“You shouldn’t believe that eating a climate-positive burger is saving the climate – it’s still meat consumption, which needs to be reduced.”
Are investments in wind power better than planting trees, for example? “It is important for climate projects that contribute to permanent reductions in emissions to be kept separate from projects that involve increased removal of carbon dioxide and carbon sequestration in carbon sinks. For example, if the powerful greenhouse gas methane is destroyed, this measure is permanent. But carbon dioxide that has been absorbed by trees is released again if the trees are felled and the wood is burned. Many researchers therefore consider that removal in sinks is not appropriate as a compensatory measure in order to claim net zero emissions. In order to do this, it is necessary to guarantee that the carbon dioxide stored in the trees will remain there for a longer period of time than we can realistically plan for. There is actually no such thing as the perfect carbon offsetting project. Projects that make it possible to be sure of the climate effect often do not deliver an equally clear contribution to sustainable development in a broader sense, and vice versa. A party that wishes to conduct carbon offsetting has to make their own assessment of what is the highest priority.” Are there any climate-positive products? “This is a term that has started to be used in marketing. It refers to a situation where the product’s greenhouse gas emissions have been overcompensated. A practice appears to have emerged of compensating for 110 percent of the emissions. This is an arbitrary level for which there are no scientific grounds. It’s probably better
to buy a product that claims to be climate-positive rather than a corresponding product that isn’t. But you shouldn’t believe that eating a climate-positive burger is saving the climate – it’s still meat consumption, which needs to be reduced. Everyone needs to think about what changes can actually reduce their own emissions. We cannot carbon offset our way out of the climate crisis.”
How do we know that carbon offsetting is leading to actual reductions in emissions? “There are a wide variety of standards relating to certifying and issuing carbon offsets. The standards developed within the UN system have been heavily criticised. This is not because they are any worse than other systems, but probably mostly because they have been the first and the largest. They have set the standard for the industry. Outside of the UN system, there are a range voluntary standards. The quality of these varies considerably. If we look a little more closely at the voluntary standards that exist, we can see that things are not always as transparent or as stringent as within the UN system. The term ‘voluntary standard’ has arisen because these standards are exclusively aimed at the market for voluntary carbon offsetting (companies and individuals), as opposed to standards that have been developed to be used by countries and federal states in order to meet commitments. Generally speaking, the level of transparency and following-up within voluntary standards needs to be raised.”
WHAT OUR CUSTOMERS THINK In the spring of 2020, Kenneth Möllersten, along with colleagues Lovisa Källmark and Sven-Olof Ryding, produced a report on carbon offsetting on behalf of the Swedish Consumer Agency. “The Swedish Consumer Agency is satisfied with the review of carbon offsetting that IVL carried out for us in spring 2020. The report has provided us with greater knowledge and understanding about what carbon offsetting means as a concept, phenomenon and marketing strategy. This applies both to the regulated market for carbon offsetting and to the voluntary market, its development, actors and work processes. The report is an important foundation for the Swedish Consumer Agency’s supervisory work on the way environmental claims may be used in marketing.” Anna-Carin Widmark, Swedish Consumer Agency
36
IVL SWEDISH ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH INSTITUTE
