Carbon offsetting
Last updated: July 2, 2009.
Scientists tell us the world is slowly warming, mostly because of
the carbon-based, "fossil" fuels we're burning in power plants
and vehicle engines. Good or bad, it took hundreds of years of industrial
revolution to make the world what it is today and we can't switch from
being energy-hungry to being clean-and-green overnight,
no matter how serious global warming may seem. That's why
many companies and some individuals are using carbon offsets
in an attempt to make a difference. Instead of stopping their
environmentally harmful behavior, they pay money toward environmental
schemes that seek to compensate for the damage elsewhere—for
example, by planting trees in developing countries or investing in
wind-power projects at home. Carbon offsetting sounds great, but it's
proved controversial for all kinds of reasons. Is it a good thing or
a bad thing? Does it really make any difference to global warming? Let's take a closer look!
Photo: Investing in solar power (and other forms of renewable energy) is a popular way to "offset" carbon dioxide emissions produced by conventional sources of energy. Photo by Warren Gretz courtesy of US Department of Energy/NREL.
What is carbon offsetting?
Carbon offsetting means compensating for the carbon-dioxide
pollution you're making (your carbon footprint) by preventing the
same amount of pollution from happening somewhere else. More precisely, one carbon
offset means compensating for emitting one tonne of carbon dioxide
(CO2) into the atmosphere by preventing a tonne of CO2 from entering
the atmosphere elsewhere on Earth (for example, by investing in renewable
energy) or by removing a tonne of CO2 that's already up there (by
supporting something like tree planting—since trees pull CO2 from
the air when they grow).
In theory, you could offset your carbon dioxide emissions (also
called greenhouse emissions or greenhouse-gas emissions)
by doing environmental good work yourself. For example, if you have
to fly around the world on business, you could plant some trees on
land you own, or you could offset more indirectly by making a
donation to campaigning work with an environmental organization. But
the whole point of carbon offsetting is to match exactly the "carbon
damage" done in one place with "carbon repair" elsewhere, so you
need to be sure you're getting a tonne of benefit for a tonne of harm. In practice,
we outsource the repair part of the equation: carbon offsetting means making a payment to another company who will finance beneficial
environmental work on your behalf.
Most environmental damage is done by governments and corporations,
albeit on behalf of individuals; most carbon offsetting is done by
governments and corporations too. Worldwide, companies spend many
times as much on carbon offsets as individuals. Under the Kyoto
Protocol (the main global piece of legislation charged with tackling
climate change), governments are allowed to help one another to
reduce their collective emissions through something called the Clean
Development Mechanism (CDM). The basic idea is that industrialized
nations pay developing nations (or help them in other ways) to make
an overall reduction in global emissions on their behalf.
What sorts of things does carbon offsetting pay for? There are literally dozens of different ways of reducing carbon
dioxide emissions, from investing in energy efficiency and
renewable energy to planting forests. Renewable energy projects are the most
popular; forestry projects the most controversial.
What are the advantages of carbon offsetting?
In theory, carbon offsetting can make a difference in helping the
world to tackle global warming, as long as the offsets are funding
genuinely beneficial, long-lasting environmental projects that would
not have happened anyway. Good offsets really can be a win-win. For
example, if you offset by investing in a wind-energy project that
would not otherwise have been financially viable, you're adding to the
overall supply of renewable energy, reducing the amount of fossil
fuels consumed in future, and helping to shift the world (albeit in a
tiny way) onto a greener path.
Not all offsetting projects take place in developing countries,
but those that do often bring what are called "cobenefits." If
your offsetting payment helps to plant trees in a strictly protected
wildlife reserve in Africa, it will be creating new habitat for
animals and helping to arrest declining biodiversity. It might
provide employment to local people and it could bring in extra
revenue from tourism that will help to lift people out of poverty. Some
offsetting projects help people in developing countries by supplying
"intermediate technology"—things like low-tech solar-powered
cookers. These reduce the need for women and children to spend hours
collecting wood-fuel (which means children can spend more time in
school) and bring health benefits too
(indoor air pollution from woodfuel is a major cause of respiratory illness and an estimated 1.6 million deaths per year).
What are the drawbacks of carbon offsetting?
The main criticism levelled at carbon offsetting is that it avoids
dealing with the real problem: the damage you're causing in the first
place. Scientists who chart the problem of global warming tell us the
solution lies in making deep cuts in rising greenhouse-gas emissions; paying
up instead isn't solving the problem. It's like accepting you're
doing wrong by driving too fast and repeatedly paying your ticket for
speeding instead of changing your behavior and driving more slowly.
