ECOCLUB, Issue 92
_____
_____
7
a pretty uncomfortable temperature for civilisation as we know it, so I don't think that their running out is going to solve the
problem for us.
The argument that technology will save us may be the case for some areas, but it seems unlikely that this will happen with
aircraft. We are currently a long way off a technology that can provide enough lift to get immensely heavy aircraft into the air
other than by using fossil fuels. Also with aircraft fleets, they are long term investments and any revolutionary changes that
may come about that were not retro-fittable would not affect current stock - think about it - aircraft being built today will have
an expected life-span of anything up to 40 years, so again this argument doesn't hold water.
When people get angry and say that there are far more important things that the world should be focussing on, like poverty
alleviation, it seems strange to me. Trying to reduce global climate change is all about poverty alleviation - as the Stern report
said, to make the necessary changes now could cost 1% of global GDP per year, if we leave it until later it could cost anything
up to 20%. It's the developing world that will be hit worst when things get really hot, by investing now we're working in future
poverty prevention rather than alleviation.
It's not only emissions reductions that are achieved under our offsetting scheme, it's enabling people in countries where they'd
not otherwise be able to afford to, to go for the cleaner option - where in India or China it would be far cheaper to use more coal
to generate your electricity, the introduction of the carbon funding from offsets sold makes the cleaner wind option (for
example) financially viable.
Your comment about diverting funds from charities is an interesting one. It's one of the reasons why Climate Care is established
as a company limited by guarantee. We're not a charity and don't feel that it should be the job of a charity to clean up your
waste. After all, your CO2 emissions are the only waste stream you don't pay to have cleaned up. We also believe that this is
something that people should be doing and we don't want offsets to draw on companies' budgets for charitable giving.
I wouldn't say that our critics have helped us improve our projects, although demand from customers for quality projects with
independent verification drives us to drive for better standards.
Yet others have examined the way some offsetting schemes work, or rather do not work: From newly burned down
forests masquerading as carbon-offsetting plantations, newly-planted trees actually emitting more CO2 than they
absorb, offsets priced so as to actually encourage people to fly further so that they can pay more for the offset, choosing
reforestation projects in the poorest countries so as to pocket the cost difference. So how can the bewildered traveller
spot a fake scheme, and are there many of these? Is there perhaps a need for independent certification and verification
of travel-related carbon-emission schemes and associated offsetting projects?
Firstly, I'd like to make the point that offsetting is not about planting trees (although there are a lot of companies out there who
would try to convince you otherwise). For example if you wanted to offset the UK's emissions for a year, you'd need to plant an
area the size of about Devon and Cornwall with trees, and then ensure that they didn't die, become diseased, get chopped or
burnt down for the life of the offset (anything between 50 and 100 years) - the following year you'd need to find another piece of
land the same size and start again. This is not something we can plant our way out of, so we should be focusing our efforts – as
Climate Care is – on funding renewable energy and energy efficiency which reduce dependency on fossil fuels. That said
roughly 20% of global greenhouse gas emissions come from deforestation and land-use change, so we cannot avoid the issue of
forest conservation.
Our integrity has always been under the scrutiny of our Steering committee - chaired by Sir Crispen Tickell and with members
from organisations such as Forum for the Future and WWF, but as the market develops we recognise the need for internationally
recognised standards.
The UK government has just launched a consultation on the voluntary offset market in the UK for that very reason.
It's essential that there is some kind of recognised standard, so that people know they're getting what they're paying for. There
are already two standards for the voluntary market - The Voluntary Carbon Standard, and the Voluntary Gold Standard. Both
are in early stages of development.
At Climate Care we have a project policy to put all our projects delivering over 10,000 tonnes of reductions through one of the
two voluntary market standards - this will take time, but we're aware of the need for customers to have that independent stamp
that we're really delivering those emissions reductions.
We will, however, continue to fund small scale projects that would not necessarily be financially viable with the added
administrative costs of registering with these standards. Our integrity and transparency (we were the first, and possibly still the
only voluntary offsetting company to publish our annual report and accounts) means we have a trusted name, and we believe
that customers will continue to buy from these projects even though they won't have the stamp of the standards.
