Carbon offsetting has emerged as a divisive concept in recent years as the world seeks solutions to climate change.
Carbon offsetting is a process through which companies or individuals compensate for their greenhouse gas emissions by investing in an equivalent removal of such emissions from the atmosphere.
The rationale behind these projects is for companies to gain carbon credits by either avoiding the release of emissions, removing existing GHG from the atmosphere, or reducing GHG emissions.
International non-governmental organisations like Friends of the Earth, Greenpeace, and World Wildlife Fund-UK have also criticised carbon offset projects, arguing that these projects encourage a culture of climate pollution.
Carbon offsets that rely on land use in developing countries run the danger of transferring the burden of reducing emissions from wealthier countries to those already feeling the impact of the climate crisis.
Greenwashing occurs in this case when companies fail to prioritise in-house emissions reduction, double-count carbon credits, or invest in non-verified credits.
When a company does not prioritise in-house emissions reduction, the significance of its carbon offset programmes is therefore called into question.
Greenwashing also occurs when a company’s trade reduction is counted twice — once by the company offsetting its emissions and again by the project’s host country when reporting its nationally determined contributions or climate target.
For example, MIT Technology Review and ProPublica uncovered how The Massachusetts Audubon Society received carbon credits for conserving forests that were never in danger of being cut down; and when companies like Shell, Phillips 66, and the Southern California Gas Company bought these credits as part of their carbon offset programme, they failed to offset their emissions due to this crucial factor.
By donating us $100, $50 or subscribe to Boosting $10/month – we can get this article and others in front of tens of thousands of specially targeted readers.