Divisiveness over carbon offsetting - as airlines and researchers clash
By: Joel Aberg
International trips by UK citizens have increased by 11 million since 2014
Airlines are investing heavily in carbon offsetting schemes to sustain their business models even as the world becomes more environmentally cautious. Researchers predict that the initiative might be counterproductive and instead lead to an increase of guilt-free flying.
As of January 2020, British Airways carbon offsets all its domestic flights. The company also offers customers the chance to offset their international travels by investing in projects of their choice. BA’s latest policy echoes a rising trend of eco-friendly initiatives taken by the industry. Sure enough, six of the UK’s most popular airlines – BA, Tui, Emirates, Qantas, EasyJet and Virgin, according to a YouGov survey – offer some kind of carbon offsetting.
This comes after a 2019 release by the International Council for Clean Transportation, which illustrated that the UK has become the world’s third-largest carbon polluter from commercial flights. Over the past five years, the number of international trips made by UK citizens has increased by 11 million, with aviation experiencing the largest percentage rise out of all transportation modes. To put that into perspective, UK citizens account for 54% more flight emissions than that of India.
BA has partnered with the charity Leapfrog, which offers three schemes: forest protection in Peru as well as in Cambodia, and the replacement of charcoal stoves for low-smoke alternatives in Sudan. The methods used vary, but faith in carbon-offsetting remains consistent among airlines. The other thing they have in common is a lack of clarity about what these projects actually achieve, says Dr Alexandre Koberle, who’s an environmental researcher at the Grantham Institute of Climate Change in London.
French President Macron and US counterpart Trump planted trees at the White House in 2019
When asked about details concerning their green schemes, the airlines unanimously refer to futile sales brochures. Tui, Emirates, BA and Qantas all refuse to further explain their carbon offsetting programmes. Katie Kershaw, a senior PR manager at EasyJet, is first eager to talk about their responsibility to minimise the environmental impact of their flights and “being as efficient as they can”, but when asked about specifics, she says that nothing else can be added at this time.
Similarly, Rosie Watts, a Virgin Atlantic PR executive, passes me along to their partner ClimateCare. It takes four weeks for them to agree to a meeting and a few days beforehand, spokesman Holly Pither cancels the meeting. When asked if they could answer a few basic questions via email “sometime in the next few weeks”, Pither first declines before adding that “it has nothing to do with transparency”.
The apparent lack of clarity resembles Dr Alexandre Koberle’s worries. “This doesn’t only impact the trust in such a delicate issue, but it also raises concerns if they even believe in what they are working with,” he says. The fact that airlines and carbon offsetting companies see things so differently ought to be treated as a warning, Dr Koberle says. He adds: “It’s a bit of a double-edged sword and can be misused. People can just cheaply offset, so it can be a way of doing guilt-free flying, and how this money is applied doesn’t necessarily lead to a true offset.”
Whereas some airlines have put an ever greater emphasis on tree-planting lately, with Qantas planting 12 million trees in the last eight years, others have stopped. The charity Clear Offset says it does no longer plant trees as it is “problematic”.
The Amazon has recently seen massive deforestation
Dr Koberle says he has colleagues who are strongly against carbon offsetting. They argue it drives up the demand for guilt-free emissions. “It can be a useful tool, particularly when used to generate revenue for natural standings forests with its biodiversity. Planting new trees does not come with the same benefits as restoring and preserving standing forests,” he says.
The way these schemes are promoted clearly differs from what people in the age group 18-25 would like them to, a survey conducted by YOOTS has shown. While only 12% of those aged 18-25 said they regularly offset their flights, 84% of them would want to do so “to battle climate change” and almost all would be happy to pay extra to do so. While BA charges just £1.20 to opt-in to its climate scheme for a two-hour flight, over half our respondents – 57% – said they would happily pay £10 or more.
Most respondents – 58% – with the remaining being split between the government and the customers over who bears the biggest responsibility to make a change, argue that it is up to the airlines to come up with innovative ideas and more fuel-efficient alternatives. But there seems to be a gap between customers’ demand and the airlines’ climate-friendly sales pitches. We found that 88% of those asked had “little or no confidence” in such schemes, and two-thirds wanted the money invested closer to home rather than in the developing world.
Several Freedom of Information requests uncovered that the UK government can’t decide how to best carbon offset either. UK Research and Innovation doesn’t currently hold a position on carbon offsetting. The Environment Agency has decided not to carbon offset and instead do things that it could “say with 100 per cent confidence would make a difference”. By investing in estates, buildings and the fleet, its emissions almost halved in 2018 compared to the previous year. The BBC, on the other hand, says that one of its contractors offsets carbon emissions for their flights and they “are exploring whether there’s scope to do more”.
The division is clarified by the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, which believes that carbon offsetting “can play a part” even if its priority is to reduce emissions rather than to offset. An FOI document reveals that the government operated a standardised offsetting function for all its departments between 2010 and 2013, investing a grand total of £2.96m during that time. The document also shows that the UK regularly offsetted for ministerial and other official flights already in 2006. They did not disclose what form the offsetting was conducted in, and eventually decided not to extend the programme beyond 2013. It is since then up to each and every department to decide how carbon offsetting is done best.
Will Lord, a press liaison at Extinction Rebellion, isn’t surprised by the findings. “It’s a way to pass the buck and stay morally in the clear whilst not being held accountable. It’s one of those ‘too good to be true’ notions,” he says. Lord compares carbon offsetting to losing half your house. “It’s better than losing all of it, but it still isn’t a viable solution. Those in a position of wealth will abuse a system inclined to help, and these companies purporting vague statistics know all too well carbon offsetting isn’t as effective as properly tackling climate breakdown,” Lord says.
Oscar Melbye, one of three survey respondents that “always” carbon offsets, argues that that’s the only way for him to justify flying. When asked if he ticks the guilt-free box that both Koberle and Lord have suggested, he agrees with that statement. “Some people have to take the plane in their work and others, like me, have family abroad. I’m not sure I’ve got any other options unfortunately,” he says, “despite feeling really bad about it, more than anything else, I feel like I’m just a product of the problem and not the problem itself."
When asked about where his previous offsets have gone, he gets puzzled and starts thinking. “It’s actually kinda crazy, everywhere else you get some kind of verification or receipt. Here you’re just expected to believe in what they’ll tell you they’ll do,” he says.
Leave a comment or share the article on social media to continue the discussion.
​
Contact the writer!