Carbon offsets and credits

What are they

In simplest terms a carbon offset is meant to be a way of matching efforts at reducing carbon in the atmosphere with activities that create carbon emissions. For example - planting trees, growing kelp, using direct air capture etc, matched to carbon emissions from flying, or factories or driving your car.

The idea is if I pay someone to plant enough trees to cancel out driving my car each year, I’m carbon-neutral right?

To recognise these efforts of reducing carbon in the atmosphere some kind of certificate is issued, so that it can be sold and matched to someone else’s carbon emissions. These certificates are known as carbon credits.

Carbon credits have become a tradeable financial instrument so that people emitting carbon can pay those reducing carbon for their work and claim to be carbon neutral or at least reducing their emissions. This bananas idea is the product of capitalism and the free market.

Instead of actually reducing your emissions, just pay someone who is actually doing that and it’ll all even out right? Like eating a Big Mac and watching a fitness influencer work out.

Governments and authorities who issue carbon credits have a variety of methodologies or models that they recognise. These have varying levels of effectiveness. We are starting to see that methodologies are flawed and the real world carbon reduction results are not as good as expected. Except the certificates in some circumstances have already been issued.

There are legitimate and quality forms of carbon offsets, but they are the minority. There is a vast array of questionable offsets. The main concerns are - is carbon really being removed from the atmosphere, how long is it being stored for, who reviewed and certified this?

Avoided emissions - WTF?

I think the most insidious carbon offsets are the ones where people claim they are avoiding making carbon emissions worse - e.g. there’s some trees on my farm, I was thinking about cutting them down. If I did that, the carbon would be released from the trees as they break down and they also would stop absorbing more carbon as they’re dead.

But if the government could give me some carbon credits, I won’t cut them down. How about that? Cool, so I’ve got these valuable carbon credits because I didn’t cut down those trees, which already existed. Now to sell these carbon credits to someone else.

Has the carbon balance actually changed here?

Morality

Beyond all that though the moral question is how carbon offsets should be used. There won’t be enough carbon offsets in the world to negate our current emissions, so how should they be used? Should airlines be first in line to buy them? What about eCommerce companies fuelling the problem of consumerism?

Shouldn’t we prioritise these efforts at carbon reduction for the hard to abate sectors of our economy?

There’s going to have to be some fossil fuel usage into the future until we’ve completely replaced it - we might not be able to find and utilise replacements in time.

The Australian Government’s current emissions reduction plan for the nation relies heavily on carbon offsets. Bugger.

External reading

Forest conservation carbon offsets being significantly overestimated, new study finds ABC News 25 Aug 2023.

Carbon Offsets Have a Fatal Flow Slate 08 Feb 2024

Now we know the flaws of carbon offsets, it’s time to get real about climate change April 2022

Revealed: more than 90% of rainforest carbon offsets by biggest certifier are worthless, analysis shows 19 Jan 2023

‘We don’t know where the money is going’: the ‘carbon cowboys’ making millions from credit schemes 15 March 2024

Australia’s carbon credits system a failure on global scale, study finds 27 March 2024

The great carbon offset scam 30 March 2024