[Closed] Carbon Offsetting

It's debatable wether or not it actually helps. There's been some suggestion that tree cover in temperate latitudes doesn't absorb enough carbon to offset the additional warming caused by the trees being darker and absorbing more sunlight. But I think the science is quite uncertain on this so there could be a load of contradictory studies.

Having said that, it probably just means planting trees which might be a good thing depending on how that's done, if they do it in environmentally sensitive ways rather than just invest in intensive commercial forestry.

Planting the right trees, in the right place is definitely good. Looking after them properly is even better.
A lot of the tree planting based off-set schemes are a dodgy box ticking exercise and often being done as a way for developers to get paid for doing something they should be doing anyway.

If you want to off-set through planting, then these guys are worth a look - https://www.9trees.org/
Charity run by ecologist and arborists with a pledge to support the planted trees for 50years etc.

I'd imagine that your £14 will most likely contribute £13 to some guy in a suit and £1 to anything useful.
Not that I'm cynical.

Carbon offsetting is essentially us trying to gaslight the environment.

You really just shouldn't take the flight and spend some of the money you spent on trees.

Or make a monthly donation to long term UK reforestation projects, something like trees4life.

You really just shouldn’t take the flight

And this is why it's so hard to get any traction on environmental issues. It seems the alternatives we're given are "almost no change and maximum cost" or "maximum change/inconvenience and almost no cost".

The reality is take the flight and plant trees etc is about a bazillion times better for the environment because a significant number of people might actually do it. Don't fly is a lovely idea but in practice up there with burning old tyres for all the good it will actually do the environment.

So yes, it might be green washing, no its probably not as good as any of us would like but it's a damn site better than not green washing it and a lot more likely than giving up all the things you enjoy.

So yes, it might be green washing, no its probably not as good as any of us would like but it’s a damn site better than not green washing it and a lot more likely than giving up all the things you enjoy.

Not sure I could ever agree with this. Green wash it and the essentially bad idea (millions and millions of people taking to the sky weekly) will continue with justification that it's ok when it's not. We are in uncomfortable truth time.

So yes, it might be green washing, no its probably not as good as any of us would like but it’s a damn site better than not green washing it and a lot more likely than giving up all the things you enjoy.

It's not though. It's marginally better at best. No, most people are not going to not just not fly. But if carbon offsetting removes the guilt of doing something we know is bad for the environment, then it's counter-productive.

If 999 take a flight without a second thought, but 1 person decides just to not take the flight, it would probably be better for the environment overall than all 1000 people flying and "offsetting" their carbon.

Numbers made up. And first person to say "but the plane would be going anyway" can have a special prize.

I have no idea but it seems likely that the schemes run by airlines are a load of bollocks.

We are in uncomfortable truth time.

Absolutely, but the uncomfortable truth is most people won't change.

The comfortable solutions are 30+ years too late but pretending that the drastic ones can actually be implemented in one go is foolish.

If 999 take a flight without a second thought, but 1 person decides just to not take the flight,

The difficulty there is what if that number is 99,999 to 1 - equally the pay off would be huge if it were 9:1.

It's well and good thinking big change for small numbers will work but the time scale wayyyyy to long, and a 0.1% reduction in global emissions is worthless, it needs significant change on a grand scale and if that's 2% reduction for everyone tomorrow its 20 times better than a 100% reduction for one in a thousand.

What we need is lots and lots and lots of achievable goals, with significant progression from e.g. everyone flies to no one flies over a relatively short period.

Step one on that is carbon offsetting, its not about "awwww didn't he do well" it's about proving it doesn't have to hurt.

The problem with most of this is it requires legislation e.g. all new builds to have full solar, and it needs us all to put our hands in our pockets to pay for insulation, non solid fuel heating and so on, rather than waiting for the government to pay for something we won't/can't.

