• About
    • Which Energy Mix is this?
  • Climate News Network Archive
  • Contact
The climate news that makes a difference.
No Result
View All Result
The Energy Mix
  • Canada
  • UK & Europe
  • Fossil Fuels
  • Ending Emissions
  • Community Climate Finance
  • Clean Electricity Grid
  • Cities & Communities
SUBSCRIBE
DONATE
  • Canada
  • UK & Europe
  • Fossil Fuels
  • Ending Emissions
  • Community Climate Finance
  • Clean Electricity Grid
  • Cities & Communities
SUBSCRIBE
DONATE
No Result
View All Result
The Energy Mix
No Result
View All Result
  • Canada
  • UK & Europe
  • Fossil Fuels
  • Ending Emissions
  • Community Climate Finance
  • Clean Electricity Grid
  • Cities & Communities
  FEATURED
BP Predicts Faster Oil and Gas Decline as Clean Energy Spending Hits $1.1T in 2022 January 31, 2023
Canada Needs Oil and Gas Emissions Cap to Hit 2030 Goal: NZAB January 31, 2023
Ecuador’s Amazon Drilling Plan Shows Need for Fossil Non-Proliferation Treaty January 31, 2023
Rainforest Carbon Credits from World’s Biggest Provider are ‘Largely Worthless’, Investigation Finds January 31, 2023
Danske Bank Quits New Fossil Fuel Financing January 23, 2023
Next
Prev

Explainer: New Video Traces the Promise, Perils of Carbon Offsets

January 26, 2022
Reading time: 3 minutes

/Pikist

/Pikist

1
SHARES
 

“Have you ever wondered if [carbon offsets] are actually legit?” is the opening line in a recent video from Deutche Welle’s YouTube channel Planet A.

The video is meant for anyone trying to understand just what it means to offset that (longed for) flight to see family—and just how far to trust a mechanism that allows fossil fuel companies, no less, to declare themselves zero-carbon.

  • Be among the first to read The Energy Mix Weekender
  • A brand new weekly digest containing exclusive and essential climate stories from around the world.
  • The Weekender:The climate news you need.
New!
Subscribe

The answer: it’s complicated.

Using the example of a non-profit project in northern Germany that uses offset dollars to restore local degraded peatlands to their natural state as extremely rich carbon storehouses, the video makes clear that offsets can be “legit” if several criteria are all met: a project actually reduces carbon emissions, more or less permanently; the carbon emissions produced would not otherwise have occurred; and “bragging rights” (who gets to claim the offset: in this case, the German airline that directs consumer dollars to the peatland restoration project) are clear and traceable to one beneficiary. That’s easy enough in the case of a single German airline underwriting a peatland project in its home nation; not easy at all when corporate offsetting goals begin to overlap with national ones, as they do when the same German airline seeks further offsets via tree planting projects in Nicaragua.

Trouble is, these conditions are very rarely met, especially in the case of “voluntary” offsets that tend to be poorly regulated.

The first problem is that far too many offset projects that promise to reduce emissions do nothing of the sort. Citing a “landmark” 2016 study, Planet A reports that “85% of mandatory offsets the Kyoto Protocol had put in place were not decreasing CO2 in the atmosphere.”

A more recent study by a carbon offset broker found that more than 90% of 100 voluntary offset projects—mostly popular afforestation and conservation projects—didn’t deliver on their promises.

Sometimes, projects reduce emissions for a while, but are set up to fail over the longer haul—as an example, Planet A cites tree planting projects that 10 years on have been clearcut for timber. The video also red-flags the problem of banking on tree planting offsets in an era of rapidly increasing wildfires.

The second category of pitfalls applies to emission reductions that aren’t “additional”, since they would have occurred even without the offset project. One study found that more than 50% of wind farms funded with carbon offset dollars would have been built anyway, Plant A says.

The video also warns of “sweet bookkeeping magic” that allows more than one entity (a company here, a country there) to take credit for the offset.

If any of these factors are in play, and they all too often are, the offset is useless, Planet A warns. As well, many offset projects, especially the cheaper ones involving afforestation, “have a history of disrespecting land rights of Indigenous and local communities.”

For individual consumers, without the time or the training to analyze deeply, the question is how to know at a glance whether a particular offset project is legitimate, Planet A says. A good rule of thumb seems to be that you get what you pay for: The higher the price (it costs C$91.50 to offset one tonne of CO2 in that legit German peatland project), the better the odds that emissions reductions are actually taking place.

