Considerations of carbon offsetting

The well-known, but controversial strategy to limit greenhouse gas emissions is constantly under criticism

Carbon offsets have been a hot topic in the global campaign to address climate change.

Inviting governments, businesses and even individuals the ability to participate in scheme to offset their carbon emissions carbon offsets are now “one of the most well-known and controversial methods to cut greenhouse gas emissions” according to Vox.

Businesses ranging across the spectrum from Amazon from Amazon to Shell and nations including Norway and the UK as well as Norway are purchasing carbon offsets to “help in achieving the ‘net’ for their net-zero emission targets” The news site stated.

Holidaymakers are also taking to trade carbon credits as “a way to fly guilt-free” according to Reuters. However, some critics are asking whether offsetting actually is “a method to reduce emissions”. The following are some arguments for and against.

Pros: Funding projects

If “done correctly” carbon offsets can “inject enormous sums into the underfunded climate solutions” according to in the Financial Times. In a piece in the World Economic Forum, Bronson Griscom, the senior director of environmental solutions for natural climate in Conservation International, highlighted several “success stories” of projects that have seen benefits by offsets. Find out more at carbon.credit

They included a program that reduced the amount of reforestation within an region of the Peruvian Amazon by 75%, which resulted in an equivalent reduction in carbon emissions in the form of “taking nearly one million vehicles off the roads each year”.

It is also worth noting that the Costa Rican government also generates 30 million dollars annually for conservation of forests via carbon credits, which has allowed for the preservation of thousands of acres of forest.

Cons: ‘flawed’ estimations

Calculating carbon footprints and emissions carbon footprints is “a complicated and flawed procedure” According to The New York Times. “At the very least, it gives an estimate, typically presented in kgs equivalent to carbon dioxide.”

Even if these figures are true, offsets represent “a super-misunderstood world that doesn’t have much supervision” According to Jamie Alexander, director of Drawdown Labs, a nonprofit which works with tech companies to develop climate solutions.

Greenpeace found that “the biggest issue offsets don’t lie in the fact that what they provide isn’t good the tree planting, efficient and renewable energy for low-income communities are excellent things, but they don’t live up to what they claim on the label.

“They do not actually cancel out – or compensate – for the emission them.”

Pros: technological developments

The criticism of carbon offset is not new, however companies are striving to tackle the issues of efficiency and transparency with the use of new technology. Patricia Wyllie of Founders Intelligence in her column for medium.com she said that these breakthroughs will make carbon offsetting “a effective tool for transitioning us” towards more sustainable systems.

Wyllie noted that some firms use GPS to monitor and track forest deforestation and tree plantation and deforestation, while others are trying to encourage local communities to assist with offset projects through providing stable income in addition to planning for forest reforestation via drones. Direct carbon capture (DCC) is an new technology that is gaining popularity.

Cons: Lack of regulation

There is “no need” for those who purchase carbon offsets to divulge “who is using offsets and the number” according to The Financial Times. It is “voluntary and not regulated, which is in contrast to those that are regulated, like the EU’s emissions trading scheme”.

A report issued by the Investment lender Credit Suisse earlier this year called the market for voluntary credit the “wild wild west” that has “poor transparency” and “low (if there is any) correlation between credit quality and price”.

Former Governor of the Bank of England Mark Carney has admitted that there is “lots and bad” going on within the system that “does real harm”.

Pros: One of the many solutions that are needed

Responding to the report released from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in April of this year Green Party MP Caroline Lucas stated that “there’s no one-size-fits-all solution to solving the climate crisis” However, there’s “an array of viable real and realistic solutions available to us” which include “reversing the loss of our planet’s carbon sinks”.

Carbon offsets could be one of the many options that are needed to fight climate change. Its effectiveness could be increased by additional investments in DCC as well as other measures to reduce carbon emissions.

Con: It’s not always the best way to add some thing

Independent investigative news website ProPublica stated that the only real measure of carbon offsetting’s effectiveness revolves around what is known as “additionality”. The claimed environmental benefits “are only true” in the event that offsets finance projects like windmills or solar farms which “would not have been built without credits”.

A study conducted by the European Commission into UN-sanctioned offset projects showed that more than three-quarters of the projects were likely to not have led to further reductions in emissions. This means that the majority of these plans would’ve already been constructed in the first place, regardless of offset funding.

According to the report “in the majority of cases, it is evident that carbon offset doesn’t perform in the real world” according to Friends of the Earth, but “it is evident that it depends on what projects are getting financially supported”.

Pros: climate concerns drive action

Despite the concerns about carbon offsets trade is increasing which has attracted massive amounts of interest and investment. “Many businesses are being pressured by their customers and shareholders to push the market to offset carbon emissions” According to The Wall Street Journal.

“There are some things that aren’t able to be eliminated entirely,” Columbia Business School Professor Bruce Usher told the newspaper: “And so your only solution , at the end the day is to make use of offsets”.

EcoChain.com said offsets “can be beneficial when used in a responsible manner” However, on an individual basis, one should ensure offset credit is “credible and permanent, as well as additional and confirmed by the market standards of the voluntary market”.

Cons: Lack of consistency

Another crucial aspect in the debate over offsets is whether the schemes that offer carbon removal are long-lasting. To reduce global warming greenhouse gas emissions, greenhouse gases need to be removed from the atmosphere effectively for the duration of time.

“Tree cultivation is well-known offset scheme, mostly because it’s much less costly than other options,” the environmental campaigners network said. “But it is true that trees can be destroyed by fire.” Some critics have been pointing to the last fires that destroyed forest projects along west coast of the US west coast, which resulted in offsets purchased by big companies like BP as well as Microsoft.

In contrast, taking preventive measures to reduce emissions will ensure the same carbon management. A report from 2015 from the Stockholm Environment Institute found that 75 percent of the credits granted weren’t likely to result in real reductions. It also found that if countries had reduced pollution at the source instead of using offsets, the global CO2 emissions would be 600 million tonnes less.