Eg domestic heating accounts for 160% of aviation emissions annually in the UK so if we all turned our thermostat down 1 degree it would have a similar effect to 10% less flights, (figures are wrong based on bad linear maths of 20 degrees to 19 and reducing energy consumption and therefore emissions by 1% but the point stands). How many people would buy an extra jumper in. Preference to giving up going on holiday?

The simplest solution is to make being "green" profitable rather than expensive.

is it a bit of a con? Greenwash?

This.

Why not pay for a nun to stay celibate in a nunnery?

Then you can go cheat on your other half as much as you want

Remove, reduce, reuse, recycle doesn't include 'offsetting'

(figures are wrong based on bad linear maths of 20 degrees to 19 and reducing energy consumption and therefore emissions by 1% but the point stands)

5% even.

Ignoring the subject of whether it's OK to fly and offset and how that compares with not flying at all, I would love to see the maths behind £15 to offset a transatlantic flight.

You can plant a tree for about £1. But you have to buy the land first and then look after it for presumably some set time period. So £15 is some fraction of one tree. And you have to knock off from the carbon the tree will absorb the carbon that land would've absorbed if you'd left it alone, presumably, because that was happening anyway (maybe).

Also if the carbon cost was £15 for this there presumably wouldn't be so much opposition to carbon tax, which is a version of the same thing.

Eg domestic heating accounts for 160% of aviation emissions annually in the UK so if we all turned our thermostat down 1 degree it would have a similar effect to 10% less flights, (figures are wrong based on bad linear maths of 20 degrees to 19 and reducing energy consumption and therefore emissions by 1% but the point stands). How many people would buy an extra jumper in. Preference to giving up going on holiday?

Aviation and home heating are two of the many things we do which emit and can be changed, and we need to consider all of these many things. I'm not accusing you of doing this but we all too often read these comparisons where the narrative is "but what about this?" as an excuse for doing nothing/little. I would accept that folk will continue to fly but aim to reduce the amount vastly. Offsetting can both help us plant trees and reduce flying, but it won't reduce flying much at £15/transatlantic flight. And probably not at all if it's voluntary.

I'd hazard that with octopus it's more about energy production than trees sequestering carbon. But it is just a guess.

As to £15 per flight that sounds OK in the grand scheme of a several hundred pound each way transatlantic flight. £10 each way on a £15 Ryanair to magaluf though sounds like a big chunk of cost increase and you then run into the "it'll make holidays only for the rich"/"hit the poorest hardest" etc arguments. (how much that's cover for hands off my skiing weekend in Saint moritz I'll let you decide)

The £1 plant a tree schemes are problematic as they risk creating monocultures and are often far away from humans, so we loose the many secondary benefits of tree planting - its not just about carbon capture. Not all tree planting is equal, but honestly any is better than nothing - we need to replant the world.

I helped start a tree planting charity in my hometown a year and half ago, we have planted 15,000 feathers so far and have just had a grant to plant 1000 standard sized street trees in pavements. The formula for us so far has been simple, use council land (and some churches), apply for grants and get volunteers to plant and maintain. The largest scheme (10,500 trees) cost us around £3 a tree, but a huge amount of volunteer effort. We have also got 1 year old saplings from the woodland trust and TCV for free. We are growing these on at three micro nurseries we have created, to reduce costs further.

Absolutely, but the uncomfortable truth is most people won’t change.

We're kinda at the point where they have to.

Especially as it is very much a very small minority of "people" in global terms that are responsible for those emissions. Flying is something like 2.5% of global GHG emissions and 3.5% of the global warming effect.

Except there were "only" about 4.5 billion passengers annualy, so if you assume round trips that's 2.25 billion, then you have connecting flights, then you have frequent flyers.

When it comes to the crunch the number of people responsible for that 3.5% of the problem is actually fairly small and unsustainable, because in years to come that demographic is only going to expand, so it needs to stop poluting now.

As for the £15 worth of trees, better than nothing but I'd be wholly unsurprised if it's not at least slightly double accounting. There'll be a supermarket somewhere being built putting "and the trees in the car park will offset CO2 emissions", pocketing the £15 and cutting them down for biomass fuel in 20 years when they start to crack the pavement (then they get tripple accounted by Drax or some middle class woodburnerist in suburbia).