As for whether or not the programs are actually needed, it will be “extremely hard to reach our climate targets without some form of offsets,” Planet A says, citing the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. What remains urgently needed, however—alongside absolute reductions in emissions—is a regulatory environment to prevent carbon offset projects from being just another kind of greenwashing.



in Climate Denial & Greenwashing, Community Climate Finance, Ending Emissions, First Peoples, Forests & Deforestation, International Agencies & Studies, Legal & Regulatory, Soil & Natural Sequestration, UK & Europe

The latest climate news and analysis, direct to your inbox

Subscribe

Related Posts

Mike Mozart/Flickr
Ending Emissions

BP Predicts Faster Oil and Gas Decline as Clean Energy Spending Hits $1.1T in 2022

February 4, 2023
332
Gina Dittmer/PublicDomainPictures
Canada

Canada Needs Oil and Gas Emissions Cap to Hit 2030 Goal: NZAB

January 31, 2023
196
CONFENIAE
Ending Emissions

Ecuador’s Amazon Drilling Plan Shows Need for Fossil Non-Proliferation Treaty

January 31, 2023
61

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

I agree to the Terms & Conditions and Privacy Policy.

Trending Stories

Kenuoene/pixabay

$50B Opportunity Means ‘Go Time’ for Canadian Renewables: CanREA CEO

December 19, 2022
574
EcoAnalytics

Albertans Want a Just Transition, Despite Premier’s Grumbling

January 23, 2023
326
RL0919/wikimedia commons

Danske Bank Quits New Fossil Fuel Financing

January 23, 2023
2.4k
United Nations

Salvage of $20B ‘Floating Time Bomb’ Delayed by Rising Cost of Oil Tankers

January 27, 2023
123
Mike Mozart/Flickr

BP Predicts Faster Oil and Gas Decline as Clean Energy Spending Hits $1.1T in 2022

February 4, 2023
332
Sam Balto/YouTube

Elementary School’s Bike Bus Brings ‘Sheer Joy’ to Portland Neighbourhood

February 5, 2023
262

Recent Posts

Gina Dittmer/PublicDomainPictures

Canada Needs Oil and Gas Emissions Cap to Hit 2030 Goal: NZAB

January 31, 2023
196
CONFENIAE

Ecuador’s Amazon Drilling Plan Shows Need for Fossil Non-Proliferation Treaty

January 31, 2023
61
Ken Teegardin www.SeniorLiving.Org/flickr

Virtual Power Plants Hit an ‘Inflection Point’

January 31, 2023
125
/snappy goat

Rainforest Carbon Credits from World’s Biggest Provider are ‘Largely Worthless’, Investigation Finds

January 31, 2023
94
Victorgrigas/wikimedia commons

World Bank Climate Reforms Too ‘Timid and Slow,’ Critics Warn

January 31, 2023
42
Doc Searls/Twitter

Guilbeault Could Intervene on Ontario Greenbelt Development

January 31, 2023
132
Next Post
Bruce Reeve/Flickr

Opinion: Ontario’s New ‘Carbon Tax’ Looks Like the One Doug Ford Fought

The Energy Mix - The climate news you need

Copyright 2023 © Energy Mix Productions Inc. All rights reserved.

  • About
  • Contact
  • Privacy Policy and Copyright
  • Cookie Policy

Proudly partnering with…

scf_withtagline
No Result
View All Result
  • Canada
  • UK & Europe
  • Fossil Fuels
  • Ending Emissions
  • Community Climate Finance
  • Clean Electricity Grid
  • Cities & Communities

Copyright 2022 © Smarter Shift Inc. and Energy Mix Productions Inc. All rights reserved.

Manage Cookie Consent
To provide the best experiences, we use technologies like cookies to store and/or access device information. Consenting to these technologies will allow us to process data such as browsing behaviour or unique IDs on this site. Not consenting or withdrawing consent, may adversely affect certain features and functions.
Functional Always active
The technical storage or access is strictly necessary for the legitimate purpose of enabling the use of a specific service explicitly requested by the subscriber or user, or for the sole purpose of carrying out the transmission of a communication over an electronic communications network.
Preferences
The technical storage or access is necessary for the legitimate purpose of storing preferences that are not requested by the subscriber or user.
Statistics
The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for statistical purposes. The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for anonymous statistical purposes. Without a subpoena, voluntary compliance on the part of your Internet Service Provider, or additional records from a third party, information stored or retrieved for this purpose alone cannot usually be used to identify you.
Marketing
The technical storage or access is required to create user profiles to send advertising, or to track the user on a website or across several websites for similar marketing purposes.
Manage options Manage services Manage vendors Read more about these purposes
View preferences
{title} {title} {title}