ECOCLUB, Issue 92
_____
_____
11
calculate the hypothetical emissions reductions from it. The lack of verification about baselines also means that there are
enormous incentives and opportunities for companies to employ creative accountancy to choose a baseline that would result in
larger numbers of sellable credits to be generated on paper.
Leaving aside the issue of unresolvable methodological issues, there is perhaps the most fundamental critique of the offsets
industry is that it presents itself as a way that people can effectively deal with climate change while largely maintaining their
levels of energy consumption. Instead of acknowledging the uncomfortable but necessary truth that we cannot responsibly
persist with our current lifestyles, climate-conscious people are being encouraged to believe that with offset schemes they can
continue as they were, as long as they pay money to absolve themselves of their responsibility to the climate. A New York
Times article on ecotourism and offsets neatly sums up the idea, stating that “many travellers see carbon offsetting as a way to
help tackle global warming without having to give up that trip to the Bahamas.” (8)
Despite the fact that many offset sites promote themselves as being the ‘final step’ after people have taken all the measures they
can to reduce their emissions levels, this is often in the equivalent of the small print. In almost all cases the media promotes only
the act of offsetting and not, except when responding to criticism, the less glamorous business of making lifestyle changes. And
for every offset company that mentions that offsets should only be part of the response to climate change, there is another that
will make sweeping claims that you “can neutralise the greenhouse emissions from your home, office, car and air travel in 5
minutes and for the cost of a cappuccino a week,” (9) and that “modern living needn’t cost the earth”(10). People who may wish
to pay money to offset even the environmental costs of that cappuccino can visit www.offsetmylife.com where offsets for every
aspect of modern life are in development, from drinking coffee to watching television.
Furthermore, some of the environmentally unsustainable industries who are most dependent on the continued expansion of fossil
fuel extraction and consumption are using offset companies as a means of ‘greenwash,’ providing themselves with a veneer of
green credibility that they don’t deserve. It is possible to use ‘carbon branding’ through offset schemes to present the types of
human activity that directly exacerbate climate change as being effectively ‘neutralised,’ and with no impact on the climate. So
a major airline, which opposes aviation taxes and would never advocate that people simply choose not to fly unnecessarily can,
through a carbon offsetter, present its climate-conscious passengers with the option of flying free from concern over the impact
of their emissions. This shift to what is essentially an unregulated and disputed form of eco-taxation away from the company
and onto the consumer has gained the airline an enormous amount of favourable publicity. Elliot Morley MP, the UK
Government minister for climate change and environment, has actually urged all air travellers to consider offsetting their flights.
(11)
In the time that airlines are partnering with offsetters, they have also been vigorously promoting the massive expansion of
British airports, they have launched their own budget airlines to short-haul holiday destinations, and increased inter-city
commuter flight services. Despite fuel costs, the past couple of years have been a period of expansion and profitability as much
for offsetters as it was for airlines (12), both benefiting from the growth in online sales (13)
From flights, to four-wheel drives, to petrol itself, carbon offsets provide a false legitimacy to some of the most inherently
unsustainable products and services on the market. What’s more, the costs of this purchasable legitimacy are often largely
shunted onto the consumer, who effectively ends up paying for the greenwash. These companies also benefit because offset
schemes place more of the focus on the consumers’ responsibility for climate change - at the expense of examining the larger,
systemic changes that we need to bring about in our industries and economies.
There is an urgent need to stimulate public debate and participation in how we go about making those changes in a way that
don’t disproportionately penalize any one sector in society. The tourism industry is as vulnerable to the changes that must take
place as most other spheres of human endeavour. The fact is that the current drive for more airports, more runway expansions,
more air travel and more package holidays is in terms of climate change a dangerous anachronism that cannot continue
indefinitely. Debate is critical to stimulate proactive and creative responses to the need to slash emissions in the tourist industry.
The existence of offsets is effectively stymieing this debate by promoting the false option of the ‘business as usual’ scenario and
delaying the inevitable changes from happening. Businesses involved in ecotourism, as the environmental conscience or
vanguard of the wider tourism industry have a responsibility to see beyond the glossy hype of offset schemes and recognize
them for the ineffective marketing gimmick that they are.
of the Transnational Institute (www.tni.org). He is the author of the report “The Carbon Neutral Myth – Offset Indulgences
for your Climate Sins”
References:
1. D Adam, “You feel better, but is your carbon offset just hot air?,” The Guardian, 7 October 2006,
2. T Webb, “BA's offset goose is cooked”, The Independent, 25 March 2007,
