A bit of a dry post today, but one I found too important not to write. I want to make this “Do-goodery 101” style of posts into a series, specifically aimed at those who want to make better decisions but often end op wondering what’s the deal again with animal testing, carbon offsetting, leather alternatives etc. I’m diving into the current state of affairs and sharing both the good, the bad and the greenwashing ugly. These posts are meant to be pretty “back to basics”, so feel free to skip if you’re already up to speed. Today’s post is about one of my own former blind spots: what’s the deal again with carbon offsetting?

While many still choose to close their eyes to the devastating environmental practices in the fashion industry, aviation’s fall from grace is a lot more universally accepted. In the mid-1900s, flying as a means of travel was a comfortable, glamorous and often joyful affair. A stark contrast to current times, when flying commercial evokes a deep nostalgic longing for concepts such as “personal space”, “being able to stretch one’s legs” and “not having to crawl over some sleeping toddler to get to the restroom”. This on its own isn’t too bad - more passengers on one flight means a smaller footprint for each individual, after all. The crux of course lies in the scale on which we fly nowadays. Tickets can sometimes be cheaper than a cart of groceries, which encourages mindless spending without any regard for the amount of carbon dioxide this trip will inevitably blast into the atmosphere.

For those conscientious enough to be aware of these negative effects, carbon offsetting is a popular solution to mitigate the environmental damage. But is it effective, or are we just buying off our flight shame, greenwashing our own actions in the process?

The sales pitch

You put your flight itinerary in some online module that calculates how much it would cost to compensate for the CO2 emissions made “on your behalf” during the trip. This money is then invested in projects aiming to either diminish future CO2 emissions, e.g. by providing communities elsewhere with more efficient stoves or building solar panels, or trap an amount of CO2 that’s already out there in trees through reforestation.

Our planet gets a bit greener again which is a nice thing, and the nasty environmental effects of your trip get cancelled. Or at least that’s the idea.

Arguments against carbon offsetting

Calculations are flawed

The formulas used to calculate the carbon emissions of your flight and subsequently translating them to an equivalent in the form of trees, furnaces etc. are inaccurate at best, and just plain “apples and oranges” at worst. On your end, factors such as how full your flight was can easily throw off the amount of carbon attributed to you. On offsetting projects’ end, things aren’t as simple as “X carbon = Y credits = Z trees” either. I will elaborate further in my next point. The point is, the theory behind offsetting it isn’t rock solid, which leaves a lot more room for error in the execution.

The positive effects of trees are delayed - and temporary

Trees are planted in a very juvenile form and could take up to 20 years to reach the level of maturity necessary to actually store the amount of carbon they represent in your carbon calculations. The idea of reducing your flight’s impact to zero rests on the assumption that all of “your” trees will even make it to this point. Wildfires or disease could do away with your best intentions in an instant. Even logging is an option, if the project you chose to support doesn’t last.

I very intentionally used the word “store” up until now: trees don’t magically zap carbon out of existence. It is stored in the wood and leaves as long as the tree lives. But even if your trees make it past 20 years, like all living things they’re bound to die at some point. After that, the carbon dioxide will be release again as they decompose.

Finally, take a moment to think about where you will be in 20 years. This one debt might be paid at that point in the future, but if we haven’t drastically changed our carbon emissions by then, our climate crisis will only have gotten much much worse. By that time, your earlier carbon offset would only be a small plaster on an ever-growing wound.

Additionality

If the environmental project you’re supporting would have happened anyway regardless of your donation, it doesn’t count. This may sound obvious, but unfortunately many offsetting projects are deemed “unlikely to be additional”, defeating the scheme’s purpose.

Climate colonialism

Because of cost efficiency, virtually all offsetting programs are located in the southern hemisphere, often at the expense of local communities. At worst, indigenous people have been driven away from their ancestral grounds and even when this isn’t the case, the lands dedicated to reforestation could often better serve the local community in some other way. If you keep in mind that populations in the northern hemisphere have a larger mean carbon footprint, the term “colonialism” is hardly far-fetched.

Moral Points of discussion

While the last paragraphs were focused on the facts, there are also some moral discussions to be had here. For this portion of the post, I’m loosely paraphrasing and simplifying some points I found in an article from The Correspondent linked below.

Pay to pollute vs Consequentialism

Offsetting can evoke the feeling that it’s okay to go ahead and continue your detrimental behaviour as long as you pay for it. But does this negate its - hypothetical - net positive environmental effects? Or is the only thing that really matters the positive result?

The price of caring

How much do you care, and at what point do you bow out when “caring” gets too expensive? As of now, offsetting is affordable because not many are doing it. But if this thing can really prove its worth and validity in the future and more and more people hop on board, offsetting will inevitably get more expensive as certain projects’ goals are met. What do we do when the last polluting furnace has been replaced, and the additional costs rise above what we are able or willing to spend? Do we stop traveling, or just stop caring?

Alternatives

Fly less

I hate kicking in open doors, but this is undoubtedly and objectively the most impactful way to reduce your carbon emissions. If you want less carbon dioxide out there now, try not to emit it now.

Choose an environmental charity yourself

It’s not as instantly gratifying as filling in a calculation tool and buying off your emissions in one subsequent click, but knowing now that these calculations are a bit of a shot in the dark anyway, why not try a different way? Websites like Giving What We Can, Charity Watch and Charity Navigator can help you decide which charities can make the biggest impact with your donation. You could decide to spend a certain percentage of your fares on donations to environmental organisations you find trustworthy.

Carbon capture?

This can of worms could probably be the subject of its own “101” post so let’s keep it short. There are ways to capture CO2, combine it with water and pump it underground, where it will turn into stone relatively quickly. The method technically takes the prize over reforestation in terms of speed, quantifiability and longevity, but it has significant downsides as it’s a lot more expensive. Additionally, the proces is apparently very energy intensive so the question remains whether the bottom line effects are net positive. It’s an interesting take and well worth reading into further, so I included some articles below.

Conclusion

This whole post might feel like a plea against carbon offsetting projects. It promise it’s not - it’s just that the sales pitch is great, yet the caveats need a lot more words to explain. This doesn’t mean that I have already decided against it though.

Let’s recap the inconvenient truths first. Fact 1: trapped in fossil fuels underground is a pretty safe place for carbon to be. Fact 2: our current traveling habits will always come at an environmental cost. Until we find a way to fly without burning fossil fuels, doing it as little as possible will always remain the most sustainable option.

However! As flawed as carbon offsetting projects may be, they’re virtually the only feasible option to at least do something as consumers. Whether you deem them reliable/impactful enough to be worth the additional expense is entirely up to you.

My personal flight shame is too big to just sit with it and do nothing, but I’m stil weighing my options. I’m definitely looking into traveling by train for future European trips. For the flights that are already planned, I haven’t written off typical offsetting projects, carbon capturing or donating to an environmental charity without the scheme. I’ll just need a bit more time to chew on all of this.