Recently, I had to ship a parcel through UPS overseas. While filling up my shipment details, I came across an option to convert my shipment into a green one. On paying a nominal fee, UPS would ensure that the net effect of my shipment would be carbon neutral. How do they achieve this feat? Without converting their entire fleets into clean energy, companies like UPS can realize this goal by utilizing the concept of carbon offsetting. The idea is fairly simple. Reducing emissions to zero might not be possible in every industry. In such a case the producer of emissions can pay a fee to purchase ‘carbon offsets’ that equate to the amount of CO2 equivalent produced. A carbon offset corresponds to 1 tonne of CO2 emissions. Another party (not necessarily located in the same geographic region) can sell carbon offsets for undertaking a project that would reduce greenhouse emissions. Thus, even though the producer still emits his share, essentially, he is able to contribute to the funding of other clean projects that will in a way ‘offset’ his carbon footprint.

Corporate policy and adoption

A number of corporations have opened up to the idea of carbon offsetting. It’s a comparatively easy way of nullifying your greenhouse gas emissions without having to do any of the dirty work. Multiple airlines now offer options to negate the carbon footprint of a particular flight. Just like UPS, other shipping enterprises like Maersk have entered the carbon neutral market. Amazon has pledged to go carbon neutral by 2040. With the growing unpopularity of high emission figures, companies are looking for easier ways to call themselves ‘net zero’.

Arguments for

Fact is that achieving a net carbon neutral stance isn’t easy. Several institutions have established methods of doing business that can’t be changed outright in a short time. As a starting step, carbon offsetting is definitely a strong solution for this dilemma. Data also shows that most companies that get involved in carbon offsetting programs also take active steps to reduce their own impact on global warming. It’s just that converting manufacturing processing and the likes to clean methods will take time and innovation. In the cement industry for instance, its theoretically possible to derive the heat required for the manufacturing process from clean sources, but the very nature of the chemical process involved will lead to emission of carbon dioxide. To get cement, you have to separate the Calcium from limestone which releases CO2 and that’s just a by-product of the process. For such industries especially, apart from carbon capture methods, carbon offsets can play a significant role in reducing adverse climate impact.

Arguments against

The key point put forward by opponents of the concept is the potential abuse of carbon offsets. While carbon offsets are meant to act as a buffer until organizations turn fully green, some companies consider this a free pass to evade the issue. For some of them, the practice is not too different from paying off your adversaries to shut them up.  Carbon offsets can be misused by corporations to buy themselves a ‘green badge’. Companies can announce that they are going completely carbon neutral while still pumping out insane amounts of carbon. Another point of concern is malpractice from the entities that sell carbon offsets. Buyers of carbon credits can pay a fee and be content that they’ve made a difference. The sellers may achieve the savings in carbon emissions in any way they seem fit. Of course, there are guidelines to be followed and benchmarks like ‘Gold Standard’ which aim to keep such green projects in check. Howbeit, there’s no central authority to oversee or control such activities and this may pose a threat to the authenticity of developments. Yet another way in which the system can be cheated is one that involves entities who see carbon credits as an extra cow they can milk. Organizations that are green by their very nature may choose to make some money off selling carbon credits owing to their green practices. It is not difficult to see that this practice is counterproductive in that it does not promote any novel development activity. The burden of emissions gets lifted off the producer without actually creating a new carbon negative project. If carbon credits go to green projects that would’ve happened anyway regardless of ‘offset funding’, the underlying philosophy of the concept itself is violated. Activities of this sort can be a huge detriment to our fight for progress.

Inaccurate pricing of carbon is another issue. Recently, several organizations in the airline and shipping industries have begun offering ‘carbon neutral’ options for a minimal charge. These schemes almost always severely undercut real carbon trading values. Customers genuinely believe that their meager contributions erase their emissions and are free to go on splurging sprees without guilt. Falling for such marketing ploys is equivalent to ordering ‘diet soda’ along with a triple cheeseburger to ‘offset the calories’.

Taking eyes away from the problem?

The omnipresent dilemma of treating cause vs symptom exists here as well. It can be argued that by selling carbon offsets, we are putting away the search for alternate solutions. We are simply transferring the onus from one party to another without actively seeking ways to go clean altogether. In doing so, we achieve pseudo-elimination of the ‘delayed gratification’ problem that comes with every green venture. Common notion says that for every tree that is cut, 10 trees must be planted. Fact is that 10 saplings will not eat up the same amount of carbon that a fully grown tree does; not for several decades probably. An enormous tree owes its mass to the carbon that it pulled out of the atmosphere during its lifetime. This is the essence of carbon sequestration. The same cannot be replicated by a baby sapling in its first week. While buying carbon offsets, we are conditioned to believe that all our ‘carbon sins’ are immediately undone, but nothing could be further from the truth.

End-note

Acceptance is key. We need to realize that climate change isn’t a simple problem that will go away with a small fee. We cannot entirely do away with offsetting either as it provides a plain way of funding and promoting green projects. Carbon offsetting should only be seen as the first step in transitioning to a net zero future for it is not a sustainable solution. The solution lies in amending our ways. Countries need to look away from carbon offsetting as a means of meeting their Paris Agreement goals. Individuals need to understand that ticking the ‘offset’ checkbox does not ensure that their activities suddenly become clean. Businesses must rethink their activities from scratch.  Adopt pollution free processes and convert to clean energy.  Of course, achieving net zero can be a tedious task especially if your business practices depend on emission intensive processes. It can be easier for some than it is for others which isn’t really fair. But how do you explain that to the planet?