My long-haul flight offsetting dilemma
OPINION: Contemplating a trip to Europe, I found myself checking the carbon cost of the jaunt.
For our family of four, total carbon emissions were about 14 tonnes.
As carbon criminals go, I like to think of myself at the lower end of the scale, but this once a decade trip wipes out any credentials I might claim.
So, I thought, let’s do a carbon offset. Air New Zealand’s FlyNeutral calculator spat out a figure of just over $360.
Shivers, I thought, we really are sticking it to the environment. Then I read the small print, and I was a bit surprised.
‘‘The recommended
FlyNeutral price directs 25% of collected funds to carbon credits that offset all the carbon emissions associated with your flight,’’ they said.
‘‘The remaining 75% is directed to third party projects to be used exclusively for purposes that will accelerate positive climate or biodiversity outcomes in New Zealand.’’
So, it’s charging far more than it needs to offset carbon. Just 7% of its retail flyers are bothering to pay for offsetting. I had questions. Why isn’t it charging me $90? Would that 7% take-up rate jump to 14%, or 21%, or even 28%? Wouldn’t that result in better outcomes?
Look, I know that carbon offsets are not a solution. There isn’t enough planet to offset our way to carbon neutrality.
I also have a healthy scepticism that not all carbon offsets are really doing the job, though Air New Zealand source’s its FlyNeutral credits from a listed United States company, which seems legit.
I know buyers can be accused of paying to reduce their guilt, or to virtue signal, though most, I think, are just trying to be good people.
But I’m trapped. I can’t do a Greta Thunberg and sail to Europe every time I want to see family.
The only questions I have control over are how often I go, and whether I offset or not.
Back to Air NZ’s FlyNeutral. The airline says it used to source all its carbon credits from New Zealand, but rising prices for New Zealand carbon offsets rose so high, it started sourcing offsets from overseas projects involving things like clean energy, and reforestation.
A reforestation project in New Zealand, with high land and labour costs, is just a lot more expensive than one in a place like Africa.
However, the airline decided that even though it could get much cheaper prices for overseas carbon offsets, its Kiwi customers wanted action here, so it decided to keep on with local projects, hence the 75% of FlyNeutral going on local projects, which it does through the Trees That Count programme.
Overall, the offset cost of FlyNeutral did not change, an Air NZ spokesperson said.
‘‘We ... wanted to maintain a similar price to previously applied as uptake rates had been improving, and we were cognisant that making it more expensive could see numbers ticking the box drop off,’’ the spokesperson told me.
‘‘In the context of the true cost of carbon in NZ, the FlyNeutral portfolio price is cost effective.
For example, if we were to use only NZ carbon credits, the price per tonne of carbon would be closer to $100 per tonne as opposed to [about] $23.’’
I did a cross-check on the CarbonClick website, which sources its carbon credits from only New Zealand projects. The price quoted to offset my 14 tonnes was $562.47.
I called CarbonClick. It’s planning on following Air NZ to introduce overseas offsets into its programme to keep the price of offsetting affordable.
So, here are my choices: Ignore the invitation to offset, pay $90 for overseas offsetting credits, pay just over $360 for Air NZ’s mix of local and overseas, or pay $56.47.
As I conclude this column, I have not decided.