Doug Struck discusses his Sidney winning investigation into carbon offsets fraud and new models for investigative journalism.

1.Why did you decide to look into carbon offsets fraud?

Several years ago, while I was reporting for The Washington Post, I went to a conference at Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution. The scientists there were in a tizzy over a scheme by a California company to fertilize the ocean with iron, estimate the carbon sucked up by the blooming algae, and sell that carbon as an “offset.” I did not write about it then, but as I kept hearing about offsets offered to counterbalance one’s “carbon footprint,” I wondered whether other offset projects were as far-fetched and controversial as that idea. After I leftThe Post, I happened to mention my musings to Joe Bergantino at the New England Center for Investigative Reporting, and he seized on it. “Great story,” he said, “Now go find some funding to do it.”

That was the start of a real experiment in “new models” of journalism. We eventually got financing from a philanthropical foundation, the Deer Creek Foundation, for reporting by the non-profit new England Center for Investigative Reporting. We approached and teamed up with the Christian Science Monitor, one of a dwindling number of news organizations that still have a highly respected foreign staff. The Monitor, which has moved on-line daily but has a weekly print magazine, was commendably open to the idea. Editor John Yemma was willing to work with our non-profit, and we further involved both my students at Emerson College and students at Boston University. So the “model” was foundation-nonprofit-mainstream media-academic, and the resulting story was in print, video, on-line and even radio. It was a hybrid that worked, but involved hundreds of emails among the parties. It undoubtedly could have been done more efficiently by a sole news organization, but they are not doing projects like this as they did before newsrooms were hit with layoffs.

2. What surprised you as you did your research?

I got into the story thinking the theory of voluntary carbon offsets was good, but expecting to find a few bad apples. As we got further into the research, I was surprised to find the theoretical underpinnings of these offsets are as slithery and elusive as financial derivatives. That has lured a wide cast of financial prospectors seeking gold in the wallets of consumers. There are, undoubtedly, some well-intentioned players in the offset market. But I came out of the research skeptical that very many of these offsets really do what buyers think they do. Most don’t immediately counterbalance one’s carbon footprint by creating a new reduction in greenhouse gases. Too often, buyers are paying for offsets that won’t happen, won’t happen for years, or already has happened for some other purpose.

3. What has the response been since you published it?

With the widely dispersed audience of our digital age, it’s unclear. I do know the package has been trumpeted by some who deny climate change or man’s contribution to it. If their reasoning is that the flaws in voluntary offsets are argument that we should do nothing to reduce greenhouse gases, I find that wrongheaded and unfortunate.

4. If you went back to this story in another year, what would you want to follow-up on?

Climate change legislation before Congress could create a cap-and-trade for even more offsets, although ones subject to much more regulation and scrutiny. I would be curious to see if that has passed, has been implemented, and is working with a lot more legitimacy than voluntary offsets.