Carbon Offsetting - Is it a Con?
You know the answer already don't you? Yes, of course carbon offsetting is a con as it stands at the moment. But does it have to be?Practically no one is arguing with the need to reduce carbon emissions across the globe. Even companies that promote carbon offsetting are quick to point out that reducing carbon emissions has to be the first step, but, they argue, since we all have to use some energy, off setting as much of that energy as we can is still worth doing.
The idea behind offsetting is controversial. Each person in the UK is responsible for over 5 tonnes of CO2 emissions each year. Individuals and businesses can invest in carbon offsetting schemes that will reduce emissions elsewhere, thus cancelling out the emissions for which they are personally or corporately responsible.
This sounds good on paper, but unfortunately you can drive a horse and cart through most carbon offsetting projects.
Problems with Carbon Offsetting
1. Measuring the amount of emissions caused or saved by any particular activity is notoriously difficult. Tree planting - probably the most widely used method of carbon offsetting has received a huge amount of criticism. Many scientists believe that trees planted in cold or moderate climates actually increase, rather than decrease global warming. Others point out that, whilst trees do indeed ‘hold' CO2 during their growth and life time this is released back into the atmosphere if it is later burnt for fuel. Peat areas of Indonesia which have been dug up for planting have released more CO2 into the atmosphere than will be used by the trees themselves. And so on.
2. It is impossible to say which projects are truly new and which ones would have gone ahead anyway. One carbon offsetting company is providing energy efficient light bulbs to areas of Kenya, yet a number of charities and environmental groups have been pushing for this anyway.
3. You need a degree in environmental economics to even begin to understand whether a scheme is genuine or not. Another offsetting company provides treadle pumps to developing countries. It argues that these pumps, powered by humans, save 0.65 tonnes of CO2 per year compared to diesel powered pumps. Sounds great but other environmentalists point out that treadle pumps are used for shallow water pumping and cannot be used for pumping deep water wells. Whilst they are therefore useful in providing extra sources of water, they are not, in fact, replacing diesel pumps.
I could go on. Almost every carbon offsetting scheme you can find can be picked to pieces by an environmentalist, scientist or charity worker.
The whole concept that you can pay someone else to make up for damage you cause is dubious in itself. Environmental writer and campaigner George Monbiot and others have compared carbon offsetting with the medieval practice of buying indulgences to pay for the forgiveness of sins.
But does it have to be like this? Are we in danger of throwing out the baby with the bath water if we reject carbon offsetting completely? Let's look at the arguments against and consider how things could be in a perfect world.
Carbon Offsetting to Help the Environment
Firstly, it's difficult, if not impossible, to be sure that any one scheme is truly benefiting the environment. The UK has introduced a Code of Best Practice but this, as ever, is voluntary. Surely, with a bit of investment, independent groups could be set up to scrutinise any scheme? If schemes were awarded a certificate showing that they had met rigorous standards we could have a bit more faith in them.
Secondly, the argument that these schemes should be happening anyway just doesn't wash. Most of these schemes aren't happening. Maybe we should all be donating to environmental projects but we don't. If flying to the US results in me donating money to an approved project isn't that better than me just flying to the US?
The third oft-heard argument is that by encouraging offsetting, we are not encouraging people to reduce their emissions, and may even be encouraging them to continue living high emission life styles. Isn't that a bit cynical? Someone who uses an off setting carbon scheme cares about the environment, don't they? Those people may well be working hard to reduce their carbon emissions anyway. Carbon offsetting might just be one more thing they are trying to do.
Conclusion on Carbon Offsetting
In a perfect world, we would all reduce our emissions as much as possible, and donate large amounts of money to projects abroad which encourage sustainable growth and renewable power in developing countries. But we don't. Carbon offsetting may be a sticking plaster rather than a miraculous cure, but if it can help stanch the bleeding while we heal the planet perhaps it is part of the solution.
So - is carbon offsetting a con? I repeat what I said at the beginning. Yes it is, as it stands, but there could be some genuine benefits if the right steps were taken.
Please feel free to leave a comment about this page
Was this page useful? Do you have something to add? Do you disagree?
If your comments meet our
guidelines then we will publish them (you do not need to register!)
Or why not tell a friend and email
this
page to someone