Should I Offset My Carbon Footprint? Misconceptions & FAQs
This article is intended for:
- people who have been hearing about carbon offsetting, and wondering if they should offset their carbon footprint; and
- people who are already environmentally-conscious, and wondering if there is a real benefit if they offset their carbon footprint.
For a crash course on the basic concepts in carbon offsetting, go to my 'cheat sheet':
The questions featured in this article were distilled from various conversations and forums I belong to online. They cover a range of concerns, impressions, and misconceptions, some of which are opposite to each other! So I thought about writing this article, because these are questions which are impossible to answer in a comment box.
- Carbon Offsetting is Economically Agnostic
- Carbon Offsetting: When and How Did It Become a Thing?
- 1. Where does carbon offsetting fit in global warming?
- 2. Why should I offset my carbon footprint?
- 3. If I offset my carbon footprint, does it support development of green technologies?
- 4. If I travel by air, should I offset my carbon footprint with the airline?
- 5. If I travel by train, should I still offset my carbon footprint?
- 6. Is carbon offsetting the same as just planting trees?
Carbon Offsetting is Economically Agnostic
This article attempts to answer common questions related to carbon offsetting, which applies across the different economic paradigms (e.g. capitalist, socialist, syariah, or communist).
I will assume that stable political entities will not waste time changing their political-economic systems, and will simply adapt whatever system they already use to achieve Paris Agreement ambitions.
The default economic paradigm I adopt for this article is capitalist, since it is the default for English-speaking countries.
I write this article as a non-ideological environmental science practitioner with >15 years in the energy industry, not as a sustainable travel blogger.
Where appropriate, I also chose to write from the perspective of a STEM professional in the non-Western developing world. I think that it is a viewpoint that is under-represented on the internet, and that climate action discourse can benefit from its inclusion as a POV with agency, not a demographic to 'be saved'. For instance, I find Western discourse on climate action is typically more emotional and less tolerant of an 'all of the above' approach, compared to the developing world. We may soon enter a climate phase where this luxury can no longer be afforded.
If you have follow-up questions, please comment below. Perhaps I can find ways to improve the article. If you have carbon offsetting questions that aren't featured, please also comment. I may consider adding them to the list.
Carbon Offsetting: When and How Did It Become a Thing?
To answer the FAQs, I have to go into a bit of history.
In the 1990s, planetary scientists began noticing signals in the climate data that something was off balance. There was a lot more heat on the planet than there should be. The trend began from the Industrial Revolution, when mankind first began to use coal (and later, petroleum) in large quantities to expand manufacturing and mass transportation.
The discovery of fossil fuels meant that mankind was no longer limited by the growth rate of trees for wood, or the abundance of whale blubber. So we began burning more fuel than we ever burned before.
But carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere sharply increased across the same period. And carbon dioxide is the primary end product of burning fuel. It was not a coincidence.
This became a problem because carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas. More of it in the atmosphere means our planet is better at trapping heat energy it receives from the sun. So the planet began steadily getting hotter; i.e. it began warming.
The speed of climate change
That global warming is happening is one thing. The bigger issue is that it is warming really fast. The last time the earth got as warm as it's projected to be, a lot of ecosystems we rely on didn't exist. For perspective, that world had no ice in the polar ice caps.
And that shift took a million years. Ours is taking place within hundreds. This much warming happening this fast would mean that the climate systems we're used to would change - a lot. It wouldn't be gradual, so that we slowly adapt to it. Climate systems will change within just one or two generations.
It would mean natural disasters we're not used to. It would mean changes in where farmlands should be. Coastal cities would be flooded, and rivers relying on glacier melt would dry up. Ecosystems would collapse, potentially triggering extinction events.
Essentially - not good. And we are seeing this begin to play out already.
Global effort to reduce carbon emissions
I know this part fairly well, because I lived it as a teenager in the 90s, who was already interested in environmental issues. So I knew that global warming would become an important crisis within my lifetime. This knowledge was what made me choose to study environmental science in the first place.
