The onset of offsets

With business under pressure to mitigate its contribution to climate change, carbon offsetting is spreading like a rash. It might make you feel good to look good, says Martin Ashcroft, but itÔÇÖs not going to save the planet. The term carbon neutral emerged last year as the latest buzzword to enter the New Oxford American Dictionary. This was not entirely due to the self-proclaimed ÔÇ£former next President of the United States of America,ÔÇØ Al Gore.  The idea of carbon neutrality is spreading like wildfire, and everyone seems to be talking about it. The concept is breathtakingly simple, that you repair your own damage. If only life were like that.Carbon offsetting has become a fashionable way to assuage oneÔÇÖs green guilt, and its currency is units of carbon dioxide. It is (almost) universally agreed that the excessive production of carbon dioxide has an adverse effect on the environment, hastening global warming. So all you have to do is calculate how much carbon dioxide your activities consume, then plant the appropriate number of trees or contribute to schemes that will cut the production of carbon dioxide somewhere else. Then youÔÇÖre neutralized, as it were. Or are you?ThatÔÇÖs what the proponents of these schemes are encouraging us to think, and theyÔÇÖre making a good job of it. Carbon offsetting has become so popular that scores of projects, such as the preparations for the 2012 Olympic Games in London, are being labeled carbon neutral. Rock bands claim to have made their tours carbon neutral. Banks and insurance companies are offsetting like crazy, and large corporates in manufacturing, information technology and retail are beginning to take notice. Computer giant Dell announced in January a joint initiative with The Conservation Fund and Carbonfund.org to offset the carbon dioxide produced when customers power their computer systems. Called ÔÇ£Plant a Tree for Me,ÔÇØ the program allows customers to make a donation which the two nonprofits will use to plant trees in sustainably managed forests. A modest donation of $2 for a laptop and $6 for a desktop machine will clear the userÔÇÖs conscience for three yearsÔÇÖ worth of electricity consumed. Customers of business software provider salesforce.com can rest comfortably in their beds. The press release announcing its carbon neutral initiative, Earthforce, proudly announced ÔÇ£Earthforce Initiative Will Offset salesforce.com Corporate Carbon Emissions for All of salesforce.comÔÇÖs 27,100 Customers.ÔÇØ But the salesforce.com initiative does at least involve more than planting trees. Its eco-partners are Clean Air-Cool Planet, NativeEnergy and Conservation International, among whose projects are the construction and maintenance of the Rosebud Sioux Tribe St. Francis Wind Farm in South Dakota, the Kasigluk Alaska wind project, dairy farm methane energy projects and a forest project in Madagascar. Wal-MartÔÇÖs environmental initiative is rather more proactive. It aims to increase the fuel efficiency of its truck fleet by 25 percent over the next three years and double this within ten years. ThatÔÇÖs a bit more heavy duty than third-party offsetting, and it will save Wal-Mart a lot of money at the same time. Within four years, Wal-Mart also aims to build a store that is 25 percent more energy efficient. Solar energy is one its major focuses.Among polluting activities, air travel attracts the most customer guilt. In January, Canadian Federal Health Minister Tony Clement found a way to wipe out his footprint with a wave of his credit card. He managed to calculate how much carbon dioxide he consumed in his daily travels, and, for $99 US, he eliminated it online. Just like that. ÔÇ£Frankly I wasnÔÇÖt doing it for any reason other than just because I thought it was a good way to make a contribution ÔÇö a voluntary tax if you will on the amount of carbon that IÔÇÖm producing as an individual or a politician,ÔÇØ said Clement to the CanWest News Service. Quite how CanWest reporters became aware of ClementÔÇÖs act of atonement is a matter of conjecture.ItÔÇÖs not my purpose to belittle the efforts of companies or individuals who do their bit for the planet, however, even if they are politicians. Climate change needs to be on the agenda and whatever anyone does to mitigate it, to any degree, should be applauded. But the idea that everything will be OK if each of us opens our own carbon account and keeps it in balance, is a dangerous misconception.The whole idea of carbon offsetting is riddled with uncertainty. The Carbon Neutral Company calculates that a return flight from London to Bangkok emits 2.1 tons of CO2 per passenger, which can be offset for around $50. Rival UK firm Climate Care, however, claims that the carbon emitted is 2.78 tons, but that it can be neutralized for a mere $40. With the help of TerraPass, the online travel and consumer magazine Helium Report has even calculated the cost of offsetting the carbon dioxide emissions of flying by private jet. Surprisingly, it turns out to be less than one percent of the flying cost