Can Hillary Clinton Make Her 2016 Bid Carbon-Neutral?

The campaign promised to offset its carbon footprint. But it’s not an easy task, and details are few and far between.

AMES, IA - JULY 26: Democratic presidential hopeful and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton speaks to guests gathered for a campaign event at Iowa State University on July 26, 2015 in Ames, Iowa. Although Clinton leads all other Democratic contenders, a recent poll had her trailing several of the Republican candidates in Iowa. 
National Journal
Ben Geman and Clare Foran
Add to Briefcase
See more stories about...
Ben Geman Clare Foran
July 29, 2015, 6:59 a.m.

Hil­lary Clin­ton wants to make sure her pres­id­en­tial cam­paign doesn’t hurt the plan­et.

The Clin­ton cam­paign an­nounced on Tues­day that the former sec­ret­ary of State’s White House bid will be car­bon neut­ral. “We’ll be off­set­ting the car­bon foot­print of this cam­paign, and that in­cludes travel,” said Jesse Fer­guson, a cam­paign aide.

The an­nounce­ment ar­rived just days after Clin­ton star­ted rolling out her green-en­ergy and cli­mate-change plat­form — and after Re­pub­lic­an op­pos­i­tion re­search firm Amer­ica Rising re­leased a video of Clin­ton board­ing a private jet hours after talk­ing up her en­vir­on­ment­al plat­form in Iowa on Monday.

Clin­ton’s car­bon-neut­ral pledge also stands as the latest ef­fort to prove the Demo­crat­ic con­tender’s green bona fides, as she faces fierce cri­ti­cism on the Left for re­fus­ing take a stand on con­ten­tious is­sues, in­clud­ing the Key­stone XL pipeline. A green cam­paign could also al­low Clin­ton to take more digs at Re­pub­lic­an can­did­ates who ques­tion wheth­er glob­al warm­ing is hap­pen­ing at all.

But what will it take for Clin­ton to go green, how much will it cost, and will it make a dif­fer­ence?

So far, the cam­paign hasn’t provided de­tails, but off­sets can get ex­pens­ive. In 2007, Clin­ton’s pres­id­en­tial cam­paign pledged to neut­ral­ize its car­bon foot­print and paid out more than $80,000 to Ver­mont-based firm Nat­ive En­ergy over the course of 2007 and 2008, Fed­er­al Elec­tion Com­mis­sion fil­ings in­dic­ate.

(Nat­ive En­ergy also worked with John Ed­wards to make his pres­id­en­tial cam­paign car­bon neut­ral. Com­pany vice pres­id­ent Tom Stod­dard said that they have not yet been con­tac­ted by the Clin­ton cam­paign this time around.)

Travel, by plane and by car, would likely make up the largest seg­ment of total emis­sions that a car­bon-neut­ral cam­paign would need to off­set. After that, elec­tri­city to keep the lights on at cam­paign headquar­ters and field of­fices all the way on down to emis­sions gen­er­ated by cam­paign staff and vo­lun­teers as they com­mute and can­vas would need to be tal­lied and neut­ral­ized.

Of course, the best way to lim­it emis­sions is to curb the num­ber of fuel-guzz­ling plane and auto­mobile rides. But “you can’t vir­tu­ally shake hands or kiss ba­bies,” notes Jeff Swen­er­ton, com­mu­nic­a­tions dir­ect­or with Green-e, a San Fran­cisco non­profit that cer­ti­fies off­set pro­jects.

If a cam­paign takes steps to curb emis­sions, the next step would be to off­set the re­main­ing car­bon foot­print with some kind of cred­it. Com­mon off­set pro­jects in­clude ini­ti­at­ives to plant trees or stem de­for­est­a­tion, sup­port re­new­able-power pro­jects that help dis­place fossil fuels, and cap­ture meth­ane from land­fills, among oth­ers.

All that could add up. The go­ing rate for car­bon off­sets var­ies based on the com­pany, the amount of cred­its needed, and the type of off­set pur­chased. (For in­stance Ter­ra­Pass, a long­time pro­vider, charges busi­nesses $13.12 per met­ric ton of car­bon-di­ox­ide off­set.)