You see, the basic science was basically done by then. Even in Malaysia, this was common knowledge if you paid attention. All climate science has done since, was either to try and rule out that perhaps the dire predictions were a mistake, or to try and make more precise predictions about what would happen and where.
The first effort failed, notwithstanding the fringes still in denial. The second are helping us prepare for inevitable adaptation and mitigation.
At what point did the global efforts stall?
But the 90s were kind of hopeful. That was when the world first came together to talk about it. The UN Framework Convention on Climate Change was formed. Carbon emission targets were agreed for the first time, albeit only for a subset of countries who were ready.
So I thought I would be old before I would see large-scale climate change happen. Surely, it couldn't happen any faster. I thought my role would be to pass on the torch, not to hold it up myself.
But a decade passed, and then another. The booming new millennium made people comfortable, and no country was willing to take the lead to do more, and put at risk their own economy.
Climate negotiations became dominated by protectionist attitudes. Socially, if you were a 'greenie', you were ridiculed by an increasingly consumerist society. Companies that had tentatively begun to invest in renewables were punished by the market with losses. They withdrew, and were held up by others as proof that society does not really want sustainable options.
What was in the way of climate action?
The idea that one evil guy was in the way, is tempting. But real life is not like a Hollywood movie. Yes, there's the unhelpful oil & gas lobbying in Washington. And there's general political corruption in, well, a lot of places. But in all honesty, what was really in the way (and still is), was the sum of our complex modern civilisation.
Our massive modern structures are efficient because it's interlocked. It's also hard to change, because it's interlocked. And destroying them, even as they are, is worse. Vulnerable groups are sheltered under all of these structures.
Even repressive governments provide stability; its removal leads to widespread suffering, as we can see in Syria. In some developing countries, multinational corporations bring benefits in workplace safety, and makes possible social advances in gender equality, and the growth of a professional class (often under-appreciated by those claiming to speak on our behalf). It allows, for example, someone like me to write this and address you from an equal footing. And while investment banking is these days better known for its entitled mentality, pension funds are sheltered under the same structures.
Democracies, corporations, surveillance states, banks, media, social platforms. These massive structures are not 100% bad, nor 100% good.
This complexity means that simplistic actions against someone will be opposed by somewhere that's benefiting from it. Conversely, governments can't move if the public aren't ready. Corporations can't move if consumers aren't ready. One company in an industry can't move if it means losing business to its competitors.
Somebody has to start, but then thereafter, everyone has to move more or less together. The exact ending has to be an evolution - not design.
A cross-structural, multinational problem requires unprecedented collaboration. But the 20th century, and everyone in it, only knew the language of competition.
Multinational effort to reduce carbon emissions
This really began when even bankers and economists started learning climate science. In 2006, an economist called Lord Stern conducted an economic study which revealed that the cost of disruption to economic activity due to climate change was far higher than the cost of climate action. It was the first such study, and it was convincing.
That was when the economic opinion began to turn. The study meant that, far from risking their economy, leadership on climate action is actually fiscally responsible. It took the best part of a decade, but within that decade the private sector gradually began to realise that climate change was not just an environmental risk, but also an investment risk.
By the time COP21 was tabled in Paris in 2015, even CEOs of several oil & gas multinationals issued statements strongly hinting that governments should agree a global accord of some kind to regulate the industry's emissions.
The historic Paris Agreement was then achieved.
Why can't emissions reduction efforts keep up?
Some dismiss the Paris Agreement for being vague and voluntary. However, in an international negotiation, the power of even a soft consensus is greater than sharply defined targets that not everyone is required to have. The peer pressure moves the right way around, and peer pressure is proving to be astonishingly effective - more effective than law. Perhaps it's because I'm a scientist, but this never occurred to me!