It won't nesecerily be some rewilded idyl you're creating.

Not sure offsetting will reduce flying in honesty, but I do think it's the first step on the (what needs to be a short) road.

It's not a case of this or this, it needs to be little this, then medium this, then big this this.

The important thing is getting a huge percentage of people doing something, (then more) instead of the current state of affairs which is very few people doing anything at all.

But the alternative for flying for a holiday is a pretty poor customer experience at the moment.

For our example let's take the Feb mid term next year, (covid permitting) now would be the time a couple / family would be starting to plan a weeks getaway somewhere, let's say a weeks skiing in the Alps from Manchester. The options would be drive, get the train or fly.

There is currently no where to book or even see what trains are available for 4 months hence and it would need booking through at best 3 suppliers, possibly 4. That opens up interdependencies where the journey can fall down. So you'd be looking at only able to book last minute and at a significant cost.

Driving is easy to book the tunnel/ferry, laborious to drive, takes a goodly chunk out of a weeks holiday and driving ~2,000 miles is still a decent chunk of CO2.

Whereas flying, a quick look on google flights / sky scanner and all information is with you in less than a second. A few minutes later and it will all be booked. Whats more it's probably the cheapest method of travel over an above being the easiest.

I've used the example of a skiing holiday in Feb, but you can change out for whatever holiday you want - people will still want to go away on holiday regardless of type or time of year.

In order to change behaviours, the desired behaviour has to be less painful than the old behaviour you want to get away from, yet with the current system users are rewarded with the easiest and (probably) cheapest method of getting from A-B being the most harmful.

What we need is a proper network of trains & sleeper carriages where by you can book interlinked journeys at better value than flying from the one portal a decent amount of time before the holiday.

Until we have a better method of travel, offsetting is probably the best option most have, regardless how little benefit it may do.

You are all talking about trees but that isn't how Octupus offset. They use a company called Renewable World that provide renewable energy solutions to developing countries so that cooking and hot water can be done with renewables rather than solid fuels, water can be pumped rather than women spending hours carrying it, communities can have micro grids set up etc. It has many tangible benefits beyond carbon impact on the recipients.

Until we have a better method of travel, offsetting is probably the best option most have, regardless how little benefit it may do.

I don't disagree but what you haven't mentioned is that flying should cost way more - the price needs to reflect the impact.

I have no idea but it seems likely that the schemes run by airlines are a load of bollocks.

This was actually run by Octopus Energy not an Airline but I don't see why the ones many airlines offer when booking tickets are likely to be automatically bollocks. If you are greenwashing - you really don't want someone to come along and undo the eco-credentials you just accumulated by discovering your scam.

I'm not sure if they all work by planting trees though? I know when people first started doing this one of the options was to use the money to invest in renewables in low income countries to reduce CO2 output there.

Whilst the OP thinks £14 to cancel out his carbon footprint from his holiday (its presumably just the flight, not the air-conditioned hotel, taxi rides, amusement park etc?) I'm pretty sure that many people who book on price don't decide to do this. Really it shouldn't be an option left to the consumer - it should be mandatory for all businesses to mop up after themselves (and therefore have an incentive to be cleaner to start with). That said three years ago we proposed to the CEO that our company should automatically offset all business flights. I'm not sure if it was him or the board, but it didn't get approved. Should be law - although like all these things it will need international agreement or we just become expensive to base the HQ.

Now, why isn't there an option to do this every time you fill your car up? Must be 2-3p per L - I'd cope with that... of course perhaps it makes people feel guilt free or perhaps it makes me more conscious of using fuel? Given 90% of the time I fill up and pay via an app it really is silly its not an option.

I think this is a good idea.

https://climeworks.com/

Currently very early days etc. However the argument against it is that it enables continued use of fossil fuels. I agree that we are in uncomfortable truth time but there is no quick solution (well there is it will just cost a lot) so anything that buys us time for consumers and government to change is going to help.

