No quick fix

The role of carbon-offsetting in fixing global warming may have been overstated.

DEEP in the peat swamp forest of south-east Pahang, trees will soon be planted to cloak denuded land in green again. This replanting is made possible partly by MAS passengers. These green-minded travellers have forked out small sums for the scheme, in the hope that the trees would absorb from the atmosphere their share of carbon spewed out during a flight.

The peat swamp in Pahang is one of the many beneficiaries of voluntary “carbon offsetting”. The race to save the planet from burning up has spawned an industry whereby brokers and providers match consumers and businesses with carbon offsets, activities that avoid, sequester or displace emissions of greenhouse gases.

When you purchase carbon offsets, you basically fund carbon-cutting schemes that neutralise the greenhouse gases released from your daily activities. One can readily buy this form of environmental salvation on the Internet from providers such as Climate Care, Climate Friendly, Zero GHG, Carbon Fund and My Climate.

Your money might help schools in Nepal install solar panels, encourage efficient trucking in the United States, promote efficient cooking stoves to reduce dependence on firewood in Laos, or fund a wind farm in Australia.

Chequebook greenies

The websites of all carbon offset providers are extremely user-friendly. You just key in some figures – such as your electricity consumption or car mileage – and an online calculator will do the maths on how much it will cost you to lessen your contribution to global warming.

Surprisingly, it really isn’t all that expensive. At Climate Friendly, it will merely cost me RM87 to offset the 1.4 tonnes of carbon emitted from my annual electricity usage of 2,860kwh. And for the weekly 400km that I chalk up on my car – which spews four tonnes of carbon annually – I will have to fork out RM245. You can even carbon offset your holidays, flights, wedding, and even festive parties.

The simplicity of the idea is appealing – no wonder the market for carbon offset is expanding. Businesses, eager to be seen doing something on climate change, are signing up too and even last year’s Oscars ceremony claimed carbon neutrality through offsets.

“Carbon offsets are like a voluntary carbon tax that allows people to take responsibility for their overall impact on climate change. It also channels funds into alternative technologies and projects which would otherwise be hard to take off,” states environmental think-tank World Resources Institute.

That said, the concept of carbon offsetting is not without flaws and has become highly controversial. It is plagued by numerous problems, such as lack of “additionality” (meaning that the emission reductions would not have occurred otherwise), accountability of funds, as well as difficulties in verifying and monitoring carbon reductions.

Some accuse it of perpetuating a business-as-usual ethic and distracts from what is really needed to prevent rising temperatures – wean ourselves away from fossil fuels.

“Instead of encouraging individuals and institutions to profoundly change consumption patterns as well as social, economic and political structures, we are being asked to believe that paying a little extra for certain goods and services is sufficient,” writes Kevin Smith in The Carbon Neutral Myth, a report by watchdog group Carbon Trade Watch.

Supporting offsets might even lead to burning of more fossil fuels since there is an illusion that somewhere in the world, a project is mopping up all the emissions. Take the case of former US vice-president Al Gore: two years ago, he waved aside criticisms on his monthly energy bill that was about 20 times above the average American home by claiming to have purchased offsets.

Carbon offsetting can also be exploited for greenwashing, especially in instances where companies merely donate funds for tree-planting. “They can be an easy way out for businesses to green their image without making real changes that reduce their carbon footprints,” says Dr Joy Jacqueline Pereira, principal fellow at the Institute for Environment and Development (better known as Lestari). She argues that offsets should never be the first step in any carbon-neutral strategy. Instead, companies should first focus on cutting emissions, such as by curbing energy wastage as well as making industrial processes efficient and less carbon-intensive. “The role of offsets should be a supportive one, to be done only after actual mitigation efforts,” says Pereira.

Compounding such concerns is the fact that the voluntary carbon offset market is an unlicensed industry, unlike the scrutinised carbon trading scheme imposed on large European companies under the Kyoto Protocol (the global deal to cut greenhouse gas emissions).

With no regulator, suspect ventures have emerged. There are fears whether the promised carbon savings are current or for the future, and whether they are being re-sold to different buyers. There is also the problem of “carbon leakage” – that is, the offset venture might lead to increased emissions elsewhere, such as when loggers move to another area.