As English environmental journalist George Monbiot puts it: "You
buy yourself a clean conscience by paying someone else to undo the
harm you are causing."
Another problem is that the benefits of carbon offsetting may be hard to quantify: if you pay to plant trees,
exactly how much carbon dioxide will they remove from the atmosphere
during their lifetime? Enough to justify your long-haul flights?
You have no way of knowing. If the projects you're
funding would have happened anyway, without your help, you've
provided no additional benefit to the planet—you've done the damage,
without question, but your "offset" hasn't made up for it. Other
problems with offsets include the fact that they're often voluntary
(at least, for individuals) so they don't change collective behavior
in the way that carbon taxes (taxes on polluting behavior) often can.
Some offsetting projects have come in for much more criticism than
others. Tree-planting (reforestation) projects, for example, are notoriously
controversial. Trees take decades to grow, so it''ll be a long time
in the future before they make any impact on the problems we are
causing today—by which time it may be too late.
And what impact will they make? While planting
trees is generally a very good thing, the benefits are impossible to
quantify (as carbon offsetting literally requires) and not
necessarily permanent. There's no guarantee that trees grown as
offsets won't be felled later, accidentally destroyed in a forest
fire (releasing the carbon dioxide back into the atmosphere), or
killed through poor management. In terms of biodiversity,
monoculture, plantation trees are no substitute for old-growth,
ancient forests, so it would wrong to assume you could offset
activities like burning down a tropical forest for cattle ranching by
planting vast numbers of new saplings. Plantations like this may
displace local people or harm the environment in other ways, for
example, by causing rivers to dry up. Ultimately, it doesn't matter
how many trees we plant: we could never plant enough to arrest the
damage we're doing by using fossil fuels—so that must change too.
Photo: Forestry is a particularly controversial way of offsetting: today's carbon-offset reforestation project could be tomorrow's carbon-dioxide emissions. Photo courtesy of US Fish and Wildlife
Service.
Are carbon offsets good or bad?
Some consider offsetting an unwelcome distraction from the real
business of cutting emissions and charge companies who boast about
offsetting with "dodgy accounting" and "greenwash."
Individuals who gleefully offset are accused of denial and
self-deception. George Monbiot, a noted critic of offsetting, pithily
comments that "Buying and selling carbon offsets is like pushing
the food around on your plate to create the impression that you have
eaten it."
Environmental groups generally agree that the most important thing
is for people to reduce emissions first and only then consider
offsetting emissions they cannot reduce as a very last resort.
So you should try to reduce the number of flights you take (or take
trains inside of planes and buses instead of cars if you can). If you
absolutely have to fly from one place to another and have no choice
about doing so, offsetting your flight might then be appropriate. But
you should offset only through an approved offsetting scheme
that meets what's called the CDM Gold Standard. These are the most
rigorously certified offsets and the ones most likely to make a
difference to the planet.
Another option would be to "offset" by making changes in other
aspects of your life. For example, suppose you had to take a
long-haul flight to attend a wedding on the opposite side of the
world but felt guilty about the harm your flight would do. You could
"offset" by upgrading your gas boiler at home to a
much more efficient model, by telecommuting two days a week instead
of driving to work, by improving the energy-efficiency of your home
with fluorescent lamps or
better heat insulation, or by
investing in solar panels or a micro-wind turbine.
You can be sure such things make a genuine, long-term difference.
But keep this one point in mind: reducing the damage we're all doing right now, in the
present, is the only real way to tackle climate change.
Further reading
Look at a selection of these articles and stories to get a proper, balanced view of the debate about carbon offsets.
Introductions and commentary
- Neutral/pro: What is a carbon offset?: A fairly balanced introduction to the pros and cons of offsetting from the David Suzuki Foundation. Generally in favor of offsets provided they meet the gold-standard.
- Neutral/pro: In defence of carbon offsets: by Marc Gunther. A balanced argument that acknowledges the problems with carbon offsets but suggests, with care, offsets might lead to greater environmental change.
- Anti: Selling indulgences: "The trade in carbon offsets is an excuse for business as usual". By George Monbiot. Published in the Guardian 18th October 2006. Opposed to offsets as a distraction from the more fundamental changes in behavior society needs to make.
- Pro: How do carbon offsets work?: You'll find lots of material in support of carbon offsets on the Climate Care website, along with examples of the projects that offsets help to fund.
News stories
Government guidance
- Carbon offsetting: Guidance from the UK government and details of its quality assurance scheme for approved carbon offsetting schemes.
- Carbon Offset Guide Australia: Developed through a partnership between EPA Victoria and Global Sustainability at RMIT.
