Carbon Emission Offsets: Lack of True Projects
Offsetting carbon emissions by a business or a country means they are compensating for the carbon emissions they produce by funding schemes or projects anywhere in the world that would reduce carbon. This is known as buying “carbon credits”.
An entity funds a project or buys carbon credits equivalent to the amount of carbon emitted by it. The idea behind this is to balance carbon emissions through a project that sequesters carbon. The eventual goal is to show that they are reducing their carbon footprint, albeit by working somewhere else. However, such projects are subject to manipulations, and the carbon credit verification often leaves many loopholes in their actual generation. It remains a lot on paper.
Projects include tree plantation, investing in renewable energy or research into carbon reduction or capturing technologies, to name some.
Third-party organisations investigate the scope and potential of such projects and calculate the carbon that would be captured or avoided through this activity. These credits are then sold as carbon credits.
Credibility of such carbon offset projects
Such projects usually don’t work. It’s been found that some of the popular carbon offsetting projects have proven not to reduce any CO2 as promised.
A recent example is Verra, the world's largest carbon offsetting certifier. In 2023, journalists at The Guardian investigated and found that more than 90% of carbon credits sold by Verra did not reduce emissions.
Another example is the United Nations (UN) Clean Development Mechanism (CDM). In 2017, the European Commission released a study showing that 85% of the carbon credits previously purchased from the CMS by the European Union (EU) did nothing to reduce emissions.
The European Parliament subsequently banned these credits from qualifying as carbon reduction measures for EU countries in 2021.
Reasons for the failure of such projects:
1. Let’s take an example of tree plantation projects
For trees to remain effective carbon sinks, the project needs to be long-term, which means at least 20 years or, ideally, 60 years.
Trees need to be present for at least 8 to 10 years before they actually start sequestering substantial carbon from the atmosphere.
The survival rate of the saplings is around 30 to 50%. So, the projections may significantly differ from actual figures.
Some carbon capture would have happened, nevertheless. For example, implementing a scheme to arrest deforestation would have happened anyway.
2. Since these calculations rely mostly on assumptions, in most cases, these numbers are overestimated.
There’s no standardised system for determining what counts as a carbon offset or how to measure it. This is also because it’s difficult to predict what will happen in the future. Some carbon offsetting schemes, for example, don’t last since they can be disrupted by changing government policies or natural disasters.
Naturally, there has been a counter-response to such allegations. Verra argued that the publication’s calculations were wrong and that their projects were delivering reductions as promised after “The Guardian” launched an investigation.
The major issue with this is that it can be seen as a way out for companies to not invest in de-carboning their value chain. It is very convenient for big firms to invest in such schemes and projects and avoid investing in reducing their carbon footprint, truly. They should instead decarbonize their value chain. This means using electricity from renewable energy, investing in renewable energy (renewable energy contributes only 30% of world energy), use products/materials that are nature-based. This will truly reduce their carbon footprint.
Now, it’s not entirely wrong to go this route. Some good investments are helping develop technologies that can reduce carbon emissions or capture carbon. However, proper guidelines need to be laid down so that companies don’t take the lazy route.
The Greenwashing Temptations
Merely indulging in carbon emission offsetting is a form of “greenwashing” if the company relies solely on carbon credits and does not actively reduce its emissions. That is where companies need to make a real-time effort in their domain, which means an improvement or change in the existing technology and many other measures to reduce their carbon footprints. That would mean incurring costs, as changing the existing value chain is not an easy task. This may lead to a temporary decline in profits, which would not look good on the performance of the CEO in front of the shareholders. It is a difficult prospect to juggle, and therefore, everyone involved needs to be on the same page and go beyond minting money and do what is truly necessary. The outrage of Congo (DRC) for cobalt and other minerals is a glaring example of this mentality and the resultant greenwashing.
European Parliament (EU) Awakens
EU green crusaders have realised this, and recently, in March 2023, the EU parliament voted to ban the use of unsubstantiated generic terms, such as ‘climate neutral,’ from advertisements. Companies are using terms such as carbon neutral or net zero to mislead consumers into thinking they are decarbonising their activities when, in fact, they are not.
To conclude, offsetting carbon emissions can be good only when coupled with reducing emissions. Investing in projects that are truly conserving biodiversity and increasing green cover on a long-term basis, and investing in reducing your emissions is the only way things will work and have a sustainable positive climate impact. Till this happens, keep clinging to your Green Hopes, and Keep Raising your voices for the Green!
Source:
Europe’s Crisis: Blame Green Energy Policy – The Heartland Institute. https://heartland.org/opinion/europes-crisis-blame-green-energy-policy/
nori carbon offsetting. http://web409.webbox443.server-home.org/b0z6yha/nori-carbon-offsetting-02f93c
