Guest Post: The Low Down on Carbon Offsets

• Additionality – Sometimes people sell “offset credits” for things that would have happened anyway (for example, a project that already has funding, or a modification to industrial practice that is or will be required by law). For offsetting to be “real”, a project should be something additional to what is already underway.
• Multiple benefit – Ideally, an offset project should have benefits that go beyond just carbon neutrality, particularly with respect to projects taking place in the so-called “less developed countries”. For example, projects that create significant employment, reduce local air pollution, protect biodiversity, or allow increased quality of life in low-income communities are better than those that don’t.
• Effectiveness – Some things have more hope of producing actual and lasting emissions reductions than others. For example, the part of a new solar panel that you have paid for will result in “carbon savings” equivalent to your “carbon expenditure” over its lifetime (if the offset was calculated correctly and as long as it doesn’t break or have a tree grow to shade it). All projects include an element of uncertainty, but with some projects it’s more of a crapshoot in terms of whether the carbon saved will be equivalent to the carbon spent. For example, tree planting is generally considered a pretty poor offset mechanism, because the carbon that is taken up by the tree will eventually be released when the tree dies or is cut down (and in some places this may happen sooner rather than later, especially where there is a lot of pressure on forest resources). This isn’t to say that reforestation isn’t a hugely important thing – it is – but it’s not really addressing the emissions issue, or the underlying issues driving deforestation in the first place. In some cases, there might be a sweet project that involves planting trees while meeting other objectives as well – such as a reforestation or forest project that works with local communities to develop sustainable livelihoods based on forest resources like “wild” foods and medicinal plants – so it really depends on the project. In general, though, buying into things like renewable energy has a greater potential for actually reducing carbon emissions in line with what you have generated.

1. Think about what you can do to eliminate your emmissions. Can you teleconference instead of meeting in person? (the technology for this has improved significantly in the last few years, with the rise of podcasting, “webinars” and the like). Can get just as much enjoyment out of a holiday at a resort in your region or a “staycation”?
2. Choose the least polluting mode of transport available. Right now, this may be limited to choosing the the bus or train over driving and flying where possible, but eventually dirigibles (airships; non-exploding ones of course!) and efficient ocean-going vessels may make their return (NB – a contemporary cruise ship is a surprisingly polluting form of transport). Also, be sure that other elements of your travels are as sustainable as possible. For example, choose environmentally responsible hotels/campgrounds and tour operators.
3. DIY. Most people and organizations use energy in a variety of ways, and so money that would be spent on purchasing offsets could be used to directly reduce energy use by the individual or organization. For example, “offset money” could be saved up (or used to pay off a loan) to buy a more efficient vehicle, a solar panel, a high-efficiency furnace, geothermal heating system, energy efficient lightbulbs, or whatever. This would require some calculation on the part of the individual/organization to determine what emissions are being generated by the travel and what would be required to compensate for those emissions (there are emissions calculators on the web that might make this easier). It also might be more costly to take this approach (depends a bit on what project is proposed). On the other hand, any benefits (for example, reduced fuel costs) would go directly to the individual/organization.
4. Lobby instead. Rather than paying for offsets, you could commit to writing a letter (or a bunch of letters) to your political representatives to encourage them to act on climate change every time you travel. Of course, you won’t be able to see the same direct impact from this, but in the long run government intervention is essential to any meaningful reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, and the more governments are told that this is what their constituents want, the better! If this isn’t feasible, money could be donated directly to an organization doing this lobbying work. I personally don’t think this is quite as effective as the hands-on approach, but it could be used as a last resort or in addition to a letter-writing activity.
5. Directly support local projects. If there are projects you know about in your local community (or that you know of in the wider world through your contacts) that are working effectively to reduce emissions, why not support them directly instead of buying an offset through a middleman?
6. Offset responsibly. When all else fails, use a reputable offsetting company (e.g., one that is Gold Standard).

Sarah Wakefield
Department of Geography
University of Toronto