Major structural developments for climate action happened after the Paris Agreement. Tentative noises of fossil fuel divestments by investment funds became more sure, leading oil majors to dare re-visiting a renewables makeover. More stable democracies shut down coal plants and invested heavily in the energy transition. Authoritarian China, previously among the worst carbon emitters, is now a renewable energy powerhouse.
That it took 20 years to get this far is one thing. The bigger problem is that within those same 20 years, there were more prosperous countries in the world (good), and lifestyle emissions for everyone increased even more (bad). Emissions reductions from efficiency advances such as LEDs and efficient cooling systems could not keep up with more disposability, more meat consumption, and the rise of flight consumerism.
I was wrong. It could happen faster than the 90s. In just a decade or so, the emissions rate became much, much faster.
Is it because of population growth?
Some environmentalists would point to this and say, population growth is the real problem. Indeed, even with the trend of declining fertility levels worldwide, population growth will likely continue in this century. On the other hand, arguably, this period until human populations plateau is mainly a problem because the aspired quality of life is so energy intensive and wasteful.
There are really only two basic choices for environmentalists at this point. Either we make the equitable lifestyle sustainable, so that people leaving poverty enter into a sustainable life, or we choose to accept an unequal humanity, where some may live in leisure at the expense of the rest.
Why can't we stop using petroleum right away?
In theory, we could do it.
But no one chooses to, because it would mean suffering to people immediately. It would mean sacrificing all of the non-climate UN Sustainable Development Goals. These include goals such as no poverty (#1), zero hunger (#2), and good health (#3).
We can see how, in the worldwide Covid19 lockdowns, every country listed fuel supply as an essential service. Associated employees were required to show up to work as essential workers. No country - not even Costa Rica - has yet fully transitioned such that it has the option not to list fuel supply as essential.
But wouldn't a fully renewable energy system enable the UN SDGs, and isn't climate change a threat to achieving the SDGs?
Yes, which is why clean energy and climate action are SDGs (#7 & #13). However, all human activity, including that which will power climate action, requires energy. As these activities are ongoing, they require energy that is available today.
Simply ceasing all fossil fuel use right away will leave a severe shortfall in energy supply. It will cause failures in agriculture, food distribution, powering of hospitals, refrigeration of medicines, not to mention production of materials required for the renewables transition itself.
Mining is still largely dependent on fossil fuels, and necessary for the production of batteries. And we still need plastics to make wind turbines and solar panels. While non-hydrocarbon alternatives to plastics are being developed, they're not online at the scale required, today.
Even though there has been unprecedented investment in renewables capacity in recent years, they won't come online tomorrow. Energy demand in this lag time still needs to be met. But since we are already out of the global carbon budget, its emissions need to be absorbed as much as possible. And all while trying to drop the energy demand for tomorrow.
This is why there is so much emphasis on carbon offsetting and a sustainable financing infrastructure in the past 2-3 years. It simply must be done.
Why can't we at least stop all investment in new fossil fuel capacity?
To achieve the Paris Agreement goals, most of the fossil fuel reserves must be left in the ground. Wherever it is feasible to meet new energy demand by other means, those have to be preferred over fossil fuels. The infrastructure of carbon offsetting (and in part, the fast-developing frameworks of sustainable financing) is meant to favour this outcome in investment decisions*, in the absence of stronger government action such as a ban.
However, for the same constraint as described in earlier sections, some fossil fuel investment has to continue. That said, it is entirely laudable for investment funds in developed countries to question whether their capital ought to go there. In fact, countries that are in a position to stop fossil fuel investment without incurring public anger, have done so (e.g. Ireland).
Are there reasons to be cynical?
Are there selfish corporations? Yes. They tend to be in regulatory frameworks where selfishness is a low business risk (i.e. not punished, or in some countries, even rewarded).
Overwhelmingly capitalist countries may find it difficult to imagine countries where capitalism is not the sole means to do everything. But there are regulatory frameworks where you end up with not as many selfish companies, or at least lines they won't cross. Either because selfish behaviour is in some way illegal, or the country's culture is such that you simply won't be able to hire enough people willing to be unrestrainedly selfish. In these countries, businesses mobilise to render assistance across their nations in emergencies and disasters, without being asked. Acting outside of capitalism.