Seems like a bargain.

That's because it's a load of bollocks. If you're concerned about CO2 emissions from flying, there's only one solution to that problem I'm afraid. Sorry!

Now, why isn’t there an option to do this every time you fill your car up? Must be 2-3p per L – I’d cope with that… of course perhaps it makes people feel guilt free or perhaps it makes me more conscious of using fuel? Given 90% of the time I fill up and pay via an app it really is silly its not an option.

Like the carbon credit trading I suspect it would beocme significantly more expensive as its use grows.

Octopus, Bulb, etc can charge the same for green renewable electricity as the big companies charge for fossil fuels because the certificates to say it's green are traded for the equivelent of a few quid per consumer per year. There's little demand for the credits as inertia keeps people on the same old tarrifs.

Same with planting trees, at the moment it's probably a bit of a wheeze for developers to get their landscaping costs met by someone else. I know my parents are involved with a rewilding project at the moment, it's no cost to the landowner, he's just been given 30,000 free oak trees to plant and locals voulenteer to plant them.

If every tank of petrol had to plant a tree then you'd run out of that freely available land and labour and actually have to start buying up swathes of land, getting planning permission for change of use, planting it and the managing it for eternity.

But the alternative for flying for a holiday is a pretty poor customer experience at the moment.

......... let’s take the Feb mid term next year, ......... say a weeks skiing in the Alps

Ohhh the middle class humanity 😂

It's alright, keep flying and there won't be snow there at half term anyway so the problem is self limiting.

Ohhh the middle class humanity 😂

It’s alright, keep flying and there won’t be snow there at half term anyway so the problem is self limiting.

I did say it was an example. Swap out the example for a lads' boozy break in Prague, seeing the Northern Lights in Finland, a beach holiday in Portugal or city break in Rome.

The facts remain the same.

Ohhh the middle class humanity 😂

You jest but that's the problem.

Take a look in your fridge/larder when you get home, all that fresh food that's not grown in the UK has to travel to get here, it doesn't do that without a huge footprint.

Transport makes 40% of our emissions in the UK, a lot is private car use but a big chunk is still ferrying stuff round so you don't have to survive the winter on turnips.

The facts remain the same.

That none are sustainable and Jet A1 should cost £1.40/l like diesel not 26p like it does to make the idea of flying prohibitively expensive?

If every tank of petrol had to plant a tree then you’d run out of that freely available land and labour and actually have to start buying up swathes of land, getting planning permission for change of use,

As far as I know they aren't just planted in the country of the pollution, and as I said there were other options to just planting trees...

planting it and the managing it for eternity.

Yeah - this isn't a problem that goes away...

It’s the cars that worry me. Possibly without justification. But the fact that every time we go shopping or to school or whatever we take a tonne and a half of metal with us seems very wasteful.

Why are EV’s so big? Why do they have motors to close the boot? Don’t we need smaller economical older longer living cars?

I drive a 12yr old car. Is this a better choice than a new EV? How do we find out?

As far as I know they aren’t just planted in the country of the pollution, and as I said there were other options to just planting trees…

Perhapse, but then you get into arguments about accountability and just offshoreing the problem.

If people can spare some £££ to plant trees or fund solar power in other countries, or whatever they can. Then that's great. It's the fact they're viewed as the modern version of a religious indulgence in the middle ages. You shouldn't just keep doing something you know is morally wrong just because you can pay a few quid to make yourself feel better about it.

But the alternative for flying for a holiday is a pretty poor customer experience at the moment.

Is it? Whilst from a selfish perspective I wish you lot would all **** off to the alps and leave as in peace again, I was kind of hoping that a lot of you would have realised that holidaying in the UK wasn't actually so bad and involved less stress, hassle etc...

What we need is a proper network of trains & sleeper carriages where by you can book interlinked journeys at better value than flying from the one portal a decent amount of time before the holiday.