The plane that Clin­ton re­portedly flew from Iowa to New Hamp­shire earli­er this week burns 347 gal­lons of fuel per hour. A round-trip flight from New York City to Des Moines, Iowa, on that plane would burn roughly 38 met­ric tons of car­bon emis­sions and cost around $185 for bulk pur­chases of car­bon off­sets, ac­cord­ing to Nat­ive En­ergy’s Stod­dard.

Swen­er­ton said there are now well-es­tab­lished ways for or­gan­iz­a­tions to track the amount of pol­lu­tion they’re cre­at­ing. “Fig­ur­ing out your car­bon foot­print is a pretty ma­ture dis­cip­line right now,” he said. “There are a lot of ways to fig­ure out with some level of spe­cificity what your car­bon out­put is from fly­ing and driv­ing.”

Sen. Bernie Sanders and former Mary­land Gov. Mar­tin O’Mal­ley, who are also seek­ing the Demo­crat­ic White House nom­in­a­tion, are both out­spoken on cli­mate change. Aides to their cam­paigns did not re­spond to in­quir­ies about wheth­er their op­er­a­tions are off­set­ting emis­sions, too.

Re­gard­less of the de­sire to off­set CO2 emis­sions, ex­perts cau­tion that pur­chasers of off­sets must be di­li­gent about en­sur­ing that they’re sup­port­ing real pro­jects that would not oth­er­wise be hap­pen­ing any­way. Buy­ing the ab­sence of emis­sions can be tricky, says Mi­chael Wara, an ex­pert on en­ergy and the en­vir­on­ment at Stan­ford Law School.

“It is a very com­plic­ated top­ic, par­tic­u­larly when you get in­to the vol­un­tary mar­kets, be­cause there is much less of a cop on the beat than in the reg­u­lated or com­pli­ance mar­kets,” he said, con­trast­ing vol­un­tary off­set pur­chases with off­sets ob­tained un­der reg­u­lat­ory pro­grams like the cap-and-trade sys­tems in Cali­for­nia and the European Uni­on.

But Yale’s Daniel Esty says the off­set mar­ket has be­come in­creas­ingly well struc­tured over the last dec­ade and that buy­ers can now be “quite con­fid­ent” that es­tab­lished play­ers such as Ter­ra­Pass will trans­late off­set pay­ments in­to ac­tu­al emis­sions-cut­ting pro­jects.

“These pro­grams have been in place now for more than a dec­ade, have been care­fully re­viewed, have been audited — at least the best of them — and as a res­ult provide a high de­gree of con­fid­ence that off­set dol­lars are be­ing ap­pro­pri­ately spent,” said Esty, who is dir­ect­or of the Yale Cen­ter for En­vir­on­ment­al Law and Policy.

What We're Following See More »
Heller, Paul Won’t Vote on Motion to Proceed
4 minutes ago
CBO Says 22 Million More Would Be UNinsured
1 hours ago

The Senate bill "would increase the number of people without health insurance by 22 million by 2026, a figure that is only slightly lower than the 23 million more uninsured that the House version would create. Next year, 15 million more people would be uninsured compared with current law...The legislation would decrease federal deficits by a total of $321 billion over a decade."

SCOTUS Delivers a Victory for Gay Couples
2 hours ago

"The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday ruled in favor of same-sex couples who complained that an Arkansas birth certificate law discriminated against them, reversing a state court’s ruling that married lesbian couples must get a court order to have both spouses listed on their children’s birth certificates."

Revised Senate Bill Would Add Penalty for Going Uninsured
3 hours ago
58 House Republicans Ask Ginsburg to Recuse on Travel Ban
4 hours ago

The letter reads in part, "There is no doubt that your impartiality can be reasonably questioned; indeed, it would be unreasonable not to question your impartiality. Failure to recuse yourself from any such case would violate the law and undermine the credibility of the Supreme Court of the United States.” Ginsburg said last year, "He is a faker. He has no consistency about him. He says whatever comes into his head at the moment. He really has an ego."


Welcome to National Journal!

You are currently accessing National Journal from IP access. Please login to access this feature. If you have any questions, please contact your Dedicated Advisor.