You are probably already aware of this connection: the Earth is steadily warming due to massive emissions of greenhouse gases¹, and we humans are the main culprits². Climate change is now becoming noticeable in our everyday lives too.
CO2 offsetting is often touted as a possible solution, largely because its simple yet powerful mechanism is so convincing: offsetting payments are intended to fund climate protection projects that prevent further emissions and which would not have been possible without this funding.
However, due to this methodological simplicity, CO2 offsetting is often described as a modern form of the sale of indulgences. This is because, through these compensation payments, even practices that are harmful to the climate can present themselves as supposedly climate-neutral or climate-positive, provided they are willing to pay enough money.
In the resulting jungle of greenwashing, it is by no means easy to distinguish between effective and ineffective projects. So, are offsets nothing more than a green masquerade? The following facts are intended to help you recognise ethically sound and meaningful action.
What is compensation, and what types are there?
To combat global warming, humanity must reduce its carbon footprint to virtually zero. There are a number of different ways to achieve this. The key lies in reducing and avoiding greenhouse gas emissions (for example, by refraining from activities that emit greenhouse gases, such as the burning of fossil fuels). However, despite our best efforts, some emissions will always be unavoidable. These residual emissions can be offset through CO2 offsetting. The principle, therefore, is to avoid – reduce – offset.
When it comes to CO2 offsetting, a fundamental distinction is made between legally mandated and voluntary offsetting. Legally mandated forms of offsetting include, amongst other things, the statutory allocation of ‘CO2 pollution rights’, such as the EU Emissions Trading Scheme. Voluntary offsetting, on the other hand, is the core area of the so-called CO2 certificates to which this article refers. These certificates fund two types of projects:
Types of voluntary carbon offset projects:
- Emissions avoidance projects: The aim
here is to reduce the volume of CO2 emissions through projects that would not otherwise be funded. Examples of this include the use of renewable energy instead of fossil fuels, the use of new, energy-efficient stoves, or the reduction of methane emissions from landfill sites or in agriculture. Emissions reductions achieved through forest conservation, known as REDD+ projects, are also included. This is because they prevent CO2 – which is stored in the biomass of forests – from being released as a result of deforestation.3
- CO2 removal projects:
These projects focus on removing CO2 from the atmosphere and creating new storage sites. This can be achieved through natural sinks (e.g. through improved forest management, afforestation or wetland restoration), but also through the development of technologies for CO2 capture and storage (technical term: Carbon Capture and Storage, or ‘CCS’ for short).
Is CO2 offsetting generally a good idea?
The fact is: CO2 offsetting is no substitute for prior efforts to reduce emissions and should always be regarded as a complementary measure.
Not all offsetting projects are equally effective. For example, whilst natural sinks that actually remove CO2 from the atmosphere are regarded as an effective means of offsetting, tree-planting initiatives, for instance, require a great deal of expertise, site-specific plans and several decades before carbon is actually sequestered. Their appeal lies in the fact that they ‘make up for’ emissions that have already been released.
In contrast, projects that prevent the drainage of peatlands or halt deforestation can, with immediate effect, prevent far more emissions than could ever be sequestered again within a timeframe relevant to humans. Particularly given that 12 to 15 per cent of global emissions⁴ are caused annually by deforestation and the drainage of forested peatlands, the conservation of forest areas, for example, is a more effective lever than the reduction of emissions across the entire global aviation sector (global share of emissions: around 3 per cent).5
Emissions avoidance projects reduce emissions directly and therefore have an immediate impact, as fewer greenhouse gases are released into the atmosphere. Their advantage is that they provide immediate and direct relief for the climate. CO2 removal projects, on the other hand, take effect more slowly and will only have an impact in the future. This also largely applies to technical innovations such as Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS). These remove CO2 that is already present in the atmosphere. However, the process is slow, labour-intensive, expensive, consumes a great deal of energy, and current technologies have only limited capacity. Their impact is often only measurable in the long term. CO2 removal projects can offset unavoidable emissions in the long term, but they are not a short-term solution.
