La Haber, a writer for the environment, examines the intricacies of carbon offset-setting by corporations
Is carbon offsetting, which is becoming more common for consumers and businesses, a good thing or a bad thing? Offsetting is a method that assumes that an emission reduction in one place has the same benefits as one achieved elsewhere. It implies that balancing carbon levels in a zero-sum environment.
The reality is that emissions from one place cannot be used to capture other places. A factory that emits high levels of pollutants can still cause harm to the local ecosystem and community, even though they are offset elsewhere. This is only one example of the many problems associated carbon offset. Unknown to many, there are many issues related to existing offset projects that must be considered when determining if the offset is justified.
Pricing and efficacy issues
At the moment, carbon offsets are very affordable. There are many projects available for very little demand. Businesses may find it easier to manage a non-sustainable business model that emits high levels of carbon than actually changing their business.
However, this is a short-term perspective that is not sustainable. The global market for carbon offsetsetting was $300 million in 2018, compared to the $3bn average annual chocolate market in the UK. However, this market has been growing rapidly and will continue to grow. Simply put, if companies want to meet their net-zero goals or reduce their emissions, they must reduce emissions. There’s only so much land that can offset.
Additionally, offsetting quality can be a problem that can be difficult to evaluate. However, several certification programs have shown the efficiency of existing projects (including those that are not certified), and only 2% of them were effective in removing emissions. It is difficult to predict how long trees will retain their carbon stored, and any climatic impacts or anthropogenic effects on the land in the future could compromise this carbon offset.
Consumers can offset
Another questionable area of offset is those that are encouraged for consumers. Businesses can offer customers the chance to pay voluntarily to offset their carbon emissions, most commonly when they purchase plane tickets. Although this may seem like a great initiative that can make customers feel good, it can encourage more unsustainable behavior than if there weren’t any offsetting options. This is the concept behind self-licensing. It can be a slippery slope.
Companies may also use asking customers to pay to offset carbon emissions from taking a flight to be lazy in their efforts to reduce carbon emissions. If planes still fly with kerosene because it is cheap to produce and doesn’t have to be taxed, it could be because it is not being replaced. This is where airline companies fail everyone, by not using an alternate fuel and encouraging customers’ failure. It is also known as greenwashing or greenlighting (I first heard it from gaslighting).
This kind of greenwashing is one the biggest risks associated with offsetting projects. Instead of reducing their emissions, organisations seek ways to offset them or push it onto customers.
Sustainable management requires land-grabbing
Land grabbing is the last issue to be mentioned. Land grabbing is a problem that carbon offsetting programs are supposed to address. But, often, if there is an indigenous tribe or community that occupies land that could be offset, they are deemed incapable. Some UN REDD+ programs have claimed that this was done. All this is done to offset our high-maintenance lifestyle.
Isn’t it still a good idea to offset?
It all depends on who is responsible and for whom it is done. Is it possible to offset the environmental damage done in the past? Recent statements by Eni, a petrochemical company, have stated that they will plant trees in Africa under the REDD+ scheme to make Africa net zero by 2030.
Greenpeace’s report has calculated the impact of this PR stunt in practice. It would require large tracts to be protected from deforestation to reach this goal and to sum up if ENI was required to offset all their emissions. []This is almost impossible if carbon projects are used in forests of developing countries. These targets will not be met without causing harm to forest-dependent communities.
I think that voluntary carbon offsets are a way to redeem ourselves for our consumption by planting some trees between the tropics. It’s a modern version of the middle-age tradition of buying indulgences in exchange for a place at heaven. Perhaps that’s how I see it.
