 1.19t - so it is impossible to achieve a personal Co2 neutrality when living in Germany. 

Ok - so I am offsetting. However, I found it challenging to determine how much (in Euro) I should offset. The different calculations vary in their €/t assumptions. When following the data from the most effective organisations[5] I could offset everything for just a few Euros.

But also larger professional offsetting initiatives are offering a ton for ~25€ depending on the project's location[6]. This results in a compensation payment of ca. 180€ for me in order to compensate the whole year's emissions! With a straightforward calculation Luke is coming to a value of 35$ which also seems reasonable. 

So far so good. I was satisfied with that and somehow was relieved that I could give something back at least. 

But then I increased my donation to 10% of my income in January this year. And now here is the point. People in the EA community who earn German average income of 51.000€ (pre tax) would donate 5100€ per year. When I realised that I save more than one life per year[7] I felt confirmed that it is the right decision. 

But what does that mean for my Co2 offsetting? What does that mean for the offsetting of so many people? When the most effective charities can compensate 1 ton of Co2 with 1€, followers of EA could offset their year's Co2 impact for 10€. When donating thousands of Euros per year it makes the Co2 offset looking so tiny. Is it still worth it then? 

Of course it is great to know your Co2 footprint. And of course I do not want to say, that EA people shouldn't offset. Maybe...

... maybe it is worth to not use the most effective value for offsetting even though we beliefe in EA (so the 1€ per ton)? The German Federal Environment Agency states that the actual climate cost per ton Co2 is 237€ - and, if the welfare losses of current and future generations caused by climate change are equalized the cost per ton Co2 would be 809€.[8]

... or is it totally valid to just compensate 10€ because we are follower of EA and therefore "for us" the cost per ton is less?

I wonder if we are caring less about our emissions when we know that offsetting costs just a few euros. Imagine a flight to Australia being just a few euros more expensive or several hundred. 

I decided to take the 25€ per ton but donate it to an effective organisation. Isn't that a win-win? I am looking forward to your thoughts. 

 

  1. ^
  2. ^
  3. ^

    German Federal Environment Agency, https://uba.co2-rechner.de/de_DE/ 

  4. Show all footnotes
Comments5


Sorted by Click to highlight new comments since:

My impression is that most CO2 offsets are bogus, basically the climate change version of “just 25 cents will help save a child’s life”. If you subject them to a GiveWell style analysis, I would guess most of these offset programs fall apart, or at least deliver way less than the promised counterfactual impact.

Also logically I think it would make sense to lump offsets in with other charitable giving and subject them to the same scrutiny, and when you do that it just doesn’t make sense to buy offsets. Even within the climate cause area, I really doubt that buying offsets would be cost effective, and I also doubt that climate is the most cost effective cause area right now.

Hi Ian, thanks for your thoughts. I think we are on the same page. My proposal is to NOT buy the normal offsets but just calculate the amount of money you would have to spend for the cost inefficient offsets (or using even the 237€ per ton above) and use this money for cost effective donations for GiveWell / effectiv-spenden recommended charities. 

Hey there & thanks for asking a great question. I don’t have any particularly fresh insights, but I wanted to join in & note that I went through the same thing a couple years ago, and concluded that I should donate a little bit each year offset my emissions.

I generally agree with the calculations leading to the $35 figure above; it does genuinely seem like the Clean Air Task Force (CATF) and Coalition for Rainforest Nations (CfRN) are extremely effective per dollar. In some sense, no matter who you offset with, you’re always offsetting in expectation—if you’re worried about risk, you should offset at the lower credible bound for effectiveness. But to address your points above, these organisations can only absorb so much funding. The German government couldn’t donate billions of euros a year in a cost-effective way—but you can donate a hundred. So I think it’s not unreasonable for governments to have higher estimates of the long-term per-capita burden of carbon emissions, at the same time as it being possible for your donation to be orders of magnitude cheaper. (In an EA context, compare saving a life via GiveWell against a government saving thousands of lives by building a hospital).

All of this generally assumes offsetting is possible. CO2 emissions are easier, you can plant vegetation which will directly absorb some amount of carbon over its lifecycle. In the CfRN’s case, they save vegetation which preserves its future absorption ability. Other greenhouse cases such as nitrogen have a trickier theory of change; it mostly seems like it’s best to prevent future emissions and wait for the existing gases to decay. And that’s where the CATF come in.

I think I have a bit more of a deontological streak than other EAs, so for me it feels important than I’m not doing any harm myself. I can’t easily make an argument that would suggest a pure utilitarian should donate that ~$35 to carbon offsetting over saving lives. But for me it was cheap enough (the price of a nice dinner, say) that any hand-wringing over it would be a waste of time.

Hi Huw and thanks for sharing your approach towards offsetting. 

I am wondering if these 35$ are giving us the impression that being the reason for co2 emissions is ok, as it is so cheap to offset. Shouldn't we, as people believing in EA, still use higher pricec per ton Co2 to be reminded, that the climate cost per ton are higher currently, and even if we chose to take an effective organisation to offset, it doesn't mean that we can emmit Co2 without caring?

The point is, emmiting (and therefor offsetting) shouldn't be "cheap enough", should it? Shouldn't we really feel our emmissions (on our bank balance) in order to caring / start caring?