Long apprehensive about the role of offsets in the battle against global warming, Friends of the Earth, Greenpeace and WWF have jointly declared: “Carbon offsets do not reduce emissions overall and, therefore, purchasing offsets should only be seen as a last resort after other measures to reduce or avoid emissions have been thoroughly explored and acted upon.”

The green campaigners also fear that businesses might use offsets to argue against the need for legislation that will curb emissions.

Tree-planting

Among offset schemes, none is more controversial than the hugely popular tree-planting. While planting trees obviously has environmental benefits (such as enlarging wild lands and restoring ecosystems), detractors argue that it distracts from actual carbon mitigation efforts. There is also no consensus on just how much carbon a forest can suck up in its lifetime.

Plus, a forest is never permanent. “Trees can die from disease, fire or logging, all of which will release the stored carbon into the atmosphere, making the offsets sold, worthless. Who is going to monitor that the trees thrive and remain healthy forever?” questions environmentalist Gurmit Singh, who finds carbon offsetting to be a sham.

“Tree-planting is simple and psychologically appealing as you don’t have to change your lifestyle,” says Gurmit. “But this is where the biggest weakness is. You are greening your conscience but not actually doing anything.”

And however many trees are planted worldwide, they cannot keep up with global carbon output. It is estimated that to soak up Britain’s annual greenhouse gas emissions, a new forest the size of Devon (6,707sqkm) will need to be planted every year.

Logically, keeping carbon sequestered in the ground in the form of coal, oil or gas is a better solution than burning these and then trying to sequester the released carbon with trees. Hence, Friends of the Earth, Greenpeace and WWF have urged consumers to shun forestry offsets in favour of projects that move toward non-fossil fuel energy, saying: “Buying forestry offsets does nothing to lessen society’s dependence on fossil fuels to generate its energy – something that is ultimately needed to address climate change.”

Some corporations have heeded such advice and steered clear of trees when aiming to be carbon-neutral. HSBC, for instance, opted to invest in renewable energy, including a wind farm in New Zealand and an agriculture biomass power facility in India. The European emissions trading scheme has also excluded carbon credits from forest projects following scientific doubts over their value.

PR gimmick

Despite the imperfections, many believe the offset market is the quickest and cheapest way to protect the global climate. Also, many individuals and businesses remain supportive of carbon offsets because of the “feel good” factor and heck, they make good PR. All these have seen the business in offsets growing.

Between 2006 and 2007, global trade more than doubled to 65 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent (worth US$330.8mil or RM1.19bil), according to Ecosystem Marketplace which tracks the industry. Prices vary but average around US$3 (RM10.80) per tonne of carbon.

To its credit, the industry is taking steps to heal its bruised reputation. Some companies have moved away from tree-planting projects to those that avoid carbon emissions (such as renewable energy ventures) or reduce emissions (such as energy efficiency schemes).

They also ensure that projects have “additionality” (above and beyond business-as-usual), a criterion often missing in forestry offsets as replanting would – or should – have replaced logged forests anyway.

The companies also encourage emission reductions first: “Reduce what you can, offset what you can’t” goes the slogan of Carbonfund. Many have adopted industry standards which, among other things, verify that emission reductions are real and will benefit the climate.

The Ecosystem Marketplace states in its report The State of Voluntary Carbon Markets 2008 that half of the carbon credit transactions conducted in 2007 has been verified by a third party. It says an increasing, but still limited, number of suppliers have begun using carbon credit registries to ensure that each carbon offset is not sold more than once.

But sceptics such as Gurmit remain unconvinced about the worth of offsets. Your money would be better-spent, he believes, by buying the shares of companies that are committed to reducing emissions for each unit of product manufactured. But if you still insist on offsetting, he advises choosing renewable energy projects as these are less likely to be abandoned.

Dr Martin Abraham, national co-ordinator of the GEF Small Grants Programme, too believes offsets are simply no substitute for emission cuts. “It is a step in the right direction but it will not really address climate change ... not if we continue driving our cars which contribute 70% of the total energy used by a typical urban household in Malaysia.”

With such views, it is obvious that carbon offsetting, though a well-intended gesture, risks being nothing but a delaying tactic.

They are so convenient that they might foster a false sense that global warming can be easily solved when, in fact, the difficult work remains undone.

The Star