per hour. Without agreement even on the amount of damage however, how can the cost of putting it right be anything more than guesswork? Who are all these people who want us to believe in their calculations? What are their qualifications, I wonder, for working out how many tons of carbon dioxide emissions can be saved by planting a forest in Africa? IÔÇÖm no scientist, but I understand that the efficiency of trees in this respect is influenced not only by the kind of tree thatÔÇÖs grown, but also where in the world it is located. Another crucial factor, is how long the trees are allowed to grow. While the flights we take contribute to global warming immediately, does anybody really know how long it takes for a given number of trees to save the carbon equivalent? Chop a few down to make furniture and they may not pay back the planet for your flight from Boston to Chicago, let alone the vacation you took to Europe. Worse still, if someone ever chops them down and burns them, theyÔÇÖll be creating carbon dioxide emissions all over again. DonÔÇÖt get me wrong. I love trees, especially when I can see them, walk through them, and listen to the wind rustling through their leaves. But nobody is suggesting that they be planted anywhere near a place that IÔÇÖm ever likely to visit. One of the fundamental principles of carbon neutrality is the concept of ÔÇ£additionalityÔÇØ. In other words, for carbon neutrality to have any validity the action that corresponds to our previous act of pollution has to be something that would not otherwise have happened. It must be in addition to whatever would have been done in the normal course of events. Supporting schemes in parts of the world that already have them would simply reduce government and commercial incentives. These schemes clearly mean well, and in the sense that every little helps they must be doing some good, but the idea that we can slow down global warming to any significant degree by donating a low-wattage light bulb to a farmer in India every time we drive to the mall, is a myth every bit as spurious as the millennium bug. It must be a concern, too, that the current state of the carbon offsetting sector is reminiscent of the Wild West. There is little law out there. There is no general agreement on any certification or monitoring system, so how do we know that our trees are being planted and our wind farms are not the same ones being touted to consumers all over the world? Clean Air-Cool Planet, a nonprofit based in Portsmouth, New Hampshire, has released A ConsumerÔÇÖs Guide to Retail Carbon Offset Providers, which ranks 30 companies on a scale of one to ten, taking into account transparency, third-party certification, consumer education, and how satisfactorily they can prove that they are not selling the same carbon offset more than once. Three quarters of them scored below five. Business has several motivations to take action on climate change, and, it must be said, to be noticed for doing so. Nothing wrong with that, but letÔÇÖs be honest about it. Positive action on the environment improves corporate image and makes the company more attractive to investors, employees, suppliers, and customers. ThatÔÇÖs not cynicism; itÔÇÖs a fact of life. If the action also reduces energy consumption or dependency on a scarce resource, so much the better. Anything that improves the bottom line while enhancing the reputation of the organization has to be a good thing. Green buildings are a fantastic way to contribute. Everybody wins. Corporate Office Properties Trust (COPT) has committed that all of its new office buildings will be LEED certified green buildings from now on. The LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) Green Building Rating System is a voluntary, consensus-based national standard for developing high-performance, sustainable buildings. Rand Griffin, president and CEO of COPT, admits there are corporate as well as environmental benefits in this, but that simply makes it a sensible solution. Green buildings are good for the people who work in them, and give a competitive advantage in the ever increasing competition for workers. They also save money ÔÇô up to 40 percent in water usage, and over 30 percent in electricity.Hollis Cole, CEO of environmental engineering Group ADI, told me recently that, ÔÇ£in the environmental business, if you donÔÇÖt have regulation or enforcement, not a lot happens.ÔÇØ It may not be government that lays down the law, but there are others who will. One of Wal-MartÔÇÖs environmental objectives is for its suppliers to join in its initiative. ThatÔÇÖs 60,000 companies around the world that had better be on their toes. As many discovered with RFID, when it comes to the supply chain, Wal-Mart is an enforcer. Large institutional investors like pension funds and university endowments are emerging as power brokers too, pressing big business to disclose corporate risks and opportunities associated with climate change. If you havenÔÇÖt done so already, itÔÇÖs time to think about what your company should be doing on this issue.