You can't carbon offset with trees

Sigh. For reasons I don't entirely understand, I receive emails from Travel Neutral, a company that specialises, according to its website, in 'carbon offset and planet-aware holiday deals' like the one advertised in the image. To be honest, they aren't my kind of holiday firm, because I don't consider going on holiday a good enough reason to fly, but out of interest I followed a link to the company they use for offsetting.

The good news is that they offer a good range of sensible green schemes from tree planting to renewable energy projects. The bad news is that using these for offsetting is mostly greenwash.

The idea of offsetting is that at the moment we all have to do things that generate greenhouse gasses. So you pay a little money to a scheme that will reduce greenhouse emissions, and this will balance out your contribution to climate change. But unless the amount of money you contribute will reduce carbon emissions (or equivalent) by at least the amount you generated before the next time you fly it's not really offsetting it. To take the example to the extreme, if your offsetting scheme only resulted in a reduction in 100 years time, then it would be totally pointless in terms of dealing with climate change.

While these schemes aren't quite so long term, the amount you pay will go nowhere near to producing an equivalent reduction in any even vaguely equivalent timescale to the flight. It would take a tree, for example, maybe 30 years to reduce carbon levels by the amount emitted for one passenger on a roundtrip long haul flight - in the region of 2 to 3 tonnes. (That's more than a typical UK car emits in a whole year, incidentally.) And most of the benefit would come after the first 10 to 15 years - because saplings don't take in a lot of CO₂.

I need to reiterate that this does not mean that tree planting and renewable energy projects are bad things. Far from it. We need far more trees and far more green energy production. By all means support them. But it's magic thinking to believe that by putting a little money into these projects you can wipe the slate clean for your carbon-chugging flights. It won't.

This has been a Green Heretic production. See all my Green Heretic articles here.

See all of Brian's online articles or subscribe to a weekly digest for free here

Comments

Why I hate opera

If I'm honest, the title of this post is an exaggeration to make a point. I don't really hate opera. There are a couple of operas - notably Monteverdi's Incoranazione di Poppea and Purcell's Dido & Aeneas - that I quite like. But what I do find truly sickening is the reverence with which opera is treated, as if it were some particularly great art form. Nowhere was this more obvious than in ITV's 2010 gut-wrenchingly awful series Pop Star to Opera Star , where the likes of Alan Tichmarsh treated the real opera singers as if they were fragile pieces on Antiques Roadshow, and the music as if it were a gift of the gods. In my opinion - and I know not everyone agrees - opera is: Mediocre music Melodramatic plots Amateurishly hammy acting A forced and unpleasant singing style Ridiculously over-supported by public funds I won't even bother to go into any detail on the plots and the acting - this is just self-evident. But the other aspects need some exp

Is 5x3 the same as 3x5?

The Internet has gone mildly bonkers over a child in America who was marked down in a test because when asked to work out 5x3 by repeated addition he/she used 5+5+5 instead of 3+3+3+3+3. Those who support the teacher say that 5x3 means 'five lots of 3' where the complainants say that 'times' is commutative (reversible) so the distinction is meaningless as 5x3 and 3x5 are indistinguishable. It's certainly true that not all mathematical operations are commutative. I think we are all comfortable that 5-3 is not the same as 3-5. However. This not true of multiplication (of numbers). And so if there is to be any distinction, it has to be in the use of English to interpret the 'x' sign. Unfortunately, even here there is no logical way of coming up with a definitive answer. I suspect most primary school teachers would expands 'times' as 'lots of' as mentioned above. So we get 5 x 3 as '5 lots of 3'. Unfortunately that only wor

Why backgammon is a better game than chess

I freely admit that chess, for those who enjoy it, is a wonderful game, but I honestly believe that as a game , backgammon is better (and this isn't just because I'm a lot better at playing backgammon than chess). Having relatively recently written a book on game theory, I have given quite a lot of thought to the nature of games, and from that I'd say that chess has two significant weaknesses compared with backgammon. One is the lack of randomness. Because backgammon includes the roll of the dice, it introduces a random factor into the play. Of course, a game that is totally random provides very little enjoyment. Tossing a coin isn't at all entertaining. But the clever thing about backgammon is that the randomness is contributory without dominating - there is still plenty of room for skill (apart from very flukey dice throws, I can always be beaten by a really good backgammon player), but the introduction of a random factor makes it more life-like, with more of a sense

Search This Blog