Offsets being misused by corporations
Climate scientists and the International Energy Agency have told politiicians that we can’t afford to build any new fossil fuel infrastructure and need to phase out existing infrastructure if we want any chance of maintaining a safe, habitable earth.
They’ve been told that we need to use renewables to transition off fossil fuels and nature based solutions as carbon sinks to remove historic carbon that’s already in the atmosphere to bring it back to safe level of 350ppm.
Inspite of this, governments are allowing corporations to keep burning and use carbon offsets and nature based solutions to balance their emissions. Carbon offsets are well intended, but according to new research, many of them are ineffective and slow the transition off fossil fuels.
Read a roundup of the headlines:
“Carbon offsets fund specific projects that either lower CO2 emissions, or “sequester” CO2, meaning they take some CO2 out of the atmosphere and store it. Some common examples of projects include reforestation, building renewable energy, carbon-storing agricultural practices, and waste and landfill management. Reforestation in particular is one of the most popular types of projects to produce carbon offsets. Carbon offsets are granted to project owners, who sell them to third parties like companies that want to balance the CO2 they put into the atmosphere by paying to remove CO2 from somewhere else.”
MIT Climate Portal, Carbon Offsets
“Nature-based solutions (NbS*) are being misused for greenwashing. Promoting NbS as carbon ‘offsets’ while continuing business as usual in fossil fuel use is not a solution to climate change. In fact, it can encourage continued or even increased fossil fuel consumption leading to more emissions overall and can distract from the need for systemic change and a transition to a nature-positive economy [1].”
Nature Based Initiatives, On the misuse of nature-based carbon ‘offsets’
“There are two legitimate uses of nature-based solutions: removing historic carbon from the air, and counteracting a small residue of unavoidable emissions once we have decarbonised the rest of the economy. Instead, they are being widely used as an alternative for effective action. Rather than committing to leave fossil fuels in the ground, oil and gas firms continue to prospect for new reserves while claiming that the credits they buy have turned them “carbon neutral”.
The Guardian, Carbon offsetting is not warding off environmental collapse – it’s accelerating it
“Amazon. JetBlue. Delta Airlines. Elton John. Dave Matthews Band. Justin Trudeau. Austin, Texas. Norway. Nestlé. The Tokyo 2020 Olympics. NASCAR.
This odd mélange of companies, celebrities, cities, countries, and organizations have all made commitments to curb their contributions to climate change, if not eliminate them entirely. And they have one tactic in common: buying carbon offsets.
5) Can’t we just offset our way out of climate change?
In the hierarchy of climate action, the first and most effective option is almost always to reduce emissions. In other words, rather than buying offsets for your flight, see if you can avoid that flight entirely.
That’s why some environmentalists and activists criticize offset purchases as just greenwashing, particularly when they come from fossil fuel companies like BP, which has committed to reaching net-zero emissions by 2050.
And to limit climate change, the goal is to get to cut emissions as fast as possible. While offsets can buy time, they can also lead to delays at a time when the world needs immediate action. That points to another counterfactual: What would you do if you couldn’t just buy offsets?
For some people, countries, and businesses, not buying offsets would force them to reckon with their own emissions and take more aggressive actions to reduce them. The option of buying offsets also creates a moral hazard where polluters can continue emitting greenhouse gases with abandon. This robs the world of precious time needed to get climate change under control.”
Vox, Can you really negate your carbon emissions? Carbon offsets, explained.
“Instead of providing real solutions to the climate and biodiversity crisis, net zero pledges and carbon removals divert attention from real action and have negative effects on ecosystems, food security and people’s rights. Michael Staniszewski explains why we have to end fossil fuels and protect nature instead of “planting trees” for business as usual.”
The Greens, Carbon offsetting - Greenwashing the climate disaster
More reading: