'Offsetting' is not a long-term sustainable solution to the problem of too much fossil fuel use.
Calculations show that there is not enough land on the planet to plant enough trees, and not enough scope for alternatives.
What is 'offsetting' ?The theory is that instead of reducing the amount of CO2 that people generate, they pay for someone else to reduce their CO2 emissions or absorb CO2 in some way.
Methods of 'offsetting'Principally tree planting, energy conservation, and funding research (e.g. into energy conservation and renewable energy).
Planting trees - pros and consThe theory is that by personally planting trees or contributing to a commercial organisation or charity that will do this, trees will be planted that will (as they grow) take up an amount of CO2 equal to what you generate.
One problem is that the trees will take decades to absorb the CO2 but it is being generated now - and CO2 emissions need to be reduced now. Another problem is that the trees will give back the CO2 into the atmosphere eventually when they die and decompose, and so as well as planting the trees, it is necessary to ensure that the land where they are planted remains as woodland indefinitely - impossible to guarantee, especially as forests are now dying from drought or being destroyed in forest fires. Finally, and crucially, the amount of land needed makes this unsustainable in the long term.
Reducing CO2 emissions elsewhere - pros and consA commercial organisation or charity promises to set up a project where your money will reduce someone's CO2 emissions by replacing fossil fuel by a renewable source or some energy saving measure. The problems with this are that it is hard to be confident that this will actually happen.
Funding research - pros and consThe theory is that the money contributed pays for research that will result in future reductions in CO2 emissions. The problem is finding a project that will achieve this - thousands of companies around the world are already spending large sums on developing technologies - the profit motive will almost certainly achieve this better than donations.
What others say
|Environmental charities||Friends of the Earth , Greenpeace , & WWF |
|Commercial organisations||BP (www.targetneutral.com), British Airways, Ford and Land Rover|
ConclusionsWe do not believe that any of the methods of 'offsetting' should form part of the plans to tackle climate change. The world is producing too much CO2, and we need to tackle this head-on by taking responsibility and reducing our emissions to a sustainable level. 'Offsetting' schemes probably do more harm than good by giving the impression that we can all carry on just as we are, with payment of just a few pounds/euros/dollars (and not asking awkward questions about whether they actually do any good).
- http://www.newint.org/issues/2006/07/01/ New Internationalist July 2006 issue (articles available online)
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_offset Wikipedia on Carbon offset(viewed 9 May 2009)
|||Friends of the Earth: www.foe.co.uk/resource/faqs/questions/climate_change_why_offsetting.html (viewed 18.9.07)|
|||Greenpeace: www.greenpeace.org.uk/media/press-releases/greenpeace-statement-on-carbon-off-setting (viewed 18.9.07)|
|||WWF: Gives support for 'offsetting' "only as the final part of a three-pronged approach known as 'avoid, reduce, then offset'. Only when all options to avoid or reduce greenhouse gas emissions have been exhausted (these include e.g. buying green electricity, using public transport, or using video-conferencing instead of flying to meetings) should they proceed to offsetting" http://www.panda.org/what_we_do/footprint/energy_solutions/smarter_energy_news/?126681/Go-with-Gold-for-quality-carbon-offsetting (viewed 9 May 2009).|
First published: 2007
Last updated: 17 May 2023