Subscribe« Family overseas? | Home | Emissions from China, India and developing nations »
Offsetting emissions
By admin | June 1, 2007
Pledging is a powerful personal commitment and a pledge not to fly raises lots of questions, one of the most commonly raised is whether ‘offsetting’ is a meaningful alternative to avoiding flying?
Q. Is it OK to fly if I offset emissions caused by each plane trip I take?
A. At a time when we know that we should be doing all that we possibly can to cut greenhouse gases, we should be simultaneously reducing our own energy use wherever possible, and contributing to projects which will help to cut greenhouse gases elsewhere. These are separate activities.
There are many practical problems with offsetting. The problems of calculating the damage you actually cause in taking a flight, and in calculating the good that is actually done through the offset scheme. Then there are problems with the offset schemes themselves: Offsetting through planting trees is particularly bogus (the trees take a long time to grow, and the wood eventually rots, releasing the carbon again).
But there are other objections: Do we know that the carbon-offset wouldn’t have been made anyway? There have been instances, for example, where a carbon-offset company has bought into projects to change inefficient light-bulbs for more efficient ones - a project which was up and running anyway. To suppose that we can ‘offset’ damage done through one choice, by buying into a beneficial project elsewhere, has been likened to the medieval practice of donating to the church to atone for your sins. For a detailed critique of carbon offsetting, have a look at this Carbon Trade Watch report.
These practical problems may be addressed in the fullness of time. But our real objection to offsetting is that it provides a route for us to buy off our consciences, imagining that our interest in helping to address the problem of global warming should be limited to simply attempting to undo the impact caused by our own particular activities. Most of us want to try to help relieve global poverty - even if we are not directly responsible for the poverty that concerns us. Why should we approach the challenge of climate change so differently? This way of thinking cannot contribute to the improved quality of life that we get from living more gently, with a greater awareness of our ability to help make the world a better place.
By all means, donate money to environmental projects which you are satisfied can genuinely contribute to reducing greenhouse-gas production in other parts of the world. But don’t see this as an ‘offset’, imagining that your only interest should be in trying to ‘cancel out’ the carbon you produced over the course of your flight.
Lots of environmental charities - perhaps particularly those that still fly their staff around the world too readily - have adopted the policy that, if you really can’t avoid flying, then fly and offset. We don’t agree. Our view is:
- If you really can’t avoid flying, then fly. But do so knowing about the costs of this to other people and living things.
- As a separate thing, if you can afford to contribute to schemes to reduce carbon elsewhere, and you are satisfied that this is the best way you can contribute to combatting global warming, then donate to them.
Topics: FAQ Pledging Not to Fly, Offsetting Air Travel Emissions |
October 12th, 2007 at 11:52 am
For a superb commentary on the practice of carbon offsetting have a look at http://www.cheatneutral.com
October 12th, 2007 at 4:41 pm
Thank you for a thoughtful and intelligent piece. I run a company that offsets its total emissions (we don’t fly anywhere)… but we make no pretence that we think that this is anything more than a tax every business ought to pay to fund our natural environment and is in addition to an aggressive programme of minimising emissions and reducing consumption. The thing is that because we know we are going to pay this tax it does encoiurage us to be more efficient with our energy and apaper usage. I think that taxing emmissions - and heavily - is the only way to really change individual and corporate behaviour.
October 14th, 2007 at 2:21 pm
Check out “The Carbon-neutral Myth”:
http://www.resurgence.org/2007/kill240.htm
“For its practical effect, telling people to plant trees to reduce global warming is like telling them to drink more water to keep rising sea levels down.”
–Oliver Rackham, Cambridge University landscape historian
The benefits of travel (for the traveller) are undoubted. That these benefits are worth the enormous true cost (almost entirely borne by less privileged others) is very much in doubt.
http://www.bella.dircon.co.uk/hypermobility.html
“…the most striking and immediate effect of the spread of European settlement beyond the boundaries of Europe itself was its lethal impact on indigenous peoples and societies.” — Clive Ponting (A Green History of the World)
October 20th, 2007 at 1:18 pm
i run a charity called the c-change trust which offers companies a carbon reduction consultation service … we use the notion of measuring and offsetting a carbon footprint to raise money for our projects -
We don’t use or agree with the term carbon neutral which will be reflected on our new website launched in Nov 2007 at http://www.thec-changetrust.org
i think offsetting is not fine if its packaged like any kind of solution in it’s own right - it should only be used to aid transition to lo or no carbon technology - and i hope more activists get into that idea of using carbon footprint measuring for companies as a tool of engagement …
telling the companies is as important as exposing the crapness of the commercial carbon traders -which i do agree is a con rip off …. alot of the time companies don’t know the first thing about what i’m talking about…
i find business in general is still quite ignorant of the world outside its own business model … concepts such as eco villages and sustainability are unheard of … so the point is there is alot of communication to be done to get things changed - i think we have to try all ways - block the terminals to raise the point but then follow it up with engagement and give the urge for action that we raise somewhere for it to go in people…
- i do not agree with the excuse and salve of the conscience element that offsetting gives or the fact that the only reason many businesses will entertain anything environmental at all is because they think it will be good for their own sales - that is a sick fact of capitalism unfortunately and can’t be helped until we’ve created a more localised, supportive co-operative society.
- i think we have to try and transform the evils of capatalism wherever and whenever possible but to avoid the pitfalls of alienating too many people because at the end of the day we’re all trying to do our bit and everyone has to work these days - so keep the vision real and lets get everyone to our utopia cos its a good idea and not just cos we just harangued them into submission on our way to victory
November 20th, 2008 at 6:10 pm
When you carbon offset you are subsidising the carbon that you give off in many years time. This is due to the fact that no offseting sceme is going to make a serious difference imeadiatly. For example emitions from a flight are theoretically going to have already taken effect (caused damage) by the time trees are grown to a stage where they will take the same emitions out of the air. They best way to live now is to be “carbon conscious”
This is explained much better than i just did by Scotish charity Trees for Life on the link below;
http://www.treesforlife.org.uk/tfl.global_warming.html