If you’re reading this, chances are you’ve heard about carbon offsetting. Chances are also that you view them in a negative light. This is a failing of the early days of offsetting.
If you think realistically, many laws and regulations have loopholes that some will exploit - but this was a case of the loophole/get-out-of-jail-free being the norm! We will explore the reasons for this in more detail soon, but the crux was that companies were given a cap on carbon emissions that they had to adhere to. And instead of companies that were unable to stay within the limit being punished, they simply had to purchase ‘carbon credits’ from elsewhere. This may still have worked had the price of these credits been high enough to discourage excess emissions. However, the price fell and the punishment was essentially non-existent. And as with any system, there were a number of charlatans who created all sorts of carbon credits that they then sold while providing no tangible carbon savings whatsoever.
Now however, I’m glad to report that things are getting much better - let’s just say many people see that the need is too critical to see this as a get rich quick scheme.
Also there are many ways you can make a tangible impact. Here is a non-exhaustive list of the best ways to do so.
For most people, the energy they need to keep their houses warm, cook food, and generally keep their lives running is a big part of their footprint. If you can influence a country’s energy mix (how it generates its electricity), you’ll have a huge impact on a lot of people’s carbon emissions. But other than petitioning your MP to vote for cleaner sources of energy etc. most of us can’t make a major difference at this scale. Solar panels are only good in certain countries and even thought prices have been falling, the simplest wind turbine still costs in the region of £10,000+.
Instead a cheaper way to have an impact is to provide people in the developing world with access to cleaner sources of energy. Many in the ‘global south’ are still using kerosene stoves to cook their food and stay warm (over 600M people according Solar Aid). Give them a solar powered heater that they can use instead and you would have accelerated their journey from an inefficient source of energy to a much cleaner one and thus saved on a lot of inevitable carbon emissions.
If you live in the 'global north' and want to see the impact closer home ( there is a simple but effective way to do this - better insulation. See here for a UK specific example.
Perhaps the most famous way to offset carbon is to do with trees. But it is important to bear in mind that a tree takes a while to grow and simply putting a sapling into the ground and expecting a large tree’s worth of savings is not going to work. So if planting trees is the way you want to go, make sure the project you’re investing in is regulated and/or managed by a trusted source. There are projects like this one that has received a ‘gold standard’ certification from the WWF.
Instead of planting trees it might be much more impactful to protect the ones that are already large and trapping tons of carbon. This is even more critical since trees being burnt down quite clearly adds a lot of carbon directly. While there can be some short term economic and social impacts of deforestation (there are some cons) but in the main, the carbon related consequences are dire as you would expect. So any support for organisations like Friends of the Amazon or Conservation International is good bet.
One piece of good news here is there a few studies that have found that Mangroves can suck up more 4x more carbon than any other type of forest. So let’s make doubly sure we protect and expand the mangrove habitats - currently only 0.03% of the plant’s surface area.
As discussed in other parts of this blog, one of the major reasons why agriculture is under such scrutiny is because of the wasteful ways in which various types of farming are being conducted. Here are just a couple of ways and how you can help fight it:
1. Rice, a staple of most Asian diets (and thereby a staple of over 60% of the world’s population) can be grown in a way that either releases 2.5kg CO2e per kg or 6kg CO2e per kg. When you multiply that difference across the 570M tonnes of rice that is consumed globally each year, that is a huge difference. The challenge here is getting poor and often ill-informed farmers in the developing world to shift practices that involve the use of less water and fertiliser than is typically practiced. This is one project that seems to be doing a good job to advocate for this change.
2. Beef and diary farming all too often have a dual impact on climate change - firstly from the cows belching out methane as they ruminate, secondly because a lot of them are farmed in pastures that were once forests. I won’t mention second order effects like the fact their feed, grown in haste and with limited regulation often entails excessive fertiliser use which directly adds NO2 to the atmosphere. British farmers are doing a lot of move towards a carbon neutral beef and dairy farming - you can read more here.
Incidentally, both of the above processes involve the release of large amounts of CO2, Methane and NO2 making our use of CO2e all the more pertinent. See here for an explanation of the metric.
According to the US’s Environment protection agency, solid waste landfills are the third largest source of human-related methane emissions in the United States. This combined with the CO2 that makes up the rest of the so-called ‘land fill gas’ (LFG), it accounts for a large part of the country’s emissions. At the same time, methane emissions from landfills represent a lost opportunity to capture and use a significant energy resource.
Instead of escaping into the air, LFG can be captured, converted, and used as a renewable energy resource. Using LFG helps to reduce odors and other hazards associated with LFG emissions, and prevents methane from migrating into the atmosphere and contributing to local smog and global climate change. In addition, LFG energy projects generate revenue and create jobs in the community and beyond.
But the debate rages on whether we are able to caputre a significant proportion of all LFG generated. A more direct — and likely more successful — way to reduce landfill methane would be to reduce the amount of methane-generating materials going into landfills in the first place.
With some 40 percent of all food wasted in the United States, reducing food waste offers big opportunities. Last year the EPA and U.S. Department of Agriculture set a target to reduce food waste by 50 percent by 2030, with programs for public education and commercial policies. “Let’s feed people, not landfills,” said EPA administrator Gina McCarthy in announcing the initiative. “By reducing wasted food in landfills, we cut harmful methane emissions that fuel climate change, conserve our natural resources, and protect our planet for future generations.”
Here are a number of EU endorsed projects to reduce food waste.
Ultimately each of these initiatives has second and third order impacts. To understand these in more details see here.
Hence the best way to make an impact may be to support a portfolio of carbon offsetting options. This is similar to the way you invest your money - don’t put all your money into just one bucket. The same logic applies here, and remember if we don’t have a healthy planet, no amount of money in all sorts of pots will do much good!
A great opportunity for me to use one of my favourite cartoons and one of the inspirations for this blog:
.svg){kind=logo}
