Consumer group throws spotlight on offsetting quality gulf

Despite the widespread adoption of voluntary standards, there remain huge variations in the effectiveness of the carbon offsets sold by different firms, according to a recent investigation of 17 of the UK's leading offset providers by consumer advice publication Which?.

The report found that considerable variations remain in the way offset providers calculate offset costs, distribute administration fees and deliver information on where money spent on offsets ends up.

The government has introduced a new quality assurance scheme for carbon offsets, but while its standard has been in place for a number of months only four of the offsetting providers surveyed – Pure, Clear, Carbon Passport and Carbon Footprint – had gained the accreditation.

Much of the rest of the industry has criticised the government standard, which is based on the offset criteria that underpin the UN-backed Clean Development Mechanism (CDM), arguing that compliance is too costly and tends to exclude smaller development projects.

They have sought to address concerns about the credibility of offsets through a range of voluntary standards and the formation last year of ICROA – the industry's first trade body.

However, the Which? investigation concluded that despite adherence to these various voluntary standards, there remained considerable variation in the way firms are issuing and managing carbon offsets. It also argued that greater transparency of accounts and processes is vital if customers are to retain confidence in their offsetting providers.

"If you decide to offset your carbon emissions, we think it is essential to choose a company that offers verifiable projects, a clear audit trail and details of where your money goes," the report said.

Of the 17 companies covered by the investigation, Climate Care, Blue Ventures Carbon Offset, Pure and the World Land Trust were highlighted as providing the most relevant and easily accessible information.

At the other end of the scale, Flying Forest and the Offset Carbon Company were criticised for providing the least information about their financial model and the projects they support.

The report also revealed that the cost of offsetting one tonne of carbon varied from £7 to £22, while each company's website also used different methodologies to calculate how much carbon a person uses.

The report said the high level of variation could undermine consumer confidence in the effectiveness of carbon offsetting. It recommends using the government's carbon calculator to assess your carbon footprint and then offsetting accordingly with one of the more transparent firms.

The study comes just weeks after a report from Friends of the Earth heavily criticised carbon offsetting, arguing that it represents a "dangerous distraction" that dilutes efforts to curb carbon emissions within the UK.