It is entirely possible to view capitalism (as well as other economic systems) as a framework you can design to deliver outcomes you want, rather than a mysterious 'invisible hand' that is larger than ourselves.
Corporations are not 'evil' simply because they are corporations. The 'corporation' is essentially a machine created to facilitate competition, and they are staffed by people drawn mainly from the country it's based in. The nature of what companies are like, is just a reflection of the country they grew from.
The ecosystem is larger than ourselves. The economy isn't. It's time to put it back the right way around.
Climate action and environmental justice
There's a general difference in the way the Western public talk about fossil fuel elimination, vs developing countries. And that's to do with the difference in what that means for the daily lives of people.
It's true that less developed countries are generally the most exposed to the consequences of climate change. However, for mostly the same reasons, we also have the most to lose from a lack of access to energy.
We know that, for some of us, loss of power means that women go back to walking miles every day for water. For some island communities, access to healthcare stops. Delayed access to power for others, means desperate poverty for another decade of our lives, or another generation of children foregoing education. And for still others, losing a national oil company means the danger of losing sovereignty to foreign powers all over again.
These are not 'quality of life' decisions. These are life and death decisions.
In the developing world, industry may not necessarily be the worst evil. It is still normal to be loyal to your people's greater good first, even if you are employed by a corporation. And sometimes, corporations form the links that prepare a country for international climate collaboration.
An ideological all-or-nothing position is a luxury only the global 1% of nations can afford to indulge in. The rest of us have no leeway to insist that options only come through a certain way. We have no choice but to admit all possibilities. It's difficult enough to shepherd a country through an energy transition. It's too much to also quibble over which solution is the best one. A second best solution that is done, is better than a best one that is theoretical.
The dawning age of co-operation
Without help, developing countries can only do the energy transition slowly, if at all. Yet capital owners in developed countries are under pressure to invest first in climate mitigation to protect their own people. This dilemma is what has stalled climate negotiations for years.
A significant part of how the Paris Agreement attained worldwide consensus, was an understanding that emissions reduction targets by developing countries are conditional on assistance from developed countries. Although this, too, was fairly vague, it was the first global consensus that anything else is unfair.
I've no doubt that future generations will find it unbelievable that 'co-operation' was the controversial answer that took 20 years to resolve.
Anyway, the most interesting development I've seen to accelerate obsolescence of fossil fuel demand without inflicting these negative outcomes in the developing world, has recently come from Shell's net zero ambition, which has since been copied by its competitors.
I say so, not because it was issued by an oil & gas company, but because the strategy explicitly involves co-operation. Specifically, it involves helping industry customers decarbonise, inventing a positive feedback loop of carbon emissions reduction across multiple industries.
Again, I don't know how to explain to future generations that it took this long to be socially acceptable for a company to announce it will help its customers' businesses decarbonise.
"Companies that supply energy – including the power sector – should work with the sectors that use energy. We should work together, supply and demand, with a new approach to progressively decarbonise the energy use sectors."Ben van Beurden, Shell CEO
1. Where does carbon offsetting fit in global warming?
The release of carbon emissions is local, though the consequence is global. Carbon capture also happens locally - but maybe somewhere else in the world.
Carbon offsetting is a mechanism through which these two processes - emission and capture - are valued and matched. A project emitting a lot of carbon (high carbon intensity) would then be less profitable vs a 'low carbon' one. And projects that result in emissions avoidance or capture can claim carbon credits to obtain funding.
To be clear, carbon offsetting does not solve all of the obstacles of complex civilisation that is in the way of climate action. For example, it cannot solve socio-political obstacles in some countries, that propagate climate change denial. Multiple structural actions must be pursued at once, to give us the best possible chance against the consequences of climate change.
