carbon offsets

When is it necessary, and what are the alternatives?

Peter Madden, chief executive of Forum for the Future, writes a monthly column for Gristmill on sustainability in the U.K. and Europe.

The Bishop of London recently proclaimed that flying on holiday is a sin, a view that seems increasingly to be shared by greens in the U.K.

Our environment minister, David Miliband, castigated Prince Charles for flying to America to receive an award, suggesting that he should have collected it via video-link. Mayer Hillman, author of How We Can Save the Planet and one of the more rigorous of our green thinkers, wants us to "drastically reduce or stop flying."

This of course raises a problem of public acceptability; for most people, flying is still something to aspire to.

It also raises some particular problems for environmentalists. Global travel and networking are important both to how we frame our challenges and how we resolve them.

Peter Madden ponders the upsides and downsides of CO2 offsetting

This is the second installment of a monthly column on sustainability in the U.K. and Europe, from Peter Madden, chief executive of Forum for the Future, Britain's leading sustainable development charity. Read the first column here.

We have gone offset-crazy in the U.K. Open any newspaper or magazine at the moment and you'll see full-page advertisements from oil giant BP offering the chance to "neutralize the impact of your car's CO2 emissions."

Buy a new Range Rover, book a holiday with First Choice, or pay for a flight with British Airways and you are given the chance to offset. Even this year's World Cup declared itself "carbon neutral."

Government has got in on the act too, with a clutch of departments promising to offset their impacts.

For some environmentalists, though, this is all a dangerous distraction from the need to reduce emissions at source. Kevin Anderson, a climate-change scientist, argues, "Offsetting is a dangerous delaying tactic because it helps us to avoid tackling that task. It helps us to sleep well at night when we shouldn't sleep well at night."

Charles Liesenberg, an offset provider, argues the opposite: that because climate change is a global problem, "it doesn't matter where you reduce emissions, as long as you do it."

A guide to offsetting your carbon emissions

Taking a vacation to the other side of the planet is the ultimate luxury, but it’s one laced with guilt. On top of developed-country remorse, a new form of shame is beginning to stalk those of us taking “unnecessary” airplane rides: What about all that carbon dioxide spewing into the friendly but beleaguered skies? That’s […]

TerraPass and verification

TerraPass, sellers of carbon offsets, has undergone its first verification report:

Based on an agreement with Center for Resource Solutions (CRS), creator of the Green-e program, this report details our impact for the year, the sales-supply balance and our distribution of offset projects. The good news, in case you’re wondering, is that we passed!

Big deal, you think? Perhaps for this individual company, but it's quite important that the carbon offsets industry -- which seems to be capturing public attention and taking off -- establish some shared standards of accountability. TP's Tom Arnold says:

We, along with CRS, hope to extend this pilot program into an industry-wide program. That means attracting other industry participants as well as getting feedback on what types of projects qualify for a Green-e like program. The CRS announcement went out this morning and I'm happy to say that NRDC, WRI, Interface Fabrics, climate change experts Seth Baruch and Terry Surles, and others will also participate in a new GHG Advisory Group to help shepherd through a program.

Cool.

(Here's the Green-e press release on the formation of the advisory group.)

Carbon offsets and guilt

Brad Stone has a clever satirical take on carbon offsets over on Newsweek, riffing off the recent partnership of Ford and TerraPass.

I think this is a wonderful idea -- do good while doing bad -- and I urge other businesses to join Ford in this fledgling, guilt-credits marketplace. It just might help us cope with the unreasonable stigma now associated with the proud American tradition known as conspicuous consumption.

For example, the fast-food giants might roll out an initiative called Flatter Tummies. For every bacon double cheeseburger they sell, the restaurant chains could allow customers to make a small donation toward the gastric-bypass surgery center of their choice.

With "Smarter Stitches," clothing manufacturers could help us compensate for the exploitation of low-wage textile workers in Asia. Every time you buy a new pair of sneakers, the footwear company in question would allow you to send an appreciative gift to an overseas textile worker -- perhaps a stuffed animal or the book "Goodnight Moon," translated into the appropriate language.

Ha ha, right?

But here's the thing:

British Airways eases passengers’ minds

If you're flying British Airways anytime soon (say, to see the London Design Show), check out this news: the airline is now charging an optional fee for passengers to offset the impacts of travel. The surcharges (the amount varies depending on the trip's length) will be donated to Climate Care, an Oxford-based company that cancels out carbon with partners ranging from a bank to a yoga center.

Is British Air's move a step in the right direction or, as one critic put it, a way to "make passengers feel less guilty about their unsustainable lifestyles"? Would you pay more for a plane ticket if the money "cancelled out" your carbon? Should more airlines get on board?

Umbra on green weddings

Dear Umbra, We are having a wedding in Kauai in September and are expecting about 40 guests. I would like to make it as “carbon-neutral” as possible. We’ve already instituted some greening aspects — recycled invitations, recycling at the reception, etc. — but would like to take it a step further. Obviously, air travel is […]