St Bridget’s Church Eco-Congregation Green Sheet No. 29

Carbon offset providers calculate the amount of CO₂ emitted by common consumer activities like driving a car or going on holiday. They then calculate the cost of ‘offsetting’ the equivalent amount through funding a project designed to reduce carbon emissions such as a small-scale renewable energy or forestry scheme. If you choose to pay for this offset you can claim to have taken responsibility for your emissions and done at least a small bit to help combat climate change. What could be wrong with this?

The market in voluntary carbon offsets is in the midst of explosive growth. A web search showed up more than 40 providers. Consumers can now buy offsets by text message, bundled with insurance, with mortgages or with mobile phone contracts, over the counter at travel agents or in a gift box from the Science Museum. Michael Buick of Climate Care, a UK provider established in 1998, said the company’s sales were expected to rise from around 150,000 tonnes in 2006 to one million in 2007. Carbon offset companies, environmentalists and the Government all agree that offsetting is not the solution to climate change – carbon reduction measures must come first. Those in favour of the industry see offsetting as a useful tool for increasing consumers’ ‘carbon literacy’ and a source of funding for sustainable development. Michael Buick sees it as “a way to fund the transition to a low carbon economy.”

A wave of criticism

The idea of carbon offsetting has, however, faced steadily growing criticism. Friends of the Earth (FoE) describes carbon offsetting as ‘a smokescreen to avoid real measures to tackle climate change’. Kevin Smith, author of “The Carbon Neutral Myth” makes the analogy between carbon offsets and the medieval practice of selling ‘indulgences’ for the remission of sins. He goes on to describe carbon offsets as commodifying, privatising and de-politicising the difficult social and political task of mitigating climate change and achieving climate justice. In a joint statement, Friends of the Earth, Greenpeace and WWF-UK have expressed “strong concerns over [their] environmental credibility…and the contribution of the projects to sustainable development.” Campaign group Carbon Trade Watch have dubbed offsetting “Enron environmentalism” – nothing more than a clever accounting trick.

The ‘CDM Gold Standard’ has recently emerged as a measure of best practice. Backed by Greenpeace, FoE, WWF, and many other NGOs, the Gold Standard credits individual projects, not offset providers. Only renewable energy and energy efficiency projects with sustainable development benefits are eligible. The Gold Standard requires higher standards than the Kyoto mechanisms, such as stakeholder consultations involving a Gold Standard NGO. It also accredits projects outside of the Kyoto regulations and therefore provides a standard for the small scale projects popular with consumers. Gold Standard projects have not escaped criticism .But despite these problems the Gold Standard does appear to currently provide the best available benchmark.

Seeing the wood for the trees

The first offset projects involved tree planting, on the principle that trees absorb carbon as they grow. However, the science of how effectively planting trees reduces global warming is far from certain. A recent study for example even suggested that, although tropical forests do have a cooling effect, at higher latitudes, trees have a warming effect. In 2006 the Advertising Standards Authority ordered the Scottish & Southern Energy Group to stop making claims in its leaflets about ‘neutralising’ its customers’ emissions because the company could not provide proof that the planting of trees would match the level of emissions. An even more fundamental problem is the false equation between fossil carbon and biological carbon. When fossil fuels are burned they release carbon into the biosphere that has been outside of the carbon cycle between air, sea and biomass for millions of years. If the total amount of carbon in the biological carbon cycle is increased, the cycle’s provision of climate stability is undermined. As Kevin Anderson of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change says, “What happens if the trees die in a forest fire and release their CO2 back into the atmosphere?”

EU Allowances

Another approach entirely has been adopted by a new generation of consumer carbon offset companies. In the European Emission Trading Scheme (ETS), ‘EU allowances,’ representing a tonne of CO2 emissions, can be traded between companies. Offset providers buy these allowances on the behalf of consumers and then ‘retire’ them - permanently removing them from the market. As a result, the overall limit on CO2 emissions is reduced. Elegant though this idea is, it is not without problems. Over-allocation of allowances and a glut of cheap Kyoto credits for businesses has pushed down the cost of polluting. As a result, phase one (2005-2007) of the ETS has failed to drive emission reductions, says EU Energy Commissioner Adris Piebalgs. For phase two (2008-2012) to succeed, the European Commission must stop cheap ‘Kyoto credits’ flooding the market.

Standards for consumers

The consumer market in carbon offsets has long been recognised to have a lack of transparency and for extremely variable standards in the implementation, monitoring and verification of projects. This has led to demands for government intervention and in January 2007 the Environment Secretary David Miliband announced a consultation process to develop a voluntary ‘Code of Best Practice,’ to be published later in the year. The UK government clearly wants to encourage offsetting and is keen to demonstrate its green credentials through its own offsetting scheme for official air travel.

All editorial this month has been taken from the ethiscore website. Subscription has been provided free for one year to St Bridget’s Eco congregation in recognition of the important information it is providing for its members, in relation to world ethical issues. Sally Cashen 625 2659

If you have items to contribute to the green sheets please contact Sally on 0151 625 2659.

The items included in the green sheets are for your information only, but we hope that you find some of them useful.