I was booking my airline tickets to attend a conference in Canberra, and this was the first time I came across an option ‘Fly Carbon Neutral’ where I could offset the carbon footprint of my air travel by purchasing carbon credits. Interesting! Till now I used to think carbon credits were only meant for big businesses. Since our conference had requested us to use sustainable means of travelling. I quickly purchased the ‘carbon credit’ thinking that it would make me look ‘environmentally conscious’.

This raises the question of whether carbon offsetting can be genuinely considered a component of conscious living, or if it is often utilized as a means to assuage guilt without effecting substantial environmental impact.

What is carbon offsetting?

Carbon offsets reduce or sequester greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions to compensate for emissions elsewhere, such as through afforestation. Putting it in simple terms, a carbon offset is a tangible way of taking action for the climate. For emissions that cannot be directly reduced, individuals or organizations can engage in tree-planting projects or similar initiatives to sequester an equivalent amount of carbon, thereby compensating for the emissions they produce.

A carbon offset credit is a certified instrument representing a one-tonne reduction of CO2 or equivalent GHGs, which can be purchased and retired to meet GHG targets. These credits enable the transfer of climate benefits between entities, with the global mixing of GHGs making the location of reductions irrelevant. This mechanism allows organizations to cost-effectively support emission-reducing activities elsewhere instead of directly reducing their own emissions.

An individual’s carbon footprint encompasses the quantity of greenhouse gases emitted both directly and indirectly as a result of their activities. This includes energy consumption, transportation, and the procurement of food products, which collectively contribute to greenhouse gas emissions through their production, packaging, transportation, and sale. While everyone inherently possesses a carbon footprint, there are numerous strategies to mitigate it through incremental changes in daily routines. Such modifications can yield ancillary benefits, including financial savings, improved health, and enhanced physical fitness. For instance, reducing energy consumption, consuming locally sourced fresh vegetables, or using bicycles for short errands are effective measures.

Despite efforts to minimize emissions, residual emissions—those that persist due to constraints in completely eliminating them—remain. To address these residual emissions, individuals can engage in carbon offsetting programs. These initiatives allow for the mitigation of one’s carbon footprint by investing in projects that reduce or sequester greenhouse gases, thereby contributing to overall emission reductions on a broader scale.

Limitations of carbon offsetting

Despite their rising popularity in the 20th century and claims by some proponents that carbon offsets could serve as a solution to climate change, it is crucial to critically examine their drawbacks.

Verification and Credibility 

One of the primary challenges with carbon offsets is ensuring that the projects are legitimate and deliver the promised emissions reductions. There are instances where projects are poorly monitored, leading to doubts about their actual impact.

Additionality 

For an offset project to be effective, it must result in emissions reductions that would not have occurred without the project. Determining additionality is complex and can be subjective, raising concerns about the authenticity of some offset projects.

Permanence

The effectiveness of carbon offset projects often depends on the long-term sequestration of carbon. For example, reforestation projects may take decades to achieve significant carbon storage, and the risk of future deforestation or environmental changes can compromise these efforts.

Moral Hazard

Relying on carbon offsets might lead individuals and organizations to believe they can continue high-emission activities guilt-free, as long as they purchase offsets. This can detract from the necessary systemic changes and direct reductions in emissions that are crucial for addressing climate change.

Equity and Social Issues

Some offset projects, particularly in developing countries, have been criticized for disregarding the rights and needs of local communities. Ensuring that projects are ethically and equitably managed is essential for their success and sustainability.

Carbon Offsetting Bungles: The Hidden Flaws in Climate Fixes

A recent report by the Guardian, co-published with SourceMaterial and Floodlight, has unveiled significant shortcomings in forest carbon offsets sold by Finite Carbon, the largest offsetting company in the United States. According to satellite analysis, these offsets offer minimal or no climate benefits. Finite Carbon, which was established in 2009 and acquired by BP in 2020, oversees more than a quarter of the U.S.’s carbon credits across 60 projects covering 1.6 million hectares. However, an evaluation conducted by Renoster and CarbonPlan revealed that nearly 79% of the credits from three major projects, valued at $334 million, were unjustified. Particularly in an Alaskan project, it was noted that the trees were unlikely to be cut down, thus undermining the legitimacy of the offsets. These findings highlight growing concerns about the carbon offsetting industry, which Barclays projects could be worth $1.5 trillion by 2050.

A new investigation by the Guardian, Die Zeit, and SourceMaterial reveals that forest carbon offsets approved by Verra, the world’s leading carbon standard, and used by major corporations like Disney, Shell, and Gucci, are largely ineffective. The research indicates that over 90% of Verra’s rainforest offset credits, a popular choice among companies, do not result in real carbon reductions and may even exacerbate global warming. This casts doubt on the validity of carbon-neutral claims made by companies using these offsets. The investigation, which involved analysing scientific studies, interviews, and on-the-ground reporting, challenges the reliability of offsets in corporate net zero strategies. Verra has strongly disputed these findings.

Viewpoint

Three prominent climate scientists share their perspectives on the contentious issue of carbon offsetting:

Johan Rockström, director of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, believes that carbon offsetting can be valuable if companies are also making significant emissions reductions. He stresses that offsets should not replace actual emission cuts but should be an additional effort. Rockström emphasizes the importance of maintaining existing forests, protecting oceans, and changing agricultural practices to stay within the 1.5C global heating limit.

Simon Lewis, professor of global change science at UCL, acknowledges the benefits of carbon offsetting, especially in funding forest protection. However, he highlights the need for strong regulation to ensure high-quality credits and prevent scams. Lewis suggests alternative funding mechanisms, such as levies on fossil fuels, and calls for a focus on underlying causes of deforestation, like agriculture.

Kevin Anderson, professor of energy and climate change at the University of Manchester, argues that offsets are harmful. He points out the “rebound” effect, where the perceived coverage of carbon-emitting activities by offsets reduces the incentive for real emission reductions, potentially encouraging more high-carbon activities. Anderson believes offsets are worse than doing nothing from a climate perspective.

Put simply, while there may be some limited instances where it is appropriate to use carbon offsets, they are no substitute for doing everything possible to reduce and eliminate emissions in the first place. Any deviation from these standards risks exacerbating the climate crisis.