What’s Your Problem with Voluntary Offsets?
Carbon offsets are suddenly back in the news in a big way. Carbon Offsets Round 1, which ran from 1988 to approximately 2015, has now been supplanted by Carbon Offsets Round 2 (which has a detailed Climate Site here).
Carbon Offsets Round 2 originated with calls for companies to substantially advance progress toward a global 2o C (or even 1.5o C) target by committing to “net zero” emissions commitments. For most companies, getting to net zero will require using a lot of offsets.
The Round 2 message is being amplified by the Task Force on Scaling Voluntary Carbon Markets (TSVCM), which proposes that voluntary carbon markets increase in size by 100-200 fold in order to be able to supply the offsets that would be needed to voluntarily achieve net zero.
Not surprisingly, the idea that global reliance on voluntary carbon offset markets should increase 200-fold is generating a lot of reactions. We are observing that those reactions are often a bit confusing, conflating different lines of argument in ways likely to leave the non-expert public more confused than not. Here we try to separate out some of the conversations with the objective of helping advance the larger offset and climate change conversations.
Conversation 1: Offsets Are Inherently Problematic
A recent example of this argument can be found in this blog post which labels as “False” the statement that Products and travel can be “climate neutral” or even “climate positive. Products and travel that are sold as “climate neutral” or “climate positive” due to offsetting, do still have a carbon footprint. Such marketing is misleading and may even lead to more emissions as the offsetting incentivises increased consumption. We contribute more to climate solutions by consuming and travelling less.
The statement challenges the whole idea behind offsets. It suggests that even purchasing a high quality carbon offset that truly satisifies criteria including additionality, permanence, and leakage, and using it against a ton of CO2 you can’t avoid emitting for whatever reason, does not contribute to climate change mitigation.
In our view this line of argument throws the baby out with the bathwater. There are very good reasons to be rethinking the role of voluntary offset markets more than 30 years after they got started, but suggesting that even good offsets don’t deliver climate change benefit isn’t one of them.
Conversation 2: In Practice, Offsets Haven’t Worked
There is a large literature that evaluates how voluntary (and regulatory) offset markets have performed. You can find a lot more detailed information on the implementation challenges offsets have faced at our Carbon Offsets Round 2 micro-site, and in the Climate Web itself. There is a substantive argument to be made that we have done such a poor job of implementing carbon offsets, primarily due to failing to ensure that markets are sufficiently additional, permanent, and without leakage, that we should think of voluntary offsets as a failed experiment and figure out how to move on. An intermediary approach would be to try something very different like an offset scoring system that would provide the market signals consumers need to differentiate between “high confidence” and “low confidence” offsets. Learn more here.
Conversation 3: It’s Time to Transition From Voluntary Offsets
Voluntary carbon offsets got their start more than 30 years ago, when national and international climate policies were still just concepts. Learn more about that history here. Voluntary offsets had two key attributes: 1) as a way for individuals and companies to demonstrate their concern over climate change, and 2) as a way to get companies onto the slippery slope of accepting and responding to climate change.
The currently proposed expansion of voluntary offset markets is associated with promoting the objectives of the 2015 Paris Agreement, which (at least rhetorically) limits average global temperature change to 2.0°C or even 1.5°C. But if countries are serious about achieving that target, far more of the world’s greenhouse gas sources and sinks will need to be targeted by policies and measures of one kind or another.
A strong case can be made that a global effort to achieve the 2015 Paris Agreement will basically supplant voluntary carbon offset markets. Given the breadth of the policies and measures required by the Paris Agreement targets, there simply won’t be enough gigatonnes of cost-effective emissions reductions and carbon sequestration “left over” to supply voluntary offset markets.
If the expansion of voluntary offset markets is premised on the idea that countries will NOT actually take the necessary steps to achieve the Paris Agreement Targets, and that voluntary actions can take up the slack, a lot more analysis of whether such a role for voluntary actions is even plausible would be necessary. While it’s one thing to talk about “net zero” commitments from a few high profile companies, the idea that the business community as a whole will step in where policy makers have failed is a hypothesis will little supporting data at this point.
Note that the Task Force for Scaling Voluntary Carbon Markets has come up with disturbing option that directly links voluntary markets to the commitments countries have made to help achieve the Paris Agreement targets. Learn more through this blog.
Conversation 4: Purchasing Offsets vs. Policy Advocacy
One reason there is such a focus on carbon offsets is that the message that companies and individuals need to reduce their carbon footprints has been so dominant. For decades now, companies concerned about climate change have focused on reducing their carbon footprints through actual internal reductions, through offsets, through “green energy” purchases, and other means. The same goes for individuals concerned about climate change. This focus on the primacy of footprint reductions has continued even though there is very little reason to assume that voluntary footprint reductions will have much of an impact on climate change or the climate risks facing companies and individuals.
More than a decade ago some observers started noting that companies concerned about climate change should start focusing less on the carbon footprints, and more on their “policy footprints.” A lot of focused work to communicate this message has been done by Influence Map, which coined the term “policy footprint.”
Rarely has this line of argument been specifically structured to pit offsets vs. policy advocacy, but that is indeed what the new group Giving Green does. Giving Green makes recommendations regarding carbon offsets, but ultimately suggests that where the focus of your giving should be is policy advocacy. It’s a powerful argument.
That said, it misses a big part of the picture when it comes to how individuals can support climate change mitigation. While some people have money to give, there are many other ways to deploy the time and expertise individuals can bring to the table. Learn more at the Individual Action Climate Site.
For an even bigger picture approach to tackling climate change in the most effective way possible, learn more about use the metaphor of Climate Chess to suggests a much more informed and collaborative approach to moving hundreds of climate chess pieces that are on the board. Learn more at the Climate Chess Climate Site.
We need to have serious conversations about carbon offsets, both with respect to voluntary and regulated offset markets. Those conversations will be a lot more productive if we can structure them in a way that best gets at the underlying question of “how can we best advance climate change mitigation goals?”
We hope this Climate Site can contribute to a more productive conversation. We’d welcome your feedback and suggestions (see paragraph below) and the page at right.
Understanding this Climate Site
This Climate Site extracts information from the Climate Web, built to facilitate access to the actionable climate knowledge needed by individuals, companies, and policy-makers for tackling the entire "wicked problem" of climate change. The Climate Web is an open-access knowledgebase based on the work of thousands and experts, and the closest thing to a collective climate intelligence existing today. Find out more through the pages and links to the right.
Contact us here with your feedback and suggestions, and to discuss how Climate Sites could advance your climate change objectives. If you value our work on the Climate Web and Climate Sites like this one, sign up to stay informed, and consider supporting our Patreon Project.