Did you catch the latest buzz? Taylor Swift is making headlines once again, and this time it’s all about her sending a cease-and-desist to a college student tracking her private jet flights. Hollywood A-listers have a long history of going head-to-head with oligarchs and oil tycoons for their lavish private jet usage. But here’s the plot twist: now, celebrities are trying to mend their environmental and PR mishaps by purchasing credits to offset their emissions.
For years, countries and corporations have used carbon offsetting as a way to showcase how they are acting on climate change. But with Greta Thunberg accusing leaders of engaging in “creative carbon accounting,” which is basically not prioritising the planet, how exactly does offsetting work, and is the global fixation on footprints actually having an impact on emissions? And as this offsetting trend gains traction, the burning question is whether it’s a genuine move towards a greener world or just a clever way for celebrities to gloss over their climate sins.
In Kyoto in 1997, the world’s nations agreed that we needed to do something about rising levels of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. Countries created a framework to split responsibility based on their footprints and defined the level of action required by each to reach the goal of global carbon neutrality.
At the same time, another complementary idea was gaining traction. ‘Carbon credits’: a cap-and-trade system that would create mechanisms to encourage nations and high-emitting industries to decarbonise. In essence, companies buy permits that give them the right to emit one tonne of carbon dioxide. Then, the money raised through the sale of these permits is used to sequester CO2 from the air.
Can businesses be carbon neutral too?
Although it was designed for nations, the world of corporate sustainability enthusiastically adopted the concept of carbon neutrality in the 1990s. It was a neat way of compartmentalising their negative impact. And it gave them something to show for how they were supposedly combating it. Not much has changed since.
Companies typically use a three-step process to achieve neutrality. They measure their footprints, reduce them where possible, and then use carbon credits to offset what they can’t reduce. Within this framework, a business can become carbon neutral every year by immediately cancelling out (or offsetting) its emissions with carbon credits. It’s an easy yet effective way of showing consumers that—on paper—they’re not negatively impacting the planet. Sounds great, right? Unfortunately, it’s not that simple.
1. You can’t compartmentalise neutrality
Imagine sharing a house with a group of friends. You may be a neat freak. You wash your dishes every day and tidy up after yourself. But if you live with messy people, your place will always be a tip. Now, imagine that house is on planet Earth. Making sure you’re putting your carbon back in the cupboard is not going to change the status quo. You’ll still be surrounded by the stuff.
In the same way, companies cannot and should not aim to be islands of carbon neutrality. It just doesn’t work like that. Focusing all of their energy and money on balancing their individual carbon balance sheets isn’t effective or efficient, in the grand scheme of things. Instead, businesses can contribute towards global carbon neutrality through collaboration. Working with other companies, communities, and countries. Businesses should be focusing on channelling investment where it can have the biggest impact.
2. The system disincentivises action
Carbon credits and offsetting remove the incentive for real climate action. Simply put, it means that businesses with enough cash are able to offset their huge footprints through carbon credits. They can wash their hands of the problem without looking at more innovative ways of solving emissions challenges, through more sustainable processes and practices.
The system has shifted the focus from the original aim of reducing emissions to one of offsetting. This is business as usual. Which means companies are still burning fossil fuels, and carbon dioxide levels are still building up in the atmosphere. And the reality check is that we’re kind of running out of time…
3. It’s created a ‘break-even’ mindset
Carbon credits and offsetting remove the incentive for real climate action. Simply put, it means that businesses with enough cash are able to offset their huge footprints through carbon credits. They can wash their hands of the problem without looking at more innovative ways of solving emissions challenges through more sustainable processes and practices.
The system has shifted the focus from the original aim of reducing emissions to one of offsetting. This is business as usual. Which means companies are still burning fossil fuels and carbon dioxide levels are still building up in the atmosphere.
What’s the alternative?
Despite all of the offsetting going on around us, we haven’t managed to move the needle on climate change. A recent report by the UN showed that global emissions are in fact expected to rise by 16% by 2030. It’s clear that the system is not creating the change needed. We need to drastically rethink our approach. So instead of focusing on ‘being less bad’, how about looking at how we can ‘do more good’?
Regenerative projects are just that. They’re ways to restore, reserve and rewild natural ecosystems, to help improve the planet’s resilience to the changing climate. By shifting the focus away from negative footprints towards positive handprints, we can start thinking about how we leave the world a better place. From planting trees to protecting at-risk ecosystems, regenerative actions can play a fundamental role in curbing climate change.
Interested in learning more about planet-positive action? To find out how you or your company can help the planet stay within the 1.5 degree temperature increase limit through regenerating natural ecosystems, try out Handprint’s Regenerative Target Calculator.
