Offsetting Flights by Graham Kelly

Offsetting Flights

Image by Katie Murnane Words by Graham Kelly In the last few years, climate action has become a much more prominent and The Guardian columnist George immediate topic. With an Monbiot claims that to keep increase in the visibility of global warming under 2°C of climate change, and more an increase from pre-industrial discussion - but not much levels, there is a need for “a 60% action from governments or cut in global climate emissions institutions - compounded by 2030, which means a by extremely visible protests 90% cut in the rich world.” such as Extinction Rebellion, Whether or not these are the increased pressure has fallen exact figures, as it’s difficult to on individuals to be more quantify, there is undoubtedly aware of their environmental a strong need for a reduction in impact. These cheap flights our carbon footprint, especially have a very real impact. in relatively affluent According to countries such as Ireland. One area of consumption which has a marked “ The average amount of CO2 the Myclimate Foundation, a Swiss climate protection NGO, a flight from negative effect on produced by a Dublin to New York the environment person in the EU is emits 1.7 tonnes is aviation: a lot of us are guilty of 8.4 tonnes. of CO2 - nearly the same amount as an booking a Ryanair flight to some desirable (or just shamelessly cheap) average car uses in a full year’s driving (2 tonnes). To put this into perspective, “ destination, perhaps not according to their website, the thinking of the environmental maximum amount of CO2 that impact of aviation. an individual can generate to avoid climate change is 0.6 tonnes. However, the average amount of CO2 produced by a person in the EU is 8.4 tonnes. These figures are sobering: seeing your climate damage quantified bluntly reminds us of how much our own behaviour needs to change. This doesn’t necessarily mean that we must lock ourselves at home and never step foot on a plane again: one concept for reducing one’s carbon footprint is carbon offsetting. This is a method allowing people to “compensate for their unavoidable emissions by financing emission reduction projects around the world.” This is a definition provided by South Pole; an organisation that provides global sustainability financing solutions. A consumer can offset their carbon pollution by investing in projects which pull carbon out of the air. There are a number of carbon offset websites, which allow consumers to calculate their emissions and pay to have them offset, through projects 9

such as planting trees, or investing in more fuel-efficient stoves for developing countries. To simplify; call one tonne of CO2 removed from the environment one carbon credit. These carbon credits can then be bought and sold like currency, allowing the student heading on a J1, or the reading week Budapest tourist, to lessen the environmental damage of their flight. On Myclimate.org, our Dublin to New York trip can be offset for a reasonable €40: either through reforestation in Nicaragua or stoves for Kenya - or you can pay significantly more (€124) to have it invested in environmental Swiss projects. However, these options raise at least as many problems as they solve. A spokeswoman for Atmosfair - a German offsetting company - says “flying and offsetting is better than flying and not offsetting”, but “it’s always better not to fly.” It’s not that the flights are any less polluting: the problem is just moved elsewhere. This is summed up by George Monbiot, environmental and political activist, who says “you buy yourself a clean conscience by paying someone else to undo the harm you are causing.” He compares the tactic to the sale of Indulgences by the Catholic Church to offset sins. “Just as in the 15th and 16th centuries,” he writes, you could “kill and lie without fear of eternal damnation, today you can live exactly as you please as long as you give your ducats to one of the companies selling indulgences. It is pernicious 10

and destructive nonsense.” all global carbon emissions, This is further why it is developing nations complicated by the fact that such as Nicaragua and Kenya the projects are long term where the projects are based? investments: it takes years A closer look at for trees to grow and remove Myclimate - the NGO which that tonne of CO2 from the offers us the option of investing atmosphere, and a tonne less our money into either Africa or now, is worth a lot more than (at a premium) the EU - might a tonne at some unknowable reveal some answers. According point in the future. Furthermore, to its website, it is accredited for the offsetting projects to by several monitoring really make a difference, they organisations which oversee need to be able to prove that the work they are doing is ‘additional’. To simplify; call one tonne of CO2 removed from “ carbon offsetting. One such accreditation it has is from the “ Additionality means that the reductions in emissions achieved by the project the environment one carbon credit. These carbon credits can then be bought and sold like currency, allowing the student Swiss organisation called Gold Standard. Other a c c r e d i t a t i o n s which offset must be “above heading on a J1, or the companies have business as usual” reading week Budapest include American - they would not tourist, to lessen the Carbon Registry, have happened environmental damage Climate Action unless the project was implemented, South Pole explains. So for instance, it of their flight. “ Reserve and Verified Carbon Standard. Gold Standard states its mission must be proved that as to achieve the population of Kenya would climate action through “robust not have decided to get new standards and verified impacts”. stoves themselves, had it not It is indeed important been for European foundations that organisations which claim anxious to give them money. to offset emissions are held This leads onto another to account and have their issue: how is it that carbon impacts verified. It would be credits invested in Switzerland counterproductive for long are worth far more than credits term projects to be started, invested in developing nations? but then fall by the wayside Why is it that money (and the and not deliver the results associated problem of carbon that were promised - and offsetting) is being funnelled which is very necessary for the out of rich nations, and lumped environment. An Irish Times on less poorer ones? If - as article notes how in the last few Oxfam suggests - the world’s decades, charities “came along richest 10% produce half of in the Seventies and Eighties,

they sunk plenty of wells and put in the pumps, but then moved on.” However, the article sees that “there was no sustainable model for what happens when it breaks, or who’s qualified to fix it, or even who has ownership of the well and can look after it, or where will we get the parts we need, and how will we pay for it?”. With a longterm project like reforestation, it is imperative that a similar situation does not happen again. An analysis of the Myclimate accounts fails to fully explain where the donations are going. Rather than indicating the amounts allocated to individual projects, which might have explained why so much more money was needed to offset carbon in the EU, details are glossed over under headings such as “Direct Effort”, “Personnel Expenses” and somewhat dubious “Entertainment Expenses”. In this way, short of visiting the projects themselves, it is very difficult to confirm how effective spending cold hard cash on offsetting flights might actually be. In future, too, there might be some issues arising in terms of offsetting flights. There is a finite amount of stoves one company can sell to Africa before the market is saturated, and Nicaragua will likely not stand for being overrun with forestry plantations. Most emissions are produced in the developed world, and it makes sense that they should be reduced from there too. Furthermore, as the simplest changes which have the most impact begin to happen, the more complex and expensive it is to find ways to offset carbon. By this, the more people offset, the more expensive and difficult it will be to find new ways to continue doing so. The good news is that it is not necessary to cancel all your holiday plans quite yet. The most important thing is to consider the impact flights have and attempt to offset them elsewhere in your consumption, or through an organisation online. Stephen Neff, the CEO of Myclimate, writes “In a liberal democratic society, bans on flying” or other drastic measures” are completely incompatible with the fundamental rights enshrined in our culture and institutions. But this right is not a ’carte blanche’ to actively ignore the call for action by the international scientific community. It is important to remember that offsetting is not a solution, merely a stopgap: “each member of society, each company and each organisation should have a clear plan in place as to how they will reduce their CO₂ footprint in future.” As institutions, governments, and companies fail to enact serious changes to their attitude to climate change and pollution, it becomes necessary to look at our own behaviour as individuals. This is not to say that the corporations, and governments of the 21st century do not have a lot to answer for, but an active awareness of your individual carbon emission is something everyone should know. Although most of us enjoy our holidays away - and I am loath to give them up, for one - do consider how you might negate your environmental impact next time you’re about to click “confirm and pay” on your next Ryanair seat sale.