We're all offsetters now.
Indeed we are. Carbon offsetting has been one of the biggest business stories of
the year and the trend has gone so mainstream that thousands of people can even
expect to get offset tokens in their stockings for Christmas. Experts are
predicting the global market for voluntary offsets will be worth $4bn by 2010.
$4bn, really?
According to the FT, and it's pretty plausible when you think about it.
Both consumers and corporations want to be green and paying for a project that
will either remove your emissions from the atmosphere or ensure that an
equivalent quantity of emissions are not released offers an easy way to bolster
green credentials. Everyone's at it, from Sky to HSBC to Dell to your
conscientious holiday maker or business traveller. The market is booming and
organisations such as Climate Care,
The Carbon Neutral Company,
Pure and
Carbonfund.org are fast becoming
household names.
Sounds great.
Yes, it would be if there was any confidence that offsetting actually
worked.
Erm, you mean it doesn't? I've just
paid 80 pence to
offset a flight to Paris.
You should have taken the train. There really isn't much agreement over whether
it works or not. Critics claim that there are many instances where you end up
investing in emission projects that would have gone ahead anyway so there is no
additional benefit. There are also concerns that some firms use calculations for
the emissions impact of flight that are inaccurate, that some unscrupulous
carbon project managers have sold the same unit of offset carbon twice over,
that projects may fail to deliver expected emission reductions, and that some
initiatives may even damage local communities.
But surely if you go with a reputable provider they make sure these
things don’t happen?
In theory, yes. All the decent providers go to great lengths to promote the
various protocols they adhere to when authorising investments and running carbon
offset projects and many of them do greatly limit the risk that the money is
being wasted. But unfortunately even some of the more reputable providers have
been caught out funding projects that appear pretty flawed.
So what's being done about these problems?
The government has actually moved surprisingly quickly on this one and has
developed a voluntary code of best practice for the industry so stringent that
only a handful of offset companies operating in the UK would currently comply.
It's only
at
the consultation stage and the final version is likely to be watered down a
bit, but the whole offset industry is in broad agreement that there is the need
for an independent standard that will hopefully be seen as gold label by
customers.
Great. Any offsets I buy in the future will have the government seal
of approval?
That, of course, would be good but I'm afraid it's unlikely to completely
guarantee you will successfully offset your carbon emissions. The standards the
government are using are based on the UN's Clean Development Mechanism, which
has also been
subject
to criticism for failing to properly police carbon reduction projects'
claims. What's more some scientist's think the whole concept offsetting is
inherently flawed.
How so?
They think that it distracts people from the serious task of reducing
carbon emissions. What's more they also reckon that no matter how many
safeguards you put in place there is no way of guaranteeing emissions
reductions. If you take tree planting as the most obvious example the
calculations are based on assumptions the trees live for 100 years, but unless
you have a crystal ball you can't guarantee that. There are also concerns
investing in offset projects could do
more
harm than good because the money saved through any energy efficiency
improvements simply gets re-invested elsewhere. This new investment, or
multiplier effect to give it its proper name, could inadvertently lead to an
increase in emissions.
Now I'm confused, should I offset or not?
Well it's up to you. Many people, including a recent
cross
party committee of MPs, argue it is a valid means of limiting carbon
emissions and can play a key role in tackling climate change. However, you do
need to be aware that there are major risks attached to any investment in
offsetting which can be limited, though not eradicated, by going with well
managed projects that are frequently audited. Also you need to accept that
offsetting can never be an effective substitute for reducing your emissions in
the first place. I'm afraid it is just not possible to really "neutralise" your
carbon emissions.
BusinessGreen takes a closer look at the government's controversial attempts to clean up the carbon offset market 21 Feb 2008
In the last of our series on green banking, Victoria Pennington asks how financial services firms can adapt to a climate-changed world 12 May 2008
Bank’s £45m global environmental programme targets seven per cent cut in power consumption 12 Jul 2007
Focus on energy savings through fuel efficiency for homes and public and commercial buildings 04 Jul 2008
ActionAid accuses G8 of driving more people into poverty by pursing biofuels and cutting agri-aid 04 Jul 2008
Businesses' new found focus on the environment may be welcome, but according to Conrad MacKerron, it is taking attention away from workers' rights issues – and the credibility of the entire green business movement could be at risk 03 Jul 2008
It may be a year old, but as Dell's Jonathan Perry explains, firms looking to get rid of their old IT kit still need to pay attention to the WEEE directive 02 Jul 2008
Telling customers about your environmental targets is all well and good but, as Paul Thomas argues, they are meaningless if you do not know how they are to be achieved 01 Jul 2008



