Have your say!

Carbon offset programmes seem to be the latest measure of greenness, and although they are attempting to deal with the earth’s accumulation of CO₂ gas emissions practically, there is something of the concept that doesn’t sit easy with me.

Carbon offsetting aims to reduce global warming and climate change by compensating for greenhouse gas emissions. The idea is not a new one and arose from the carbon trading concept of the Kyoto Protocol - first adopted by countries, then companies – and now consumers and individual travellers. Long-haul flights result in significant carbon emissions, and projects like My Climate, Climate Friendly and Grow a Forest attempt to deal with these by calculating the amount of carbon your flight contributes and then assigning a monetary value to neutralising this. This money is usually used to fund a project in energy efficiency, renewable energy, or reforestation. The outcome – a carbon neutral trip.

After a bit of research, I was surprised to discover that I was hardly alone in my skepticism. Many environmental groups are against the idea of carbon offsetting and organisations refusing to endorse the programmes include Friends of the Earth and Greenpeace. In an excerpt from an article by FERN (Forests and the European Union Resource Network) Cambridge University landscape historian Oliver Rackham is quoted: “For its practical effect, telling people to plant trees is like telling them to drink more water to keep down rising sea levels.” The article presents a powerful argument against the effectiveness of the calculations for carbon compensation and in short, highlights the difference in fossil carbon (the type we use in gas/petrol) and biological carbon (the type stored in trees – and released when they are burnt or die). Also to be considered is the impact tree planting could have on biodiversity. For example, the economic incentives for poor countries may make tree plantations an attractive land-use at the expense of indigenous vegetation.

While these issues are obviously worrying, what is of particular concern is that the argument for reduced consumption of fossil fuels is completely undermined. This is why we as travellers need to consider the impact of these programmes from a broader perspective – to consider the idea that some carbon offsetting companies are trying to sell.

In the bigger picture, the carbon compensation concept deals an enormous blow to organisations working against the world’s major polluters: super-companies who profit from and encourage an over-consumptive fossil-fuelled society. Sure, it will help the symptoms of too much CO₂ production, but it also distracts us from the real problems and the real solutions to climate change; and weakens the recent progress in awareness on the subject. The largest corporate polluters can now easily hide behind their carbon neutral status, and the consumer can be fooled into a false sense of all-is-well.

I am not by any means saying that there is no value in the carbon offset projects themselves. On the contrary, I encourage the support of community development and environmentally sustainable projects – but I am throwing in a word of caution. It is easy to be fooled into believing that carbon offsetting will solve climate change problems. Salve perhaps, but solutions will be far more difficult than Climate Friendly’s claim: "In 5 minutes and for the cost of a cappuccino a week, you can go climate neutral now."

If you choose to offset the carbon emitted on your next trip, consider the projects carefully and choose a company that does not suggest that carbon offsetting is the solution to global warming.
Below are a handful of the carbon offset companies available. I have mentioned my impressions, but I encourage you to take the time to compare companies and draw your own conclusions.


My climate (with Sustainable Travel International): Presents carbon offsetting as a way of investing in climate-friendly projects in developing countries. They do not support tree planting. Project example – in a South African township, My Climate is assisting a local sewage plant in capturing methane gas to generate electricity. The project works to halt the emission of methane gas into the atmosphere, as well as negate the need to use coal-generated electricity from the national grid.

Grow a forest (UK): The philosophy is to “reduce your carbon emissions through the growing of new trees”. A fundamentally flawed statement, planting trees cannot reduce your emissions – it attempts to deal with the effects of your emissions, but the only way to reduce your emissions is to reduce your emissions. Whereas some carbon offset companies buy up land which already has trees on it, Grow a Forest promises to plant new trees. Their website does not present a holistic picture of the problem, and promotes the disturbing idea that you can reverse your carbon emissions.

Climate Trust (USA): Presents offsets as a part of the solution. The Climate Trust offsets come from projects that reduce greenhouse gas emissions in many sectors (green buildings, industrial efficiency, forest sequestration, transportation, as well as renewable energy). I found this website very informative.

CarbonFund.org (USA): I liked their renewable energies project and their goal to help make promising technologies more affordable. While I didn’t quite understand their energy efficiency project, their sequestration projects (reducing CO2 in the atmosphere) don’t pretend to be without their drawbacks, but are there for those who prefer this method.

Climate Care (UK): There is not enough information here to develop a real concern for the climate situation. The solution is presented, but not the reason why it is necessary. Nevertheless, they have many innovative projects on the go.