‘Carbon offsetting’ is a hot topic as of late, due to headlines surrounding The Duke and Duchess of Sussex.
Prince Harry and Meghan Markle, have received backlash after jetting off to Nice on Elton John’s private plane, following a trip to Ibiza earlier this month. The musician defended the royals by arguing that he had made a donation to the footprint fund in order to ensure that the flight was ‘carbon neutral’.
However, according to Doug Parr from Greenpeace UK, carbon offsetting does not do enough to stop climate change, which raises an important question.
Can one individual actually make a difference by reducing their carbon footprint?
What is carbon offsetting?
For those not familiar with the term, it refers to how an individual, an organisation or a business can ‘compensate’ for their carbon emissions.
This is usually done by taking part in a scheme that equalises your carbon footprint (or donating money to environmental causes, like Elton claims to have done).
‘There is increasing scepticism among climate researchers about carbon offsetting both in terms of how effective they are, and whether they can feasibly be scaled up,’ Dr Roger Tyers, a research fellow at the University of Southampton, tells Metro.co.uk.
‘In terms of effectiveness, they often create finance for worthwhile projects which plant trees, fund renewable energy, or help poor people in developing countries with “co-benefits” like creating jobs and improving health outcomes. However, there are many ways of donating to charity which can do these same things.
‘If the point of an offset is to “cancel out” present emissions then the timescales are simply too long.
‘A flight today emits carbon today. Offsets are likely too slow to pay back that carbon ‘debt’ because offset money takes time to get to a project, trees take time to grow, etc etc.’
There are additional ways to balance out your footprint that have more of an instant effect.
For instance, in Sweden, a movement called ‘flygskam’ (flying shame) has emerged where young people opt to take trains instead of flying because of how much it affects the environment (greenhouse gas emissions in particular are a concern).
It’s the same reason climate activist Greta Thunberg has chosen to sail on a zero-carbon yacht to the UN Climate Action Summit, a journey that will take her two weeks (compared to an eight-hour plane ride).
Choosing a more environmentally-friendly way to travel is admirable, but is it enough?
‘In regards [to] offsetting as part of an individual’s actions; these can only play a role as part of an overall strategy of calculating and understanding emissions, reducing those emissions where possible though lifestyle changes, and taking responsibility for your unavoidable emissions through offsetting,’ Ciaran Kelly, an environmental strategist and founder of the app, Earth Rewards, tells Metro.co.uk.
‘A simple fact is that every lifestyle action has a carbon impact.
‘Although a lot of the news lately has been about the carbon impacts of flying, we should look at and understand the emissions across our whole lifestyle. A sensible way to look at this is creating a balance; on one side of the equation you have your lifestyle emissions, and on the other side you have the ability to reduce those emissions. For the remaining emissions, people can create a carbon balance through offsetting.’
Making direct lifestyle choices can then have a positive effect, but the concern is that unless offsetting carbon footprint becomes mandatory, not enough people will do it.
‘In terms of scaling, my own research as well as others’ suggests that if offsets remain voluntary, then it will remain marginal and most people simply won’t buy them,’ said Dr Rogers.
‘There are some motivated “green travellers” and many large companies who purchase offsets already, but the vast majority of flights, probably well over 90% – are not offset – people simply want to pay the least amount possible and avoid extra charges.
‘Globally most people still do not make the link between flying and climate change so don’t see the point in paying more than they need to.’
Interestingly, in the UK, majority of flights taken every year (70%) are by 15% of the population.
As such, to tackle climate change on a wider scale, Dr Rogers proposes an alternative solution to carbon offsetting: mandatory carbon tax, also known as a Frequent Flier Levy (FFL).
‘This would be a fair way to reduce demand for flights in the first place, rather than allow flying to grow and grow and try and clean up its pollution afterwards through offsets.
‘Money raised from a FFL could be used to invest in land-based transport and/or clean aviation fuel like “electrofuels” instead so that, in the long-term, we can have ‘sustainable aviation’ which does not use dirty kerosene.
‘Passenger numbers are predicted to double over the next 20 years, and as other sectors decarbonise, aviation could account for as much as 22% of global emissions.’
‘In that context, voluntary offsetting simply isn’t going to cut it.’
It seems that being aware of your carbon footprint and doing your best to reduce it can make a difference – but on a wider scale, unless others are doing the same.
MORE: What does the fish tube meme reveal about the millennial condition? Not a huge amount
MORE: How to do a sustainable back to school shop
MORE: Grab the kids and head to the Natural History Museum to celebrate ‘nature’s champions’ this month