Projects may clear the conscience, but don’t do the same for the air
‘Offsets provide a convenient way for corporations to convince us that the way we live now won’t have to change’
In 2005, BP started a worldwide advertising campaign with the slogan “What on Earth is a carbon footprint?”
An accompanying website offered drivers concerned with their environmental impact an exhaust emissions calculator and allowed them to pay to offset it by funding sustainable projects ( just £20 for a year’s worth of driving, plus a free sticker for your car).
The multinational had recently rebranded as Beyond Petroleum and was keen to burnish its image as concerns over the environmental impact of oil began to prick public consciousness. Offsetting has boomed in the intervening years, providing a convenient way for corporations to allay consumers’ concerns over their environmental impact while continuing to grow.
The past year has seen companies fall over themselves with offsetting promises as environmental concern has reached record highs, helped by images of wildfires in Australia, floods in the UK and global school strikes for climate change.
The idea is simple: what CO2 you emit in your flight, car journey, energy bills, the world can get back somewhere else either in projects that suck up carbon, or funding alternatives to burning fossil fuels. But it’s never really worked. Studies of major offsetting schemes have shown that many of the projects, particularly those focused on supplying renewable energy, would have happened anyway, so they haven’t stopped any extra carbon dioxide emissions. Others are almost impossible to enforce; you can provide a family in Sudan with a fuel-efficient gas stove, but you can’t check that they are always using it.
Forestry projects, as the Telegraph found in Madagascar, are particularly difficult to track.
Getting the carbon capturing benefit of a tree isn’t as simple as planting it and walking away. You have to ensure that it will be protected for decades, which is almost impossible to guarantee, especially in remote locations.
None of that has stopped the growth of offsetting.
Speak to advocates of the industry and they will tell you two things: offsetting is a temporary measure until technology to reduce emissions comes along, and these schemes are better than nothing, even if they sometimes don’t deliver what is advertised.
But that’s not the way it’s sold to consumers, who are led to believe that offsetting can wipe their slate clean, no matter how much they emit.
Airlines are particularly keen on the schemes because they have no real options to reduce their emissions, other than to sell fewer flights.
Electric planes are still a distant dream. And the cheap availability of flights and “offsets” reduces any consumer-driven incentive to invest in greener fuel alternatives.
So this year they will bring in an offsetting scheme, known as Corsia (Carbon Offsetting and Reduction Scheme for International Aviation) that will allow them to ‘offset’ any extra emissions, and continue selling ever more flights.
Offsets provide a convenient way for corporations to convince us that the way we live now won’t have to change if we have any hope of limiting the impacts of climate change.
But consumers risk being fooled into thinking they are contributing to a greener future.