Offsetting carbon emissions: a viable solution or ignoring the inevitable?
Tony Blair's comments on air travel this week and his reluctance to give up long-haul flights has once again raised the issue of offsetting. Attacked for his suggestion that we should rely on science to curb carbon emissions as opposed to cutting back on air travel, Blair was quick to point out that the carbon emitted in his holiday flight, along with his other business travel, is offset by investment in green projects.
By the year 2050, the government is aiming for a 60% cut in carbon dioxide emissions. Currently, the amount of carbon produced by the aviation industry accounts for 5.5% of the UK’s total emissions. By the year 2050, estimates suggest that this figure will be closer to 25%.
The government is one of the biggest offenders when it comes to air travel. Research commissioned by the Liberal Democrats found that flights used by Tony Blair and members of his cabinet emitted almost 1,000 tonnes of carbon in the last financial year. The government is quick to point out that it has been offsetting carbon emissions from its flights for some time, but is it really enough? And are our own efforts to offset personal emissions tackling the problem or simply leaving it for later generations to deal with?
What is offsetting?
Offsetting is a process of neutralizing your carbon dioxide emissions by making up for it somewhere else. A popular example is paying a firm to plant a tree on your behalf to account for the carbon dioxide (CO2) you have emitted on a flight. In theory, over its lifetime, the tree will absorb the CO2 which you have produced, making your flight a sustainable form of transport and ensuring your carbon footprint on the planet is reduced.
Other ways of balancing your carbon footprint are also available. Some companies purchase large numbers of carbon dioxide credits from organisations like the UN who run climate exchange programme schemes. By purchasing the credits from these companies and not using them yourself, you are thereby preventing anyone else from using them.
Another option is to invest in renewable energy projects like windfarms or wave or solar generated power plants. These forms of energy do not produce any carbon dioxide. Alternatively, you can reduce carbon emissions elsewhere in the world by contributing technologies such as energy-saving light bulbs to developing countries.
What’s wrong with offsetting?
There are a number of factors that make offsetting less than ideal at combatting your carbon footprint. Let’s take a look at offsetting your flight to the Far East by planting a tree. The tree may not grow, it could succumb to a disease or it could be cut down after only a few years. There is also no way of knowing whether that tree will absorb the same amount of carbon you have personally emitted.
Another problem that exists is that offsetting firms are largely in their infancy and there is no recognisable official body to police their efforts. No standards are currently in place to ensure that these companies are actually delivering on what you have paid them to do.
Finally, and most importantly, the main problem with offsetting is that it does nothing to change people’s attitudes to the environment. If you believe that it’s OK to take that flight because you’re paying out a small sum to an offsetting firm, then your guilt is assuaged and your behaviour is unlikely to change at all.
So what’s the solution?
I would hate to think that anyone reading this felt I was attacking offsetting just because I can. Offsetting is a viable short-term practice and it is something I have engaged in myself. The trouble is that it really is the next best thing.
The only way to tackle the looming issue of climate change is to achieve a complete sea-change in our attitudes towards the environment. This means adjusting our behaviour and outlook accordingly, something which cannot be done over night.
To achieve this, the ball lies firmly in the court of the largest polluters. Industry, government and big companies should be leading the way. It is true that the price of air fares could be inflated to discourage so much travelling. But then again, business travel for any large company is tax deductible. And consider the ever increasing prices paid by motorists for petrol. Has it led to fewer cars on the road?
An easy step for businesses to take is to reduce the number of short business flights taken by its employees. If the journey is absolutely necessary, explore other travel options. A journey on the Eurostar is a much more sustainable form of travel than a flight to Paris.
Technologies are also widely available that allow work colleagues and clients on different continents to conduct live meetings over the internet. As I started writing this article, most of the people sitting around me were feverishly attempting to dial into a live meeting which involved a trainer in another part of the country teaching over twenty people to use a new piece of software. Admittedly the initial scramble to enter the meeting wasn’t pretty, but after five minutes everyone seemed to have settled down and engaged with the training. To have arranged for each person involved to be in the same room in the same part of the country would have resulted in a sizeable CO2 emission.
And then of course there is the individual effort. I, like everyone else, would resent having to give up my holiday this year. But I can also appreciate that the actions I’m taking now may mean that the once-in-a-lifetime sights I am able to enjoy may not be available to future generations. So I’m trying my hardest to change my behaviour. I’m taking a close look at what I do on a daily basis, from the way I travel to the way I dress. I’m still going on holiday this year, and I’m probably going to offset the flight. But before I go, I’m going to make sure I’ve earned it.
Matt Bradfield, MSN News Editor
Also on MSN
Message board: have your say in the offsetting debate
Calculate your personal carbon emissions here
Tips on reducing your carbon footprint
Are you suffering from green fatigue?