R9: Greenwashing: the hidden face of carbon offsetting

Over the last few years, we’ve seen many claims from countries, governments,
institutions - like the European Union, and even from private companies (Pepsi,
Amazon, fossils fuels companies such as Total Energies, Exxon, Shell, and so on)
pledging to achieve “net zero carbon emissions” by 2050 or 2040 for “bolder”
claims (looking at you, Amazon).

It sounds amazing. But how do they plan to make it happen ?

Firstly we have to explain what “net zero” actually means exactly, and why it’s
not such a great promise.

Net zero carbon emissions does not mean that a country or a company will stop
emitting CO2 into the atmosphere, but rather that they won’t emit more than they
already did. To achieve this goal, they can drastically diminish their
activities… or continue as they do and “compensate” it by paying carbon offsets.

Those are the mandatory offsets that companies with massive carbon emissions
have to buy to stay under the maximum amount they can emit per year. It was
decided and set up in the Kyoto protocol in 1997 and then updated in the Paris
agreement in 2015. The conditions are stricter, and not every project can be
funded¹.

They are also the voluntary offsets, which compose the majority of the market.
Companies can buy large amounts of offsets, like they would with stocks, in
order to finance all sorts of projects. The prices for these can go as little as
10$ for a ton of CO2².

Even individuals such as ourselves are encouraged to buy into these plans when
making purchases with certain companies (e.g. when buying a plane ticket with an
airline, you can pay an additional fee to compensate for your flight emission).

What does the money from these carbon offsets plans actually do ? There are
companies specialized in carbon offsetting, like Nature Conservancy in the
United States of America. They pledge that the money will help create climate
regulation projects, such as wind farms, solar panels fields, biogas factories,
protect forests from being cut down or for planting new trees. Forestry is the
most popular choice, since it’s really cheap.

There’s also capturing the excess of methane emissions. It’s more “nichey”, but
could be more effective than the others. Unfortunately, it’s also the more
expensive option, so it’s not largely funded for the moment.

Here comes the controversy part.

On paper, it looks amazing, as if these companies (the ones selling the carbon
offset, and the ones buying it) actually are interested in doing their part. But
in the majority, these are just schemes, completely bogus, useless projects that
have next to zero impact. They only serve to give them a good conscience and
good press.

In some cases, the forest was never under threat of logging and was already
considered a reserve. In others, the projects were funded, but then the forests
were heavily logged anyway. One instance is in Bethleem, Pennsylvania (USA),
where an offset market was created by Nature Conservancy in 2011 to “protect”
2000 acres of forest. Chevrolet was the first to fund it, but Disney funded the
project from 2014 to 2022.

It gave the massive company the image of a carbon reducer leader. But the area
was already protected before the market was set up, and there had been little to
no danger of over-harvesting in the region³. The bought offsets are thus
meaningless.

There are so many more examples of this kind, and not just in the United States
of America, but all over the world, including in the Global South and in Europe.

“To actually make a difference, carbon offsets have to take more carbon out of
the atmosphere or prevent more emissions that would otherwise have happened
without them. This is called additionality. Without it, the credits are not
offsetting anything.”⁴

Another huge problem is the respect to indigenous lives in the territories
“protected”. In most cases, they are not even consulted about the future of
their territories, or are even delocalized from them.

One case in particular comes to mind : the case of the communities of the Pira
Paraná River, in Colombia, where companies have imposed a multi-million dollar
deal on them. They claim that the deal was signed by a false representative of
their tribe. The Court agreed to their claim and ordered that the tribe
officials be met and decide whether or not to sign a new, better deal.⁵

Last but certainly not least: the biggest risk we incur since these schemes’
creation is that people and companies will emit more carbon emissions because
they think they are compensating with the offsets, ignoring the real solution,
i.e. reduction instead of compensation. And it may very well already be the
case.

Climate change is the biggest fight our world and future generations will have
to overcome, and it has to be taken seriously. We cannot continue as it is. We
each have to limit our impact. Everyone can do their part, but not when big
industries are emitting more carbon into the air than an entire population would
in their entire lifetime. Policies have to be created about this. And they have
been, but they weren’t the firmest, and loopholes were taken by those who can.

We, the Federation of Young Europeans Greens, require our government officials
proper and demanding laws, regulations and control on carbon offsetting: not
just for mandatory ones, imposed by governments, but for voluntary ones as well.
They compose the largest portion of this market and are proven ineffective and
even harmful to our collective efforts. We also ask for more transparency and
real effective change to be made to meet the climate pledges.

If we want this to be an efficient tool in the fight against climate change (and
it can be), not just a greenwashing scheme, companies and industries will also
have to, finally, stop doing as they do, and reduce their activities.

Our collective survival depends on it.

¹ For instance, the European Union does not permit forestry carbon offset
projects.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=61SWIYwCaSE&list=TLPQMjEwNzIwMjQy1Qb5niyVOw&inde-
x=5&ab_channel=TheEconomist (23/07/24)

²Ibid.

³https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AW3gaelBypY&list=TLPQMjEwNzIwMjQy1Qb5niyVOw&ind-
ex=4&ab_channel=WendoverProductions (21/07/24 - 23/07/24 - from 3:08 min. to
3:46 min.)

⁴https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m0Z_tzv9XCg&ab_channel=BloombergOriginals (from
21/07/24 to 23/7/2024 - 2:06 minutes to 2:22 minutes)

⁵https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20240710-amazon-tribes-win-lawsuit-over-
carbon-credits-in-colombia (23/07/24)

Sources