Carbon Offsets in California: Science in the Policy Development Process

  • Barbara Haya
  • Aaron Strong
  • Emily Grubert
  • Danny Cullenward


Natural and social scientists are increasingly stepping out of purely academic roles to actively inform science-based climate change policies. This chapter examines a practical example of science and policy interaction. We focus on the implementation of California’s global warming law, based on our participation in the public process surrounding the development of two new carbon offset protocols. Most of our work on the protocols focused on strategies for ensuring that the environmental quality of the program remains robust in the face of significant scientific and behavioral uncertainty about protocol outcomes. In addition to responding to technical issues raised by government staff, our contributions—along with those from other outside scientists—helped expand the protocol development discussion to include important scientific issues that would not have otherwise been part of the process. We close by highlighting the need for more scientists to proactively engage the climate policy development process.


Carbon offsets Climate change policy Carbon markets Science and policy 


  1. Borenstein S, Bushnell J, Wolak FA, Zaragoza-Watkins M (2014) Report of the market simulation group on competitive supply/demand balance in the California allowance market and the potential for market manipulation. Energy Institute @ Haas working paper #251. Accessed 2 Mar 2015
  2. California Air Resources Board (2008) Climate change scoping plan: a framework for change. Sacramento. Accessed 2 Mar 2015
  3. California Air Resources Board (2013) Staff report: initial statement of reasons, proposed regulation to implement the California cap-and-trade program, appendix A, staff report and compliance offset protocol, mine methane capture projects (4 Sept 2013), Sacramento. Accessed 2 Mar 2015
  4. California Air Resources Board (2014a) First update to the climate change scoping plan: building on the framework. Sacramento. Accessed 2 Mar 2015
  5. California Air Resources Board (2014b) Compliance offset protocol mine methane capture projects: capturing and destroying methane from US coal and trona mines. Sacramento (25 Apr 2014). Accessed 2 Mar 2015
  6. Our Children's Earth Foundation v. CARB, 234 Cal. App. 4th 870 (Cal. Ct. App. 2015)Google Scholar
  7. Cullenward D, Wara M (2014) Carbon markets: effective climate policy? Science 344:1460–1461CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Electric Power Research Institute (2013) Exploring the interaction between California’s greenhouse gas emissions cap-and-trade program and complementary emissions reduction policies. EPRI report #3002000298. Accessed 2 Mar 2015
  9. Figueres C (2006) Sectoral CDM: opening the CDM to the yet unrealized goal of sustainable development. Int J Sustain Dev Law Pol 2(1):5–26Google Scholar
  10. Haya B (2009) Measuring emissions against an alternative future: fundamental flaws in the structure of the Kyoto protocol’s clean development mechanism. Energy and Resources Group working paper ER09-001, University of California, Berkeley. Accessed 2 Mar 2015
  11. Haya B (2013) California’s carbon offsets program: the offsets limit explained. Accessed 2 Mar 2015
  12. Haya B, Parekh P (2011) Hydropower in the CDM: examining additionality and criteria for sustainability. Energy and Resources Group working paper ER11-001, University of California, Berkeley. Accessed 2 Mar 2015
  13. Lempert R, Schlesinger P (2000) Robust strategies for abating climate change. Clim Change 45:387–401CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Ruby Canyon Engineering (2013a) Abandoned coal mine methane offsets protocol: background information on performance standard and additionality. Accessed 2 Mar 2015
  15. Ruby Canyon Engineering (2013b) Letter from Ronald C. Collings to Jessica Bede. Subject: California Air Resources Board: proposed compliance offset protocol mine methane capture projects, dated August 19, 2013. Accessed 22 Oct 2013
  16. University of New Hampshire (2012) DNDC user’s guide version 9.5. Institute for the Study of Earth, Oceans, and Space. University of New Hampshire. Accessed 2 Mar 2015
  17. Wara M (2008) Measuring the clean development mechanism’s performance and potential. UCLA Law Rev 55:1759–1803Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Barbara Haya
    • 1
  • Aaron Strong
    • 2
  • Emily Grubert
    • 2
  • Danny Cullenward
    • 3
  1. 1.Stanford Law SchoolStanfordUSA
  2. 2.Stanford UniversityStanfordUSA
  3. 3.University of California, BerkeleyBerkeleyUSA

Personalised recommendations