In the long run, both types of project complement each other, which essentially makes both indispensable. Furthermore, all efforts at a voluntary, individual level must be accompanied by political change in order to bring about genuine, sustainable social transformation. In summary, CO2 offsetting, in combination with prior emission reductions and political change, is therefore an important tool in climate protection.
In the long run, both types of project complement each other, which essentially makes both indispensable. Furthermore, all efforts at a voluntary, individual level must be accompanied by political change in order to bring about genuine, sustainable social transformation. In summary, CO2 offsetting, in combination with prior emission reductions and political change, is therefore an important tool in climate protection.
How can I tell the difference between effective projects and a sham?
First of all: Assessing the actual effectiveness of a project is extremely complex. In theory, international and regional standards (VCS, Gold Standard, Plan Vivo) and certifications by third-party donors such as yourselves should help with this assessment. They take the burden of important research off your shoulders and promise credibility.
However, in spring 2023, an investigation by The Guardian revealed the ineffectiveness of some projects that had been awarded VCS certificates. That is why we always advise you to assess projects using your own judgement as well.
Effective carbon offset projects can be identified by various criteria. The most important of these is regular and transparent disclosure of the actual impact. The following six criteria will help you assess the effectiveness of voluntary carbon offset projects:
6 criteria for the effectiveness of voluntary carbon offset projects
- Financial additionality: The climate protection measure would not have taken place without the sale of certificates.
- Regulatory additionality: The emission reduction or avoidance is not already required by law.
- It is ensured that emissions are not displaced to another location as a result of the project (also known as ‘leakage’).
- The project guarantees a long minimum duration (at least 30 years of guaranteed impact).
- Double-counting of greenhouse gas emissions avoided is ruled out.
- Social and environmental aspects are taken into account just as much as the climate impact.
To be fair, we would also like to point out at this stage that the complexity of the subject makes it difficult to replicate the exact impact 1:1 using models and calculations. Despite this, environmental charities – including ours – communicate precise figures and impacts. For example, we state that one square metre offsets 60 kg of CO2. You can find out how we arrive at these figures here.
Our conclusion
It is hardly possible to draw a clear-cut distinction between black and white when it comes to carbon offsetting. That is why we at Wilderness International view CO2 offsetting more as a means to an end. This is particularly because the protection of forest ecosystems, alongside CO2 sequestration, fulfils many other valuable functions for a healthy climate and life on Earth: for example, by safeguarding intact material cycles, preserving biodiversity and maintaining space for recreation. The carbon footprint is simply intended to help determine the size of your contribution to nature conservation.
Sources
1Lashof, D. A., & Ahuja, D. R. (1990). Relative contributions of greenhouse gas emissions to global warming. Nature, 344(6266), 529–531.
2Cook, J., Oreskes, N., Doran, P. T., Anderegg, W. R., Verheggen, B., Maibach, E. W., … & Rice, K. (2016). Consensus on consensus: a synthesis of consensus estimates on human-induced global warming. Environmental Research Letters, 11(4), 048002.
3The abbreviation REDD+ stands for ‘Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation’ and has existed since the negotiations of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change in 2005, with the aim of making the protection of forests as carbon sinks financially attractive.
4Wille, A. (23 November 2018). Rainforest destruction releases vast amounts of CO2. quarks.de; Quarks. https://www.quarks.de/umwelt/klimawandel/regenwaldzerstoerung-setzt-unmengen-co2-frei/; Friedlingstein, P., Jones, M. W., O’Sullivan, M., Andrew, R. M., Bakker, D. C. E., Hauck, J., Le Quéré, C., Peters, G. P., Peters, W., Pongratz, J., Sitch, S., Canadell, J. G., Ciais, P., Jackson, R. B., Alin, S. R., Anthoni, P., Bates, N. R., Becker, M., Bellouin, N., … Zeng, J. (2022). Global carbon budget 2021. Earth System Science Data, 14(4), 1917–2005. https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-14-1917-2022
5Ritchie, H., & Roser, M. (2023). Climate change and flying: what share of global CO2 emissions come from aviation?. Our World in Data. https://ourworldindata.org/co2-emissions-from-aviation
The author