Two points there:

  1. It is $35. You can spend $35 and offset a year's worth of carbon emissions. It is not the case that 'the climate cost per ton is higher currently'.
  2. Because it's so cheap, you can offset CO2 without caring.

If you want to put a mental block on not emitting, you're welcome to do so, but it would be incorrect to deliberately pay more than the actual cost of offsetting those emissions. (This is what I personally do; I try to avoid emitting because I think it's generally morally good to not be excessively wasteful, but I am under no illusions that it wouldn't be very cheap for me to offset it). Frankly, at the end of the day, the biggest emitters in rich countries are industrial organisations and no amount of personal cutting-back is really going to prevent them from changing their behaviour anyway.

Curated and popular this week
 ·  · 1m read
 · 
This morning I was looking into Switzerland's new animal welfare labelling law. I was going through the list of abuses that are now required to be documented on labels, and one of them made me do a double-take: "Frogs: Leg removal without anaesthesia."  This confused me. Why are we talking about anaesthesia? Shouldn't the frogs be dead before having their legs removed? It turns out the answer is no; standard industry practice is to cut their legs off while they are fully conscious. They remain alive and responsive for up to 15 minutes afterward. As far as I can tell, there are zero welfare regulations in any major producing country. The scientific evidence for frog sentience is robust - they have nociceptors, opioid receptors, demonstrate pain avoidance learning, and show cognitive abilities including spatial mapping and rule-based learning.  It's hard to find data on the scale of this issue, but estimates put the order of magnitude at billions of frogs annually. I could not find any organisations working directly on frog welfare interventions.  Here are the organizations I found that come closest: * Animal Welfare Institute has documented the issue and published reports, but their focus appears more on the ecological impact and population decline rather than welfare reforms * PETA has conducted investigations and released footage, but their approach is typically to advocate for complete elimination of the practice rather than welfare improvements * Pro Wildlife, Defenders of Wildlife focus on conservation and sustainability rather than welfare standards This issue seems tractable. There is scientific research on humane euthanasia methods for amphibians, but this research is primarily for laboratory settings rather than commercial operations. The EU imports the majority of traded frog legs through just a few countries such as Indonesia and Vietnam, creating clear policy leverage points. A major retailer (Carrefour) just stopped selling frog legs after welfar
 ·  · 4m read
 · 
Note: This post was crossposted from the Open Philanthropy Farm Animal Welfare Research Newsletter by the Forum team, with the author's permission. The author may not see or respond to comments on this post. ---------------------------------------- > Why ending the worst abuses of factory farming is an issue ripe for moral reform I recently joined Dwarkesh Patel’s podcast to discuss factory farming. I hope you’ll give it a listen — and consider supporting his fundraiser for FarmKind’s Impact Fund. (Dwarkesh is matching all donations up to $250K; use the code “dwarkesh”.) We discuss two contradictory views about factory farming that produce the same conclusion: that its end is either inevitable or impossible. Some techno-optimists assume factory farming will vanish in the wake of AGI. Some pessimists see reforming it as a hopeless cause. Both camps arrive at the same conclusion: fatalism. If factory farming is destined to end, or persist, then what’s the point in fighting it? I think both views are wrong. In fact, I think factory farming sits in the ideal position for moral reform. Because its end is neither inevitable nor impossible, it offers a unique opportunity for advocacy to change the trajectory of human moral progress. Not inevitable Dwarkesh raised an objection to working on factory farming that I often hear from techno-optimists who care about the issue: isn’t its end inevitable? Some cite the long arc of moral progress; others the promise of vast technological change like cultivated meat or Artificial General Intelligence (AGI) which surpasses human capabilities. It’s true that humanity has achieved incredible moral progress for humans. But that progress was never inevitable — it was the result of moral and political reform as much as technology. And that moral progress mostly hasn’t yet extended to animals. For them, the long moral arc of history has so far only bent downward. Technology may one day end factory farming, just as cars liberated w
 ·  · 1m read
 · 
This is a personal essay about my failed attempt to convince effective altruists to become socialists. I started as a convinced socialist who thought EA ignored the 'root causes' of poverty by focusing on charity instead of structural change. After studying sociology and economics to build a rigorous case for socialism, the project completely backfired as I realized my political beliefs were largely psychological coping mechanisms. Here are the key points: * Understanding the "root cause" of a problem doesn't necessarily lead to better solutions - Even if capitalism causes poverty, understanding "dynamics of capitalism" won't necessarily help you solve it * Abstract sociological theories are mostly obscurantist bullshit - Academic sociology suffers from either unrealistic mathematical models or vague, unfalsifiable claims that don't help you understand or change the world * The world is better understood as misaligned incentives rather than coordinated oppression - Most social problems stem from coordination failures and competing interests, not a capitalist class conspiring against everyone else * Individual variation undermines class-based politics - People within the same "class" have wildly different cognitive traits, interests, and beliefs, making collective action nearly impossible * Political beliefs serve important psychological functions - They help us cope with personal limitations and maintain self-esteem, often at the expense of accuracy * Evolution shaped us for competition, not truth - Our brains prioritize survival, status, and reproduction over understanding reality or being happy * Marx's insights, properly applied, undermine the Marxist political project - His theory of ideological formation aligns with evolutionary psychology, but when applied to individuals rather than classes, it explains why the working class will not overthrow capitalism. In terms of ideas, I don’t think there’s anything too groundbreaking in this essay. A lot of the