Dear Guardian,
The article "It's no longer emission impossible" published
on The Guardian web-site on the 28th April 2006, contains
both misleading and incorrect information relating to the environmental
benefits of carbon offsets.
The environmental benefits of carbon offsets
and the claim that companies can go 'carbon neutral' to help prevent
global warming have been disputed by leading environmental organisations
as little more than clever marketing. Scientifically, there is little
to suggest that carbon offsets, through the investment in forestry,
have any positive impact on global warming by removing the volume
of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere that is being suggested.
The
article states that "This involves paying for projects, in areas including
forestry [...] that effectively remove from the atmosphere at least
as much carbon dioxide as is generated [...]". This is unlikely to
be true for the many reasons outlined in the attached report.
Your
article also states that Radio Taxis has obtained a "carbon-neutral
status". Though this may be what the offset company wants everyone
to believe, this is not a true reflection of the real world.
Offset
companies sell you a number of trees, which throughout the life of
the tree will absorb a certain amount of CO2 from the atmosphere.
While trees are very young, they only absorb little carbon, but this
clearly accelerates as the tree grows. For many species of trees
the absorption rate increases with time as the tree grows older.
Depending on the type of tree planted, a single tree can only remove
limited amounts of CO2 from the atmosphere per year. See attached
report.
Hence, claiming that Radio Taxis is carbon neutral is
incorrect. The carbon dioxide produced by Radio Taxi in 2006 will
be fully absorbed, if all trees survive to maturity, within the next 100
years or so.
Hence, if we all continued to maintain our carbon emissions
at present levels and bought carbon offsets, it would be at least
75-100 years before that carbon was absorbed. And in the ensuing period,
we would each year continue to produce tons of carbon dioxide and
plant 1000's of trees in the hope that we can avoid climate change.
In truth, the trees would never be able to keep up and carbon emissions
would continue to grow year after year.
Carbon-info.org has produced
a simple model that clearly proves this point. The model shows
what happens if an individual generates ~1100 kg of CO2 each year during
a hundred year period and each year, in accordance with
the carbon offset company, plants one tree to absorb the ~1100 kg
of CO2 from the atmosphere.
In summary, after the 100 years,
there is a net gain of CO2. Not exactly carbon neutral nor the
best way to deal with global warming.
Buying carbon offsets is
therefore costing you money, while neither saving you money or energy
nor benefiting the planet. A little like buying carbon offsets while
keeping your high energy light bulbs. If you actually bought the low
energy light bulbs, you would save the cost of the carbon offset,
save 20% (difference between low energy and normal light bulb) on
your energy bill and reduce your carbon dioxide emissions with about
20% each year.
Another point worth making is that whatever the project
the carbon offset companies invest in, these are either existing renewable
energy project or part of the annual amount of trees already planned
to be planted by the carbon offset companies' planting partners. Hence,
it could be argued that neither the trees nor the renewable energy
projects actually remove any additional carbon from the atmosphere.
The companies buying offsets are simple subsidising existing project.
If the carbon offset companies actually created their own projects
then their marketing claims would be closer to the truth then currently
appears to be the case.
The most effective strategy for avoiding
climate change is to ensure that the carbon dioxide does not enter
the atmosphere in the first place by reducing our energy consumption
and improve energy efficiency. Claiming that carbon offsets can help
save the planet from climate change or that individuals actions are
carbon neutral are both morally and scientifically difficult to defend
and is at very best a rather dubious claim.
If I am able to help with
further information on the above, please email me, and I will be happy
to help.
Flemming Bermann
Carbon-info.org
