AN OFFSETTING DILEMMA

Despite a trend of renewables replacing fossil fuels in energy generation, much of our global economy remains linked to carbon and this won’t change overnight – or even over years. In the UK, it is therefore widely accepted that the only way to meet the country’s commitment to achieving a ‘net zero’ economy by 2050 is to offset emitted carbon dioxide.

The UK’s Committee on Climate Change calculates that there will be around 130 million tonnes of carbon dioxide-equivalent (MtCO2e) a year of residual emissions that will have to be removed via carbon offsets – a practice that is also encouraged by Article 6 of the Paris Climate Change Agreement. Afforestation (planting new forests) and reforestation are the most straightforward and popular carbon offsets available. However, the carbon capture potential of planted trees takes many years to kick in. With offsetting key to achieving fast-approaching net zero deadlines, the question that climate scientists and policy makers are asking is: how do we forge carbon offset protocols with true bite?

Some are turning back to nature for the answers. The Nature Conservancy believes that natural climate solutions can be incorporated into carbon pricing and offset schemes. Soil-based strategies for example can mitigate carbon across a wide variety of landscapes. ‘Blue carbon’ initiatives, where carbon is sequestered in coastal wetlands, can absorb CO2 while sheltering land from hurricanes. But who should take responsibility for funding these initiatives? Does the onus lie with the heavy-emitters or do individuals also have a responsibility? Or, as some believe, are offsets really just a diversion from more important measures, that have permanent and radical results.

Next month, Mark Rowe examines current carbon offsetting approaches, and explores other options to keeping up a balancing act.