Are Carbon Offsets Greenwashing?
Carbon offsetting is the process of compensating for emissions by supporting or taking part in activities that reduce the equivalent amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Companies use carbon offsetting to greenwash their operations by focusing attention on their beneficial environmental impact while detracting attention from the environmental harm of their day to day operations. Carbon offset projects typically include the following: forest management, industrial process emissions reduction, energy efficiency, and grasslands restoration.
Many companies and countries are committing to become net zero for carbon by midcentury, including Apple (2030), Amazon (2040), US (2050) and China (2060). By definition since these goals for net zero and not zero carbon, carbon offsets will be required. Worldwide, only two countries, Bhutan and Suriname, have achieved negative carbon dioxide emissions (see net0.com). Fundamentally, the issue with carbon offsets is that they allow continued pollution with fossil fuels since they require damage to the environment for there to be something to offset in the first place (see UCEM, 2023).
The topic of carbon offsets is complex and it is easy to criticize companies using carbon offsets ostensibly to justify their use of fossil fuels. The comedian, John Oliver, is an example of a carbon offset critic. According to Oliver: “The problem with carbon offsets is that everyone wants to believe in them. Buyers want a cheap way to make a big claim, and sellers want money for doing as little as possible.” (see The Guardian, 08.22.2022). Yes, clearly, carbon offsets can be and often are an example of greenwashing. The option of carbon offsets may in some cases encourage companies to continue to pollute rather than rely on emissions reductions. Furthermore, it is difficult to reliably demonstrate that offsets actually do what they claim to do.
To think more deeply about this subject, using recycling is a useful analogy. People can use recycling as an excuse to use many plastic water bottles — which technically cannot be recycled to the same quality but rather downcycled to an inferior product than can be used in materials such as deck flooring and even clothing. With recycling, the original logo has 3 arrows with the meaning: reduce, reuse, and recycle. Reduce is the first choice, followed by reuse and finally recycle when something new is required. The design of the recycling logo is a Mobius loop that represents circularity — keeping materials in the loop to reduce waste (Good Start Packaging, 2024). Similarly, with carbon offsets, the goal is to reduce and find other alternatives first, and then use offsets for the emissions that are hardest to eliminate.
Credit: carbonvaluechain.com; 06.29.2022
Folks that are skeptical about the value of carbon credits typically have two major concerns: first, that the availability of credits enables/allows further carbon emissions since they can be offset as we have discussed, and second, that credits may not deliver on their promise of actually cutting emissions. The first concern is not easily remedied since it goes deep into the bottom line for companies. To achieve the goal of not needing carbon credits is a longer term transformation. However, the concern about the viability of offsets to deliver reductions in emissions can be addressed by a simple framework to evaluate them. MIT Professor John Sherman has developed a framework called AVID+, which stands for Additional, Verifiable, Immediate, and Durable. If these first four are met, the next level of selection is the “plus” for meeting other societal goals such as good jobs, improving health, and fostering social justice (Vereckey, 2022).
Additional: Offsets must reduce emissions that would not otherwise be cut.
Verifiable: Emissions reduction must be verified. If trees are planted, they must be properly maintained so that they reduce emissions. If fuel efficient stoves are funded, they need to be delivered, used, and keep in working order.
Immediate: This is a tricky one — your flight or road trip dumps carbon emissions into the atmosphere today but the credits you purchase to offset this may not reduce emissions for several years if the credits are for tree planting or investing in green technology. This delayed payback needs to be considered in the offset.
Durable: Given that carbon emissions stay in the atmosphere for a long time (a century or more), carbon credits must provide a reduction in emissions that last a similar amount of time. Here is an example where native grasslands may be superior to trees for offsetting carbon emissions since trees are more susceptible to wildfires and disease or pests.
The United Nations has developed a carbon offset platform that displays UNFCCC-certified climate friendly projects that reduce, avoid or remove carbon emissions from the atmosphere (United Nations Climate Offset). These projects, which are implemented in developing countries since these are the hardest hit by climate change, are rewarded with Certified Emission Reductions (CERs) for every ton of carbon emissions they help reduce, avoid or remove.
Many of us do our best to reduce our carbon footprint both in our personal lives and with our businesses. Having the option to offset carbon emissions for necessary activities such as work travel is an effective and satisfying way to deal with these emissions by supporting beneficial projects that have been reliably verified. Carbon offsets can’t be used to directly reduce carbon emissions and need to be phased out along with reliance on fossil fuels. During this time of transition from fossil fuels to renewable energy, carbon offsets can be used to complement other sustainability practices. Stay tuned for a future blog post with more information about offsetting your personal or business carbon footprint.
References
net0.com; 03.17.2022