When the COVID-19 outbreak is under control, we will fly again. Unfortunately, air travel has a gigantic carbon footprint. And, contrary to popular belief, carbon offsets do make a difference. First thing first: It is better not to emit carbon dioxide in the first place. But if you do it, this is likely the second-best thing you can do.
We can no longer ignore climate change. The newspaper headlines are clear: fires in California, heatwaves in Canada, and rainfalls in Germany and China. Extreme events occur more often and are getting worse. Anthropogenic (human-made) greenhouse gas emissions are still going up. Climate change is real, and it’s bad.
But there are things, that as an individual, you can do to mitigate the worse effects of climate change. When flying, you should offset the carbon generated by your air travel. Offsetting is based on a simple and effective principle. While you generate greenhouse gases into the atmosphere in one place, somebody else is paid to take them out in another.
There are concerns about the effectiveness and ethics of carbon offset. We at Decarb offset all the emissions that we cannot avoid. Here is our answer to the main critics:
Argument #1. Offsets don’t avoid emissions in the first place.
This is true. There is no way around it. One of the downsides of carbon offset is that it does not avoid emitting carbon dioxide (CO2) in the first place. You will still fly, and your flight will emit carbon dioxide from kerosene fuel. Therefore, it should be a complement to other goals and solutions, like minimizing air travel, using alternative transports… Companies or individuals should not use carbon offsets as the main tool to fight climate change.
Argument #2. Offsets don’t have a positive impact.
Do they really reduce climate change effects? Do they avoid the harm caused by the flight? To answer these questions there are standards such as Gold Standard and Verified Carbon Standard to ensure that the project exists, is effective, and that the math is done correctly. An independent third party verifies the carbon avoided by the specific project. E.g. a photovoltaic project that replaces the electricity provided by a diesel generator in a village in India.
Argument 3. Carbon offsets are just a guilt-free card for rich people.
As mentioned previously, carbon offsets do not prevent you from polluting in the first place. The purpose of carbon offsets is not to stop you from flying, and we do not see it as a “guilt-free” tool, but rather to minimize the impacts caused by flying through alternative projects. It also serves as an accounting tool to illustrate our impact and to help with behavior change.
Argument 4. Carbon offsets increase global injustice.
Carbon offsets are seen as a tool for the rich to continue polluting, while the poor suffer, contributing to global injustice. It is true that the ones who most suffer from climate change are the people who are the least responsible for the problem. They also have few resources and do not have the tools to adapt to a changing climate. Luckily, carbon offsets can be invested in the developing world, reducing (a little) global injustice. Some carbon offsets support important infrastructure that improves the lives of those at risk, e.g., in forest restoration, renewable energy infrastructure, or more efficient cookstoves.
Argument 5. Lack of Additionality.
Additionality refers to whether the carbon emissions reduction would have happened without the carbon offset. For example, if the carbon offset project pays a community to replace the electricity diesel generator with a new, solar PV system, but the community had planned to install the PV solar system anyway (either because the system is cost-effective, or because other regulations made it mandatory), in principle the carbon offsets would not be additional.
Argument 6. Is the carbon actually retired from the atmosphere?
Permanence refers to whether the carbon emissions reduction or mitigation continues for the
lifespan of the project. A simple example of this might be a project to plant trees. It is considered that the trees will remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere over a certain number of years. The project must guarantee that the trees will remain protected over the life of the project, instead of being cut down too soon or burned by a fire.
Important considerations
First, carbon offsets need to come only after other efforts to reduce emissions. We have tools to avoid or reduce emissions in transport, and flying should only be used when no alternative is possible.
Second, it is not going to solve climate change. It is only a step in the right direction while we find less carbon-intensive solutions.
Third, even if you purchase carbon offsets, it is important to remain cautious, ensure there is an appropriate handling and that the carbon is verified. A quality carbon offset needs to be additional, accounted for, permanent, and without leakages.
Fourth, carbon offsets should not serve as an excuse for shifting the fight against climate change to individuals. Change needs to come from cities, governments, and organizations to sustain change on a larger scale.
Conclusion – Carbon offsets are good
For us it is clear. Although not perfect, we see carbon offsets as an effective tool that makes a difference. We are trying to be transparent. We understand that carbon offsets are not a final solution to climate change and that there are important questions/concerns to be solved. There are also alternatives such as carbon capture, but we still think that carbon offsets are a tool that allows – combined with others tools – mitigating the worst effects of climate change.
It is a step in the right direction, not the final destination.
