We should be careful with carbon offsets: a survey of climate professionals
Carbon offsets are not new, but they have become hot again as public opinion is firmly in favor of taking action on climate. However, there is a debate brewing on whether carbon offsets are part of the solution, or a dangerous distraction. Some argue that carbon offsetting gives corporations a license to keep polluting, without making real efforts to reduce their emissions. Others argue that carbon offsets provide the funding needed for projects like forest protection.
I launched a survey in January 2021 to learn more about opinions towards individual and corporate carbon offsets. I received 74 responses through three channels: the My Climate Journey climate community, Twitter, and by directly reaching out to ~10 colleagues that have spent time working in the climate / energy sector. The results are by no means scientific and could reflect a group of people with a worldview similar to mine, but I think provide an interesting snapshot of how climate and climate-interested professionals think about carbon offsets. Here goes!
While opinions varied widely on whether individuals have a responsibility to track and reduce carbon emissions, almost 100% of respondents think companies have a responsibility to reduce emissions
Some individuals argue that there isn’t much point for one individual to reduce carbon emissions; one respondent wrote that “systemic change is far more important than individual responsibility.” This belief is reflected by the fact that only 43% agree or strongly agree with the statement that “individuals have the responsibility to track and reduce carbon emissions.”
By contrast, nearly 100% of respondents felt that corporations have a responsibility to reduce carbon emissions. The majority also said that corporations having a “net zero by 2030” target increases their interest in working for the company.
24% of respondents bought >$250 in carbon offsets in 2020, while 74% donated >$250 to nonprofits
Calculating individual carbon footprints is still a fairly rare practice. 9.4% of respondents reported calculating their carbon footprints frequently (once a month or more often). 21.6% calculated their footprint once a year.
About one-quarter of our respondents had purchased over $250 in carbon offsets in 2020. In contrast, over 74% of the same group gave more than $250 to nonprofit organizations.
A huge barrier to future carbon offset purchases is lack of trust in the system
We asked respondents if they have any reservations about making carbon offset purchases in 2021. While 15% had no reservations, over 62% felt that offsets are not effective or are not trustworthy.
In 2021, the top two actions respondents plan to take are to support pro-climate politicians (45%), reduce overall consumption (43%), and invest in clean technologies for the home (31%). Only 9% listed purchasing offsets as a top choice
Respondents overwhelmingly think (82%) that supporting politicians that champion climate policy is very or extremely effective. Only 6% rated carbon offsets as very or extremely effective.
82% think there should be a minimum price for corporate carbon offsets, to ensure that companies make every effort to first reduce emissions
Right now, some carbon offsets can be purchased for as low as $2 / ton, meaning large companies can pay a relative small amount to offset all of their emissions. Some of our respondents felt passionately that we must not dilute the meaning of “net zero” carbon targets by letting companies simply buy cheap carbon offsets, instead of reducing their own emissions.
Conclusion: high quality offsets can play a small role, but should not be the focus
There is an incredible amount of momentum behind taking action on climate change, and we must not squander the opportunity. The science shows that we need a coordinated, dramatic reduction in carbon emissions to have any hope of keeping global warming within 1.5 or even 2 degrees Celsius.
The majority of our survey respondents think that supporting pro-climate politicians is the most effective individual action we can take. Political leaders can inspire large groups to take action, and can set policies so that making the right environmental choice doesn’t impose a disproportionate cost on one company or individual.
I fear that carbon offsets will get used as a “get out of jail free” card for corporations who want to claim net zero without doing the hard work of reducing emissions. Corporate carbon efforts should focus first on cutting carbon emissions. Offsets should only come into play after all other options have been exhausted. Even then, the bar for quality offsets must be high; they must support projects that wouldn’t have happened anyways, and they must remove carbon for the long-term.
Companies are in business to make money, and will seek the cheapest ways to comply with regulations and meet environmental goals. It is crucial that well-meaning nonprofits, startups, and others avoid giving legitimacy to low quality carbon offsets. Various studies have shown that carbon offsets sold over the past 10+ years have done very little to reduce carbon emissions, and there is a long and well-documented history of fraudulent carbon offset projects. While nearly 100% of our survey respondents believe that corporations have a responsibility to track and reduce carbon emissions, a majority also do not trust the system of carbon offsets.
There are a number of important organizations working to ensure that we separate the good offsets from the bad ones - for example, researchers from the University of Oxford released a set of principles to guide "net zero-aligned carbon offsetting," which call on companies to shift their offset purchases from so-called "avoided emissions" toward carbon removal, and from higher risk carbon storage (largely in ecosystems) toward lower risk carbon storage (for example in geological storage). They call on offset buyers to transparently report which emissions they are offsetting, with which types of offset, and how they will explicitly shift their offset purchases toward net zero alignment.
I would love to see requirements from government or from investors that require companies to disclose in more detail how they are reducing carbon emissions, and what types of offsets they are taking credit for. In addition, non-profits and media can help raise awareness on companies who are inflating their claims, which is can help generate public awareness and pressure.
Finally, I am truly excited by the actions that respondents of the survey plan to take in 2021, which include supporting pro-climate politicians, reducing their overall consumption patterns and investing in technologies to save energy in their homes. Individual actions remind us that we are part of an interconnected world, and that we all have a role to play in addressing climate change.
