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 |