But it is fundamental to fixing one - the finance/economic system. Simply putting a price on carbon emissions would allow the very same economic engine that accelerated a carbon intensive economy, to accelerate a low carbon economy instead.
Where does carbon offsetting not fit in?
For this reason, contributing to other environmental issues (e.g. wildlife rescue), even if they are related to climate change (e.g. forest fire recovery), is not the same as carbon offsetting.
They are very important, don't get me wrong. But they solve different problems than the one carbon offsetting would. We also have a biodiversity crisis, a marine plastics crisis, and others. Their solutions don't solve climate change, and climate change solutions don't solve them.
I'm going to let you have some moments now, for the realisation to sink in. That we have a lot of problems to fix in order to get the planet back in balance, not just the one.
Which is better: a carbon pricing mechanism, or a carbon tax?
A carbon tax levies funds to be re-distributed by a government, usually for green initiatives. It is a politically preferred mechanism in some countries, mainly because it uses existing finance infrastructure. At the same time, it also raises funds to pay for initiatives that help them meet their carbon emissions reduction targets, e.g. building insulation upgrades.
Additionally, for certain countries, the carbon tax is also used politically to show the public that the government 'punishes' carbon intensive industries which are unpopular (e.g. coal, mining).
Businesses tend to prefer a carbon pricing mechanism over a carbon tax, mainly because it fits in more easily with existing systems for financing projects. A common pricing mechanism would also equally penalise carbon intensity irrespective of industry (including the ones you don't think about, e.g. agriculture, smelting, concrete making), while equally rewarding climate-positive innovation.
2. Why should I offset my carbon footprint?
Thus far, I've covered the context for why carbon offsetting exists. In order to roll back carbon emissions, energy systems need to be carbon neutral as soon as possible.
But what is the responsibility of the public in this matter? Should the energy provider/industry offset the associated carbon footprint of the product for you? Indeed, as carbon offsetting mechanisms mature, this might become the case. But to get there from status quo, is not a simple yes/no answer.
And the reason for that, is that global warming is not really a carbon accounting problem. It's an accountability problem. In other words, it's a human problem.
Enough for need, not enough for greed.
Because global warming is a human problem, the psychology of carbon offsetting matters.
Human beings are not very good at appreciating problems that are far away. We don't think about what it takes to mine the minerals used in electronics, when we're lining up for a new smartphone. We don't think about marine life entangled in discarded plastic fishing nets, when we're shopping for fish.
When we have a financial budget, we become aware of exceeding it. Otherwise, it's easy to overspend. The planet has its budget too, but if we don't make a point of seeing it, we overspend it.
Even if all businesses agree to go net zero today, how easy that is to achieve, and how long it takes, depends a lot on how much energy is demanded by us. But we would not know how much we're over, if we don't know our budget. And we won't become serious about using less energy, if someone else keeps paying for our offset. We are simply more prone to wasting 'free' things.
What if someone is rich enough that they don't care about this, and will just pay whatever the amount required to offset the carbon footprint of their lifestyle? Well then, they'd still be funding a heck of a lot of carbon removal projects! Don't worry about them; they are not who generates a social tipping point.
Let's take another contemporary movement: the movement against single-use plastic. (Sometimes it's easier to understand something when you see a finished example.)
You could say that it's entirely the associated industries' responsibility to recover plastic waste, or not to use plastic frivolously at all. Yet everyone got away with it for so long, that the problem can no longer simply be solved by banning it. It simply grew to be too large.
Yet today, zero waste products are becoming more and more mainstream. Just 10 years ago, this was difficult to imagine. There was simply no market for it (ask your nearest Gen X environmentalist). At best, people tried to reduce the plastic waste, or recycle. At best, companies innovated to reduce plastic content in packaging.
The tipping point came when zero waste groups tried not to generate plastic waste. The shock of finding it nearly impossible turned the magnitude of the plastic pollution problem into public knowledge. Charismatic marine animals dying of plastic turned the knowledge emotional and viral.
