Problems of Offsetting

However good the offset, the overall problem is that we are creating the carbon dioxide emissions now, but offset projects only deliver returms overmany years later - often decades. Effectively we are buying offset futures. And look what the future can hold in store:

Tree Plantations
Trees reabsorb CO₂ over about three decades - if all goes well. Many tree plantations - say in Australia at present, may face severe droughts. The band Coldplay paid for 10,000 mango trees to be planted to offset one of their albums. About 4000 trees died.

Eventually all trees rot and most then release their carbon. Most offset companies promise to maintian their forests for 99 years - about the same time that any molecule of CO₂ would be in the air before being reabsorbed. So the offset doesn't so much as negate the emission as much as timeshift them - instead of being in the air now, they appear in the next century. Whether or not future generations want this is another matter.

Other problems of forest schemes- they may dry out soils or release methane. Temperate forest may absorb more heat thus helping global warming. And on the social side, people - usually the poor, may be turfed off their land for the plantation. AND AND AND - Australian statisitcs show that when grassland was turned into Pine forest, there was a loss of carbon (15%) form the soil. Just what we dont want. (Check this stat).

Green Energy
Funding energy projects such as wind turbines, solar panels, energy-efficiency light bulbs and cooking stoves stop pollution rather than soaking it up later. They also move energy sources away from fossil fuels.

But can these projects demonstrate they have added something to which would not have otherwise occurred - can they show "additionality"? Introducing solar panels has to show that they wouldnt have been introduced anyway - and calculate the savings on wood or fossil fuels.

What may be additionality to one group - enabling them to sell the offset elsewhere, may be just good business to somebody else. The Gold Standard has been set to check on claims of additionaility, but hwile used in Kyoto offsets has still to attract many in voluntary sector.

Test 1: Does the project make economic sense regardless of environmental benefits. If the answer is no, then it should qualify. But that creates more problems than it answers. The easiest to demonstrate additionality will be the most expensive - and least cost teffective, meaning fewer tonnesof CO2 will be spent per pound.

Test 2 : Those that make economic sense but are stuck for capital. Cleaner-burning cooking stoves in India fit the bill.

CO₂lonialism
Many developing countries feel they are letting the rich carry out carbon offsetting in thier countires is CO₂lonialism. When Inda and Brazil want to offset their own emissions, the cheapest options have been used by western companies. Why dont we do more in the developed world?

There are moves to offset nearer home. Many offsetters are planting trees in countries signed up to Kyoto targets. There are concerns that governments may count these voluntary initiatives in their official figures and it is harder than ever to see how they can demonstarte additionality

Clearerly offsets are not a simple quick fix as many would like Some say that "dump burn and offset" is the worst way. A group called "London Rising Tide" occupied the offices of an offsetter (CarbonNeutral) accusing them of creating a "smokescreen".(Find a link). How can we make sure that offsetting is making any difference?

Environmental Practice at Work Publishing Company Ltd.