Carbon offsetting is booming in Britain, with more than 60 different schemes on offer, yet prices for offsetting a journey can vary substantially and even the amount of carbon dioxide providers calculate a particular flight produces may differ.
There have been many calls for regulation but rather than do that, the Government has proposed a voluntary system of verification for carbon-offset providers – be they charities, trusts or companies.
Significantly, its proposals will limit official recognition only to those schemes that have come in for most criticism – those based on carbon credits issued under the Kyoto protocol, an international agreement ratified by most governments except the US and Australia.
In theory, carbon offsetting allows an individual or business responsible for CO2 emissions produced by flying, driving or heating a building to cancel the impact by paying for areduction in emissions elsewhere.
These reductions are quantified as carbon credits and traded on markets like any other commodity.
There are two types of market in carbon – one operates under the Kyoto protocol with credits certified by the United Nations. The other is voluntary and unregulated by government bodies.
Kyoto-certified credits, which the Government will recognise and recommend to consumers, emanate from large-scale industrial projects, mostly in China, Brazil and South Korea. Such schemes have been accused of being imposed on communities, displacing local people and making little real contribution to reducing emissions. For example, one in China involves capturing the methane produced by a vast rubbish dump on former farmland, much of the rubbish having been shipped from Europe.
It is estimated only 2% of funds in the Kyoto system go towards solar, wind and other renewable energy projects. About 60% of the certified emissions reductions are from projects involving chemical and manufacturing plants in China that fit scrubbers to reduce emissions of the greenhouse gas HFC.
These plants receive carbon credits that they sell to carbon-offset providers, adding to their profits. Critics have pointed out those running the plants could afford to fit the scrubbers anyway and should simply be made to do so.
Offsetters in the voluntary sector work on a much smaller scale, involved with schemes such as those to replace the open cooking fires of families in Mexico or India with fuel-efficient stoves, or to provide energy-efficient lighting.
A spokesman for Climate Care, a leading carbon-offset trust and one of up to 35 providers in the voluntary market, said: “Kyoto excludes small projects, but consumers seem to like eco-stoves.”
Many people assume offsetting involves planting trees, but only 5% of Climate Care’s offsets are tied up in forests. It concentrates on energy-efficiency and renewable-energy projects.
“Trees die and rot, and it’s better to stop carbon going into the atmosphere than trying to soak it up after it’s released.”
There is a strong case for recognising providers in the voluntary market. However, it is not clear how much offsetting actually helps to combat climate change.
Critics point out emissions reductions are hard to verify and difficult to predict, and there is little way of knowing whether a reduction might have been achieved anyway.
The most frequent criticism, as Climate Care recognises, is that carbon offsetting is “a kind of get-out-of-jail-free card” for the developed countries.
Environmentalist George Monbiot is not alone in comparing carbon offsetting to the sale of absolutions by the Catholic Church that allowed the wealthy to sin without fear of damnation. Business magazine The Economist has done the same.
But Climate Care disagrees. “Just as recycling should not be an excuse to use more packaging, the approach has to be to reduce emissions and offset the rest,” said the spokesman.
“We should not forget the benefits of tourism, and the travel industry is not going to stop trying to sell its products. The ideal would be for people to have a choice abouthow they use a personal carbonallowance.”
The one thing offset providers, Government and environmentalists agree on is that doing nothing is not an option.
The facts
- Offset projects may involve planting trees or distributing less-polluting stoves or energy-efficient lighting in developing countries.
- Two standards already exist for voluntary carbon-offset projects – one overseen by a UK non-governmental organisation called The Climate Group, the other based on the verification system set up under the Kyoto system and adapted to the voluntary carbon market.
- Carbon-offset trust Climate Care does not provide free stoves to families like those in Mexico who would otherwise cook on open fires. Instead, it helps fund demonstrations for local people and provides credit so they can buy stoves on hire purchase