Carbon offsets: should you buy absolution? December 19, 2007
Posted by Ralph Pina in : Climate Change, ecotourism , trackback
Some critics liken carbon offsetting - paying for emission reductions elsewhere instead of reducing one’s own carbon emissions - to “buying pardons from the Catholic church in 16th century Europe” [1]. Absolution. Guilt-free flying.
And yes, there are various, related ethical issues that you must resolve for yourself. If you’re not sure what I am writing about, take a look at CheatNeutral for amusing satirical commentary on the practice of offsetting your “sins”. However, if you are thinking that I am simply about to dismiss carbon offsetting as an immoral or impractical practice, please read on.
At ecoAfrica we have been considering some of these ethical dilemmas for a while. Last year, former colleague, Lara, asked whether carbon offsetting was “as simple as that“? Recently I wrote two posts about ecotourism and flying (here and here) on a personal journey to resolve my dilemma around encouraging long-haul flying through promoting ecotourism to Africa, in effect weighing up the contribution to anthropogenic climate change by growth in air travel, against the dependence of African wildlife and wilderness survival on continued ecotourism. A lively and quality discussion thread ensued.
Besides whether carbon offsetting itself is ethically defensible, the means of carbon offsetting supported by some schemes can be questioned on a similar basis. Charges of “eco-enslavement” have been levelled at some schemes where the citizens of poor countries are asked to forego modern, industrial agricultural practices and development so that we, the rich - to put it starkly - can continue jetting around the globe with a clear conscience. Similarly, projects that encourage tree-planting in Tanzania and Uganda, in effect “claiming” tracts of these countries’ land to offset developed countries’ emissions, can be characterised as a form of “neo-colonialism”[2].
Perhaps you are wondering by now whether there is indeed a way to travel responsibly?
To my mind one has to educate oneself about climate change, greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, energy issues and carbon offsetting in order to make informed choices and that is what I have set out to do for myself. Luckily there are outstanding resources on the internet, although one has to sift the nonsense from the science, uninformed denialism from critical analysis, “greenwash” from authenticity. A recommended resource is the Tufts Climate Initiative (TCI) which clearly and cogently explains “voluntary carbon offsets”, but more usefully, has evaluated various carbon offset schemes, their carbon calculators and the offset projects in which they invest. TCI then recommends the best schemes to make use of.
The type of project that a scheme invests in is the key criterion for differentiating between schemes. In general, three types of projects are supported:
- Energy Efficiency projects reduce the amount of energy required to perform the same task. Examples include replacing bulbs with low-energy light bulbs, more efficient refrigerators and stoves, more efficient motor vehicles, energy-efficient buildings, “green” IT, etc.
- Renewable Energy projects move energy generation away from its fossil fuel or nuclear bases. These include investments in solar (photo-voltaic and thermal), wind, wave and biomass energy projects and are the most effective offset projects.
- Carbon Sequestration projects are the most controversial offsetting projects. The most common projects involve planting trees and this probably stems from the fact that only the carbon storage of newly planted or replanted forests is eligible under the Kyoto Protocol for credits that can be traded for offsets[3]. However, when fossil carbon is released by burning fossil fuels it becomes “free carbon” and there is a lot of scientific uncertainty about the net absorption of free carbon by forests over time[2]. Consequently, TCI warns against schemes that rely on (re)planted forests.
However, last week’s UN Climate Change Conference in Bali undertook to consider “avoided deforestation” as a legitimate offset strategy, which could mean that projects that create incentives for (mainly developing) countries to conserve their forests could become features of offset schemes. It bears serious consideration as 20% of human-induced GHG emissions come from deforestation and forest degradation. If one considers that air travel currently accounts for less than 2% of global GHG emissions (but with strong growth), then my ecotourism-and-flying dilemma glimpses a resolution. More about this below.
So - should you buy carbon offsets?
I would say “yes”, but be informed. Offsets have various benefits:
They [1]
- are effective education and awareness tools
- can be effective tools to lower carbon emissions and at the same time alleviate poverty by spurring development in poor countries
- encourage environmental restoration
- and infrastructure development
- help provide energy services to the poor
- combine the Millennium Development Goals of poverty reduction with climate protection
- stimulate the development of alternative/renewable energy technologies.
Besides buying offsets, you have a continuum of travel options for reducing your carbon footprint to different degrees:
- don’t travel
- only travel locally
- don’t fly; consider travelling by ship and/or by train
- fly economy class
- choose an airline that flies as directly to your destination as possible rather than detours through international hubs
- buy offsets, but choose the right scheme with an accurate carbon calculator and that invests in effective projects
- choose travel packages and activities that are not carbon intensive, once at your destination e.g. don’t do luxury; walk, cycle or paddle; choose packages and lodges based on ecotourism criteria; immerse yourself in a place rather than trying to cover as much ground as possible.
- ensure that your tourist dollar helps prevent deforestation and conserves biodiversity (this is what ecoAfrica must be able to do for you).
The last bullet points to a possible resolution of my ecotourism-and-flying dilemma. As deforestation accounts for 20% and flying accounts for 2% of all anthropogenic GHG emissions, if ecotourism significantly helps ensure that woodland, forests and biodiversity are conserved - as it should by definition - then it is preferable to travel to long-haul, ecotourism destinations in the poor South, than not travel at all.
Conservation International has identified 5 global “wilderness areas”, two of which are in Africa, namely the Congo Basin rainforests and the miombo-mopane Woodlands and Savannah of southern Africa. Besides harbouring a great diversity of flora and fauna, it now seems apparent that their continued integrity is vital to climate protection. The latter area encompasses the vast, envisaged Kavango-Zambezi Transfrontier Park and other transfrontier parks and conservation areas that span the subcontinent from east to west.
References:
[1] Kollmuss, Anja. 2007. Carbon Offsets 101. World Watch. Jul/Aug, Vol. 20 Issue 4, p9-14.
[2] FERN. 2005. Carbon ‘offset’: no magic solution to ‘neutralise’ fossil fuel emissions. Briefing Note, June. Available online: http://www.sinkswatch.org/pubs/carbon%20offset.pdf
[3] Conservation International. 2007. Conserving forests will combat climate change and help developing nations. 10 Dec. Available online: http://www.conservation.org/FMG/Articles/Pages/12100701.aspx
Comments»
Great article! Now I don’t have to wade through all that eco-hogwash, where people are just trying to jump on the bandwagon and indirectly destroy the value and importance of creating a better world, anymore. Your article gives me all the answers I need.
[…] [2] Although there are ethical problems around buying carbon offsets to make your air travel carbon neutral, it does have value if the carbon offset scheme a) invests in renewable energy projects that would generate renewable energy equivalent to your proportion of the fossil-fuel energy used in your flights, and b) invests in projects that result in substantive reductions in emissions, because our emissions have already overshot what can be absorbed. See a previous post on carbon offsets. […]