Carbon offsetting (CO) sounds great: you get to go on holiday, drive your car, use your computer and do all those other carbon generating things we all love to do, then pay some money towards a project which aims to reduce carbon emissions such as tree planting or renewable energy and, hey presto, your carbon is offset and your conscience assuaged! It sounds wonderful, but can it really be that simple?
What is CO?
In their Briefing note on CO Friends of the Earth (FOE) define the principle behind CO as 'that the carbon emissions generated through an activity (such as driving or flying) are calculated and someone is then paid for an initiative that reduces carbon dioxide in the atmosphere by an equivalent amount'.
The UK government's Department for the Environment Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) say that 'due to the fact that greenhouse gases have a long life-span and tend to mix evenly in the atmosphere it doesn't matter where gases are emitted in the world: the effect on climate change is the same. To make up for unavoidable emissions increases, e.g. heating your home, equivalent emissions reductions can be made elsewhere, meaning that the overall effect is zero.'
Common criticisms
CO could be said to be nothing more than a sop to allay guilty consciences. It does not encourage people to reduce the amount of carbon emissions they produce, on the contrary they feel that if they just keep on offsetting it'll all be fine. Because of these concerns FOE do not recommend CO and they state they are concerned that it is 'being used as a smoke screen to ward off legislation and delay the urgent action needed to cut emissions and develop alternative low carbon solutions'. Kevin Smith of Carbon Trade Watch likens CO to the medieval practice of selling 'indulgences' for the remission of sins. Even DEFRA acknowledges that CO 'is not a cure for climate change but it can help raise awareness and reduce the impact of our actions. The most appropriate action to take is to reduce emissions.' There are also widespread concerns about the credibility and ethics of many of the companies involved: in a joint statement FOE, Greenpeace and WWF-UK expressed 'strong concerns over (their) environmental credibility... and the contribution of the projects to sustainable development.'
Support for CO
Supporters of CO see it as a useful tool for increasing consumers' 'carbon literacy', a source of funding for sustainable development and a way to fund the transition to a low carbon economy (The Ethical Consumer Magazine May/ June 2007). In their paper on CO DEFRA state that:
- Providing the means to work out the emissions from our own activities helps raise awareness of our impact on climate change. Combined with reducing our emissions, offsetting can be used to address this impact.
- When done in a robust and responsible way, offsetting leads to a reduction in carbon dioxide emissions in the area local to the offsetting project, often in developing countries.
- Offsetting projects, such as those approved by the United Nations, provide a mechanism for investment in clean technology in the areas which lack it the most. Such investment can lead to the spread of low-carbon development across entire regions, further reducing climate change impact.
There are some good projects out there, but how do you work out which they are? Even FOE, Greenpeace and WWF-UK acknowledge that the offset, but they always use projects certified by 'CDM Gold Standard'. (Ethical Consumer May/ June 2007)
Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) Gold Standard
This is a quality assurance label initiated by The World Wildlife Fund (among others) in 2003. It is endorsed by 49 non-governmental organisations and many governments. It ensures that the projects it endorses are fit for purpose and include sustainable development benefits. It individual projects rather than carbon offset companies. According to The Ethical Consumer magazine it is not without its problems but it provides the most reliable benchmark.
Additionality
This is the concept that something that is done to offset carbon must extra to something that was going to be done anyway. For example 'Climate Care distributed 10,000 energy-efficient lightbulbs in a South African township; offered the carbon reductions as offsets; and then discovered that an energy company was distributing the same kind of lightbulbs free to masses of customers, including their township, so the reduction would have happened anyway. (The Guardian) Additionality issues can be hard to verify because most projects are only partly funded by CO.
Should we do it?
It's got to be an individual decision. We should all be endeavouring to reduce our carbon footprint as a first line measure, but what about the harder to avoid carbon emissions? Here's a few ideas.
- Plant trees through TDN, but as Chris Hastie points out the carbon reduction benefits of tree planting are dubious.
- Support organisations which put pressure on governments to take practical and decisive action to tackle climate change, such as FOE, Greenpeace or WWF.
- Support practical projects which support sustainable development in poorer countries such as Tree Aid, Water Aid or Practical Action.
- Do voluntary work for an organisation such as the British Trust for Conservation Volunteers (BTCV), which organises environmental conservation volunteering throughout the UK and around the world, your local wildlife trust or a similar environmental organisation.
If you decide that Carbon Offsetting is a worthwhile thing to do I would recommend that you do your homework, read the articles and papers linked from this site, check the company and the project out and go for the CDM Gold Standard label.