It led to more people attempting to go plastic free, which made it possible to set up zero waste shops to meet the demand. And it led to communities from Guatemala to India reviving their pre-plastic solutions.
The circular economy concept only gained momentum, after the social tipping point for single use plastics.
Now, the circular economy is not a new concept. It goes back at least as far back as the 90s. Yet it never really got adopted into capitalism, because the value was not visible to the vast majority of customers. In fact, circular models are less convenient to customers. No company can afford to spend resources on something that gave negative competitive advantage.
But then, the social tipping point was achieved. Today, a circular economy transition is being seriously discussed in economist circles and among industry leaders. It took less than 5 years after the social shift to gain traction. Its proponents have been trying for decades. And it all boils down to one thing: enough of the ordinary public got serious about it, that they would restrain their spending behaviour accordingly.
What has this got to do with carbon offsetting?
We could just leave companies to offset their carbon footprint on their own. However, regulatory measures - on their own - are slow.
But suppose enough energy consumers become like zero waste activists, and start to restrain energy consumption accordingly - and publicly share ideas for how to do it.
I'll pay extra for renewable energy, because the surcharge is still cheaper than carbon offsetting it.
We'll take just one vacation and regionally, because we can't afford to offset the carbon footprint for intercontinental flights for all of us.
Hey, did you know this tour comes with a carbon offset included?
This is how far we got the electricity bill down to, since we got a smart meter!
I can't avoid using the car, but as long as I'm paying the carbon offset I know how much I stand to gain if a public transport option becomes available, and keep an eye out for it.
Individually, these offsets would not make a dent in carbon emissions. But collectively, they set a new demand that carbon emissions should be offset. Which tells businesses that consumers understand the value. Which leads to some of them daring to offer it - not just to consumers, but to other businesses as well. And if those businesses are preferred, the positive spiral begins.
And that may be why, at this time in history, you might want to offset your carbon footprint. Not because the actual carbon removed by your offset matters. But because we are all networked, and your action of offsetting something ripples through the network.
3. If I offset my carbon footprint, does it support development of green technologies?
No, when you offset your carbon footprint, it does not go towards R&D for new green technologies.
This is basically like owing money to your friend, but instead of paying him back, you invest in another friend's business so that she - maybe - might make enough money sometime in the future, and pay back the first friend!
What the offset does support, is the uptake and deployment of existing green technologies. (In the context of this question, I consider 'green' to mean 'low carbon'.)
For example, if you are interested in work being carried out to electrify aviation, so that flights do not need to be run on jet fuel, this is not a carbon offsetting project - yet.
But let's say the technology is finally developed, but it is not profitable enough to give competitive advantage in the aviation industry. Then, in theory, the technology owner can apply to issue carbon credits which may make the investment hurdle easier to overcome, and airlines are able to change out their fleet more quickly.
Until then, it is not a carbon offsetting project, because no carbon emissions are actually removed or avoided by your financial contribution. Not to mention that it could still turn out to be a profitable swap, in which case the fleet change would happen anyway.
That said, offsetting your carbon emissions does indirectly support low carbon technology development. Investment in low carbon R&D becomes more likely if there is a widely accepted mechanism to recognise a technology's value of simply being low carbon, separately from how it makes a business more profitable.
4. If I travel by air, should I offset my carbon footprint with the airline?
Ideally, the cost to offset your flight carbon footprint would already be included in the fare, if carbon offsetting is embedded into our energy systems. But today, it is not yet the case. Conscious travellers can play a role by indicating that carbon offsetting is something that we want.
Should you, therefore, offset your flight carbon footprint with the airline (assuming the option is available), instead of buying carbon credits from the market (e.g. through a carbon offsetting service such as Terrapass)?
There's no single answer to this. On the one hand, if you offset your flight carbon footprint through the airline, it is a direct signal that you are in favour of carbon neutral flight. Additionally, if the airline has a carbon offsetting project for their own emissions, and is simply extending it to customers, then it could also be a very affordable option.
