The booming carbon offsetting market
New research suggests some of the biggest companies are using bogus schemes to offset their carbon emissions
In the ongoing race to lower carbon emissions, many companies are choosing to purchase carbon offsets in order to compensate for their own emissions.
But new research into the forest carbon offsets approved by the world’s leading certifier and used by Disney, Shell, Gucci and other big corporations has found they are “largely worthless and could make global heating worse”, according to a new investigation by The Guardian, the German weekly Die Zeit and SourceMaterial, a non-profit investigative journalism organisation.
How does carbon offsetting work?
Offsets sell a kind of dream: that companies (or people) who are under pressure to cut their emissions can effectively buy their way out of the problem. They can compensate for their own emissions of carbon dioxide or other greenhouse gasses by providing an emissions reduction elsewhere. Examples might include financing wind farms to replace coal-fired power plants, or energy efficiency programmes offering, say, home insulation. Almost half, however, relate to forestry, such as tree planting and reforestation projects that sequester carbon; many schemes also involve buying up areas of rainforest threatened by logging in order to preserve it. Offsets mostly exist on a slightly problematic hypothetical plane: the benefits of each project need to be determined relative to what would have occurred under a business-as-usual scenario.
Subscribe to The Week
Escape your echo chamber. Get the facts behind the news, plus analysis from multiple perspectives.
Sign up for The Week's Free Newsletters
From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.
From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.
How big is the market?
Different markets exist. For instance, an official regulated market for buying and selling carbon “credits” was set up under the Kyoto climate change agreement; this proved highly problematic, though work is under way on a new system. Mostly, the term offset refers to the unregulated (or voluntary) market: private organisations charge customers a certain amount to remove a tonne of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere; such schemes are approved by non-profit bodies such as Verra, which certifies them using its “Verified Carbon Standard”. The market is now worth about $2bn per year, and is growing fast: it is forecast to be worth $10bn-$40bn by the end of the decade. Shell, for instance, has set aside more than $450m to invest in such projects. Amazon, Gucci, Salesforce, Shell, Disney, British Airways, Leon and many others are also increasingly relying on voluntary carbon offsets to align with net-zero goals or the ethical demands of investors.
Is offsetting a good idea?
In theory, properly designed, rigorously regulated offsets could be very useful. If companies must pay for their emissions, they have a strong incentive to emit less, and more money will go to activities that avoid, reduce or remove emissions. Offsets allow sectors that unavoidably rely on fossil fuels – such as aviation – to do their bit. They have also allowed billions of dollars to be channelled to the vital work of preserving forests (deforestation contributes up to 20% of annual global emissions, about the same as all the world’s lorries and cars). Such schemes could be used, too, to help finance new carbon reduction tools, such as nascent technologies that can suck carbon out of the air. As things stand, however, the industry is plagued by problems, prompting analysts to question whether it is doing more harm than good.
What are those problems?
Offset schemes have a long history of overpromising and under delivering. With the best will in the world, they are intrinsically difficult to calculate. Some carbon savings have been applied to projects that might have happened anyway. Being notional, some offsets have been sold more than once. Arguably, they provide perverse incentives: there have been cases of Chinese factories deliberately ramping up their emissions in order to claim cash credits for reducing them later. Even the best schemes may not deliver permanent savings: in 2021, trees planted for offsets went up in flames as wildfires ripped across the US west coast, spewing carbon back into the air. Critics regard them as a licence to pollute because they allow companies to carry on emitting. Some forestry projects have also caused conflicts with local people.
Are these problems insuperable?
According to the industry, no. In theory, there are well-established criteria for getting round all these problems. Schemes are assessed according to “additionality”: would the project happen anyway without the offset credits? Carbon reductions can be scientifically assessed using, for instance, satellite imagery, and certified by reliable third parties. Some only certify projects when the promised carbon savings have actually been achieved, and are deemed likely to be permanent.
Sign up for Today's Best Articles in your inbox
A free daily email with the biggest news stories of the day – and the best features from TheWeek.com
So, in practice, do they actually work?
It appears not. The voluntary offset market was described in a report by Credit Suisse last year as a “wild west”. A damning investigation by The Guardian and Die Zeit earlier this year evaluated the credentials of Verra, a US-based body that rubber stamps 75% of all offsets in the voluntary sector, and deemed that more than 90% of rainforest offset credits it approved were “largely worthless and could make global heating worse”. Verra disputes this finding, but the evidence was disturbing. Only a handful of Verra’s rainforest projects appeared to show genuine deforestation reductions. In one case, in Peru, there was evidence that indigenous people had been evicted from protected areas.
What’s the future for offsets?
There are certainly offset schemes that work well. But for now, many analysts agree that voluntary schemes are questionable and that claims made about offsets, even by well-respected companies, may be dubious. Attempts to set widely agreed criteria are under way. The new Integrity Council for the Voluntary Carbon Market hopes to introduce guidelines enabling buyers to identify “high- integrity” carbon credits later this year. But the fear is that, for the time being, offsets are being used, particularly by energy firms, to stave off pressure to transform their operations – and that they may in fact be slowing the pace of decarbonisation. “My fear is that we’re going to look back at this brief moment in time when we had to really rein in our emissions,” says Barbara Haya, of the Berkeley Carbon Trading Project, “and say we failed.”
-
Geoff Capes obituary: shot-putter who became the World’s Strongest Man
In the Spotlight The 'mighty figure' was a two-time Commonwealth Champion and world-record holder
By The Week UK Published
-
Israel attacks Iran: a 'limited' retaliation
Talking Point Iran's humiliated leaders must decide how to respond to Netanyahu's measured strike
By The Week UK Published
-
Crossword: November 2, 2024
The Week's daily crossword puzzle
By The Week Staff Published
-
England's great parakeet invasion
The Explainer How did a parrot from the Himalayas become a common sight in southeast England?
By The Week UK Published
-
Decarbonising the national grid
The Explainer In theory, Britain's electricity grid will be carbon neutral by 2035. What will that involve? Is it even possible?
By The Week UK Published
-
Right to roam: the battle to access England's green spaces
The Explainer A battle is being fought over access to England's green spaces
By The Week UK Published
-
Gold hydrogen: a near limitless supply of clean fuel?
Under The Radar Huge deposits found in northern France but major energy companies are holding back, for now
By Chas Newkey-Burden, The Week UK Published
-
The drying Amazon rainforest: a drought that affects the world
Under the radar The Amazon is suffering a drought of historic severity and it’s pushing its inhabitants to their limit
By The Week UK Published
-
Rosebank oil field: pragmatism over future prospects?
Talking Point Green campaigners decry 'morally obscene' opening of new oil fields while trying to cut emissions
By The Week Staff Published
-
Libya: the 'tsunami' that washed away a city
Talking Point Climate change may have made the storm more likely, but many blame failures of governance for the scale of the tragedy
By The Week Staff Published
-
Offshore wind: a blow to UK policy
Talking Point Britain's failed offshore wind auction debacle 'highlights an inconvenient truth'
By The Week Staff Published