Climate Change: The Case for Carbon Offsets
Carbon offsets are having a PR problem. In their simplest form, offsets are a tool for an organization to compensate for their continued emission of greenhouse gases by paying someone else to eliminate an equivalent amount. In return for payment, the organization earns a “carbon credit” which, if verifiable, certifies that a certain amount of carbon has been eliminated from the atmosphere. Offsets might be in the form of planting trees or investing in a renewable energy project, or helping a developing country to reduce its burning of fossil fuels. In theory, it makes sense because carbon emissions are a global issue, so it shouldn’t matter where they are reduced.
Offsets can be problematic. Some researchers call them a “scam” used by businesses to hide their continued assault on the environment (so-called “greenwashing”). Just this week, researchers from UC Berkeley pointed to serious concerns with the validity of Verra's REDD+ carbon credit projects (Verra argues otherwise). Credits can also be the target of partisan attacks focused on a lack of transparency or standards. And then there’s the problem of natural disasters like the 2021 Bootleg fire in Oregon, which destroyed much of the forest where companies like Microsoft invested in large-scale tree planting.
As a result, the trend is to steer organizations away from including offsets in their emissions-reducing planning. The stark reality, however, is that we can’t afford to dismiss carbon offsets if we’re to have any hope of reaching mandated global carbon reduction targets. This month’s report from the U.N. says we're still way off track. The bottom line is there is no pathway to zero without carbon offsets and their corresponding credits. So if we can’t dismiss them, we must change how we implement them. And if we do that, we must also verify them.
Criticism from powerful people in emissions-choked industries is not helping. Recently the CEO of United Airlines called offsets a “fraud” and suggested that projects are not scalable. While we applaud United’s own efforts to eliminate emissions directly throughout its extensive value chain, the firm stand on offsets is missing the point. Reducing carbon at scale is not measured by the size of each individual project but by the combined projects invested in by all organizations. Are there fraudulent carbon offsets? Yes. Is there greenwashing? Yes. Are there watchdogs looking out for fraud? Not enough. But to dismiss them all as a waste of time and money is at our own peril.
There are different motivations for investing in offsets. Sometimes it’s to comply with policy mandates or publicly stated emissions reduction goals to make customers and shareholders happy; sometimes it’s because corporate leaders feel a certain degree of personal responsibility. Measuring their effectiveness then becomes the challenge. Until now the modus operandi has been to simply trust and sometimes verify. That needs to change. Going forward we must track and always verify.
That’s the missing piece – if we can’t yet dismiss offsets, at least for now, we must help organizations integrate them into their zero emissions plans. While these plans should primarily focus on expanding reductions within their own value chain, leveraging such tactics as carbon insetting, verified carbon offsets and credits can play a real part in overall emissions reductions.
Doing this must include holding accountable those who purchase credits, those who sell them and the offset projects themselves. It also means providing the resources to help organizations make smart choices about which credits to invest in.
By ensuring that buildings, businesses and organizations purchase high-quality credits, we end up on a faster track to no longer needing them. In a perfect world, offsets and credits would not be necessary, but until we live in that world, it’s up to us to responsibly incorporate them into every zero emissions plan, for all types of organizations, of all shapes and sizes. Zero really is zero, no matter how you get there – as long as the tactics are true and verifiable. We don’t yet have the luxury of dismissing any tools that can help us achieve that.
Mahesh Ramanujam is the President and CEO of the Global Network for Zero. Mahesh most recently led the U.S. Green Building Council and was primarily responsible for implementing LEED certification.