A GUIDE TO CARBON OFFSETTING (AND ITS FLAWS)

I want to start with a bit of context as to why I am writing this. Over the last five years I’ve become more opinionated (and I hope a bit more knowledgeable!) on the topic of carbon offsetting as a result of my project, Making Tracks - an environmentally-focused music exchange programme that takes place roughly once a year. A huge part of Making Tracks for me has been trying to navigate the tension between intercultural exchange on one hand, and environmental responsibility on the other. I have become increasingly sceptical of carbon offsetting over the years, and have prioritised reducing Making Tracks’ emissions at source (mainly by adopting slow travel) since 2020. In case some of what I have learned can be useful - either to fellow artists or organisations - I am sharing it here.

The Core Misconception

Carbon offsetting is commonly understood to be a process that involves the removal of carbon dioxide or other greenhouse gas emissions from the atmosphere in order to compensate for emissions made elsewhere. A fundamental misconception is that offsetting constitutes a ‘rebalancing’, with one part cancelling out the other. The reality is usually more complicated, for several reasons. Firstly, offsetting is still far from a precise science and it can never ‘undo’ emissions at source. Even if emissions are more or less measurable and verifiable, those absorbed by offset projects are typically not. This is why terms such as ‘carbon neutral’ and ‘net zero’ are so problematic. For something like air travel moreover, there’s no consensus on how much carbon dioxide a journey emits (although the German non-profit Atmosfair has won acclaim for its emissions calculators, which take into account factors such as altitude, plane model and flight class, as well as distance), ongoing arguments over the most effective ways to reduce emissions and a host of different offsetting companies to choose from. There’s also understandable cynicism, given that airlines and airports — like other big corporations and even entire cities — are using offsetting to shift responsibility and legitimise further growth.

It’s tempting to tar all types of offsetting with the same brush. In reality, there’s a signicant difference — at least morally — between companies that cynically use offsetting as a loophole to avoid emission caps or ‘greenwash’ their image and individuals or small organisations that turn to offsetting out of a genuine sense of responsibility to the environment. That said, the concept of offsetting is still unhelpful, since it suggests an effective form of ‘rebalancing’. I believe that it would be helpful if we stopped thinking of offsetting as rebalancing, and more as an imperfect apology. If you accidentally trip someone up and then apologise, it’s usually better than just walking away. You can’t undo a flight, or a trip, but perhaps you can limit the damage...

Tree Planting (and the Climate-Hating Goat)

When people turn to offsetting, the first thing they tend to think of - as I did - is planting trees. Tree planting remains the most widely known type of offsetting, but it comes with some considerable problems. Projects that safeguard existing forests or help with reforestation can significantly contribute to climate protection, but if we’re going to hang on to the central principle of offsetting — the idea that we’re trying to get as close as possible to absorbing the same amount of carbon emissions that we’ve emitted — then tree planting isn’t a great option in the short term. Why? Well, to start with, a forest usually needs to exist for at least 50 (if not 100) years in order to have any real impact on climate protection — especially if it subsequently gets cut down or disappears in another way (eaten by a hungry, climate-hating goat, for example). Forests need to be looked after — especially in economically less-developed countries where people compete particularly fiercely for different ways to use the land — but there’s currently no central protection system in place. None of this means that you shouldn’t support reputable forestry or other conservation projects — do! Just be aware that they are even less likely than others to give you measurable offsets in the short term.

Other Types of Offsets

There are many other types of offsets available. The most reputable offset certifiers such as Gold Standard and Verra offer hundreds of different projects around the world. Those pertaining to renewable energy would appear to be a better choice than tree planting, in-so-far as they address one of the central issues of climate change - our reliance on fossil fuels. You could, for example, put your money towards solar energy projects in Rajasthan, or wind energy projects in Turkey. Energy efficiency projects are similarly popular, for example those providing homes in Rwanda with cooking stoves that emit 80% less CO2 (you might have noticed a trend here — international offset projects are typically implemented in economically less-developed countries, mainly due to cost effectiveness). The Gold Standard certification system (established in 2003 by WWF and other international NGOs) claims to verify all its projects, ensuring that they contribute to sustainable development alongside reduced carbon emissions.


Additionality and Leakage

Regardless of the type of offsetting we consider, the challenges of ensuring ‘additionality’ and avoiding ‘leakage’ often make a mockery of any attempts to prove ‘net zero’. Emissions reductions are ‘additional’ if they occur as a direct result of an offset initiative and would not have happened otherwise. In reality, additionality is often extremely difficult to prove and so it’s more of an ideal than a reality — but it is worth bearing in mind. For example, it’s likely that many families in Rwanda would not have bought energy-efficient cook stoves without subsidies from offset projects, but it would be almost impossible to prove this in every individual case. Carbon ‘leakage’ happens when carbon emissions are simply moved elsewhere, rather than removed. Again, avoiding carbon leakage is much more complicated than you might think and requires every step of a project to be carefully monitored. Even then, it’s clearly unreasonable to ask the owner of an energy-efficient cook stove who previously spent hours a day collecting firewood to make sure they fill the extra time on their hands with entirely non-polluting activities.


Conclusions

I am not against carbon offsetting being part of environmental responsibility in the Arts or other industries, but it is not a precise science, it is not a silver bullet, and making it the cornerstone of your approach is not the answer. Start instead by finding ways to reduce emissions at source. Offsetting should be a last resort apology for what can’t otherwise be avoided or reduced. If you decide at this point to go down the official offsets route, then you’re probably best off going for renewable energy or energy efficiency projects. Alternatively - or in addition - you can simply donate to projects that are likely to result in long term carbon capture. Liberated from the dreaded scales, you might want to consider donating to forestry, conservation and other projects that contribute to natural climate solutions (10% of proceeds from the latest Making Tracks live album, for example, go towards the protection of curlews). In the UK you can donate to many different organisations including our wonderful national parks, the Woodland Trust and Rewilding Britain.

The benefits of considering offsetting as a form of carbon apology, rather than a precise rebalancing, is that it ensures the incentive remains to reduce emissions at source, while finding better ways to apologise. Thanks for reading!

Merlyn Driver, 2024