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
