Local Sustainability Planning: The Cleveland Carbon Fund

I am really interested in environmental policy developments in the Great Lakes region, since I am originally from Wisconsin and protecting the environment is a passion of mine. I came across the following article in the Plain Dealer, Clevelands’s major newspaper: http://www.cleveland.com/news/plaindealer/index.ssf?/base/news/123322159481880.xml&coll=2. The article outlines a local sustainability initiative developed by the “Cleveland Carbon Fund”. This is a new development debuting just this past January which allows individuals to donate a number and although larger organizations such as insurance companies have such funds that individuals and companies can contribute to to offset energy use, the organizers of this fund are calling it “the first ever community-based, open access carbon reduction fund” in the country.

So what is a carbon footprint? One definition of carbon footprint that I came across is “the total set of greenhouse gas emissions caused directly and indirectly by an individual, organization, event or product”. Greenhouse gases are needed, but an imbalance of them – particularly too much of them – will cause imbalances in the earth’s climate causing major natural disasters. A local fund like this I can see growing beyond just supporting projects that seek to reduce the carbon footprint – I can also see it addressing other environmental concerns such as protecting endangered species and helping to clean our waterways.

Who developed this fund? About half a year before the fund was launched, a steering committee was created with representatives from a number of major local organizations including the City of Cleveland and the Cleveland Clinic.

How does the Cleveland fund work? I wanted to know more about the project besides just that it allowed individuals in the area to donate money to the fund which would then offset their carbon footprint. Where exactly will the money go? The clevelandcarbonfund.org website says the fund sponsors the formation and implementation of local carbon reduction projects. Examples of these projects include CFL (Compact Fluorescent Lamp) installation, showerhead replacement, and home weatherization. To be more specific, the home weatherization project would donate funds to seal and insulate homes to better retain heat in the winter. The fund website reports that weatherizing 20 homes, for instance, reduces carbon emissions by 40 tons each year.

While I am happy to hear of any sustainability efforts, I do not see how one person could be guaranteed a certain amount of carbon offset per dollar. The company does mention that the performance of the current project portfolio is $20 per metric ton of carbon dioxide equivalent. I would like to know how this is measured. The performance of the fund really depends on how the money is allocated. For instance, if a certain amount is allocated for a small local sustainability business to start, some of the funding may go to business start up and not necessarily to direct sustainability improvements. Secondly, if home weatherization services are donated to houses in low income areas, occupants may just choose to keep their house warmer than they normally would – which would not necessarily save energy.

Benefits to this fund are numerous regardless if the benefits are not directly translated into immediate decreases in carbon releases. It stimulates the local economy and helps build businesses focused on sustainability in the long run. This is especially important now considering that Cleveland is especially hard hit by the current recession. Even if immediate effects are not obtained, the fund sets the stage for long term sustainability benefits.

A fund like this could be translated to all levels of government and not just locally like the Cleveland Carbon Fund. Implementing a fund like this to a more widespread area would cause the fund to loose a number of benefits including stimulating the local economy and creating innovative small business. It would also loose the prospect of more evenly distributing wealth. A larger fund would more likely create or donate funds to larger sustainability businesses a.k.a gigantic corporations. Whether or not the environmental quality would improve at a larger level depends on where the money would go and the organization of the effort. There is a greater chance for corruption on a large scale. Businesses may not use 100% of the money in ways that contribute to sustainability, but like in recent scandals, may use it to give directors bonuses.

I could see a fund like this work at an international level if it was organized well. For instance, contributions could help set aside land to be protected in threatened areas throughout the world or be given to countries for the same types of projects that Northeastern Ohio has developed. Overall, I can see a fund like this at any level being successful not only for offsetting one’s carbon footprint but because of it’s ability develop innovative and energy efficient products and processes.