I saw an article suggesting there was actually a "Europe wide" initiative just starting to promote/enable sleeper travel across the continent. Need I explain that the little island to the north had isolated itself from such cooperation! However we could start with much better sleeper services just in the UK. Or indeed train services - many of our big cities are not well connected to each other.

Read as far as:

Carbon offsetting is essentially us trying to gaslight the environment.

You really just shouldn’t take the flight and spend some of the money you spent (I assume you mean saved) on trees

That's the answer if you give a shit.

I've not taken a flight in 6yrs - I've cirtainly had the opportunity to do so, but for various reasons, including environmental, I haven't.....

It's the same for going plastic free - I have some customers in my shop that won't buy any items that contain any single use plastic. It's about personal choice and personal responsibility for the environment.

However I do live in Stroud, which seems to be the heartland of environmental groups in the UK.

I have to agree with the commentary above regarding people’s appetite to change, I see it as fairly unlikely in the short term outside of the minority.

The general population on this forum are much, much more ecologically minded than the median. I personally have no current intention of reducing how much I fly - not that I do more than 1/2 trips abroad a year - and no intention to swap to an EV (albeit I drive fairly irregularly living near a tube station). I would happily pay more and contribute towards projects if I felt they made a difference (and indeed do), but not convinced mass tree planting at the cheapest possible cost is effective.

That being said, I also agree with TINAS’ point on cost being a key driver of appetite, albeit as with everything, it will end up creating the haves and the have nots.

Or indeed train services – many of our big cities are not well connected to each other.

But its broadly irrelevant given most cities aren't well connected to themselves let alone any rural communities around them.
If you want to fix public transport you need to get it to go, reliably, regularly and at times of peak demand, from where people live to where they work. In short you need cars or bloody brilliant buses which don't pollute. The average car journeys in the UK is tiny, the average commute is 8.5 miles, those are not trips for trains. Trains won't get people out of cars.
Trains are a lovely mascot for public transport but they're a late stage solution not an early one.

It’s the same for going plastic free

Which is a funny one, because in many cases, depending on which side you look at it from its either the devil or the least worst solution (discounting reusable* anything which is always better than non reusable). (agreed plastic cutlery in convenience food and the like is not ever a good thing)

It's light so low emission to transport, versatile, hugely adaptable, durable and it's low energy to produce. OTOH is hugely polluting and entirely disposable.

Compare that with glass or metal they're heavy, not especially versatile, hugely energy intensive to produce, significantly less so to recycle but still much higher than plastic. It is recyclable but in the case of metal the product degrades significantly due to the plastic coatings etc used to make it viable for packaging.

Paper and card are similar.

*assuming you actually reuse it, a lot, two or three times is commonly worse than single use because its usually 10x or more material than the equivalent single use item.

That being said, I also agree with TINAS’ point on cost being a key driver of appetite, albeit as with everything, it will end up creating the haves and the have nots.

The trick is to make it not cost anyone. Want to solve cars producing masses of co2?

End the sale of petrol and diesel in 2030 instead of ice cars. The genuine haves in the world will not sit iddly by whilst their bank accounts shrink and will quick put copious amounts of money into making sure the rest of us can still buy their stuff.
They'll happily sit back and watch the world quite literally burn so long as they still make money then have the gaul to say poor uptake of (unaffordably expensive) alternative techs proves the rest of the world don't care either which is why they're not spending money on developing ways of making them cheaper.

because in many cases, depending on which side you look at it from its either the devil or the least worst solution

I agree, but in my specific retail case much of the customer base I have for example won't buy any fruit and veg unless it's loose, many won't buy biscuits from me, just because of the packaging. They will bake their own, having bought flour in their own reusable container from the plastic free shop in town, having cycled there and back. But like I said, Stroud is a bit of a one off....

Total greenwashing.

Nice article hear on what people are actually willing to pay and would like to see policy deliver
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/oct/11/uk-public-backs-carbon-tax-high-flyer-levy-and-heat-pump-grants-study-shows