The biggest worry that people have about offsetting flight emissions with the airline, is legitimacy. Good offsetting programmes would be able to tell you what standard they use to verify the offset, for example the Gold Standard. They should be responsive to queries about audit reports.
If you are in doubt over either of these things, then it is equally easy to go to a carbon offsetting provider instead, such as Flightnook. This carbon offsetting option also gives a direct signal to the aviation industry that you are in favour of carbon neutral flight, albeit not directly to the airline you're flying with. Additionally, the offsetting provider would be better placed to vet the verification standards used by carbon offsetting projects, on your behalf.
5. If I travel by train, should I still offset my carbon footprint?
The above sections should hopefully have helped you distinguish between the different things that all need to happen for effective climate action:
- reduce overall energy demand
- reduce carbon emissions from industry sectors
- increase carbon removal activities
Now, supporting any of the three will help. Your decision to travel by train instead of a more carbon intensive option (e.g. car), contributes to the first goal: reduce overall energy demand. Indirectly, it also contributes to the second one, because you remove your consumer demand for energy intensive transport. This means that the low carbon mobility option grows, rather than the high carbon ones.
But you can still offset the carbon footprint of the train trip, and it would be so easy. If you're taking the train instead of driving, you're already making it far cheaper to offset the carbon footprint of your journey. And this contributes to increasing public support for carbon neutral activities.
For perspective, offsetting my train work commute for the whole of 2019 cost me just $1. Yet this small participation still counts to signal popular support for carbon offsetting. Why not just do it?
6. Is carbon offsetting the same as just planting trees?
Planting trees is good! But it's not carbon offsetting.
Now, planting forests can qualify as a carbon offsetting project, if it fulfils the criteria (read more here). It is also the most popular way to offset your carbon footprint, for several reasons.
For starters, compared to other methods of removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, reforestation is cheap.
Secondly, it usually also helps with another environmental crisis, the Biodiversity Crisis (remember, climate change is not our planet's only crisis!). This is why I don't see any major issues with first mover industries prioritising nature-based offsets in their plan to go carbon neutral. Eventually, this option would reach its limit. However, by then carbon pricing would ideally be normal in economic systems, and snowball the growth of succeeding carbon offsetting methods.
Thirdly, planting forests has a broad public appeal, and that's probably why we hear about it the most in relation to climate action.
Now, what is the difference between just planting trees, and planting trees as a carbon offsetting project? After all, both ways remove greenhouse gases from the atmosphere.
Think about it in terms of putting out a house on fire. Just planting trees is like handing over as many buckets of water you can get hold of, to the firemen. Planting trees as a carbon offsetting project is like doing that, but in such a way that it also funds the fire department itself, so that frequency of fires can slowly be reduced.
What are other types of carbon offsetting projects?
There are actually many ways to remove carbon from the atmosphere, or prevent new carbon emissions. At this time, some of the more common projects through which you can offset your carbon footprint include:
- renewable power generation & energy efficiency upgrades (if these were not going to happen anyway due to being profitable)
- methane emissions reduction in animal agriculture
- methane capture from old landfills
There are also new forms of promising carbon capture mechanisms that are being developed into projects. Some examples:
- wetlands protection and other 'blue carbon' ecosystems
Betting climate action on reforestation alone is very risky. The planet has already warmed enough that forest fires are now more likely in places like Australia and Canada, releasing the stored forest carbon in one go.
Nobody knows what the future climate will be like, so we don't know which carbon capture methods will work and which will be at risk due to climate change itself. So, that is why it cannot just be about planting trees, and why we need all of the options on the table.
*Carbon offsetting efforts are mainly led by Europe, while sustainable financing is mainly led by developing countries - especially those transitioning to developed status. These developments may not make it to the awareness of the US public, since they happen largely without US involvement. That does not mean they are not happening, or are not taken seriously.
Was this useful? Let me know below! And share!