Even though less than half of the world’s airlines offer
carbon offsetting, does the practice really offer genuine environmental
benefits?
By: Ringo Bones
With our global climate about to reach the point of no
return when it comes to the ongoing climate change issue, it seems that every
possible scheme has been on offer by every commercial and industrial sector to
save us from climate catastrophe. Even though the airline industry forms just
2-percent of overall man-made green house gas emissions, it has become one of the
most criticized for not doing enough to clean up its act. So clean up it did. One
of these schemes is called carbon offsetting, but does it really work? But
first, here’s a brief primer on carbon offsetting.
Carbon offsetting is the process of compensating for
greenhouse gas emissions through schemes that are designed to make
corresponding reductions in emissions from other parts of the economy. From
donating to wind farms to replanting or protecting parcels of forest in at-risk
areas, these offset programs offer a diverse amount of options for air
travelers. Whilst it seems a fairly straightforward system that ensures you are
making the sustainable decision transport-wise, it has drawn a fair share of
condemnation from environmentalists.
On delving deeper into the definition of carbon offsets, it
becomes clear why airline offset schemes have become controversial. Balancing
the carbon dioxide emitted by your air travel through the planting of several
trees in South America does not involve the solitary act of placing a tree in
the soil. In order to plant the trees, there are several steps. Firstly, the
trees must be bought from a supplier, transported to a warehouse before being
driven out to the tree planting site that also needs to be prepared prior to
the tree seedlings being planted – all of these actions produce their own share
of carbon dioxide emissions, which are not always taken into account. If your
tree planting offset scheme produces more carbon dioxide emissions than your
flight – or by not buying any emissions offset at all – then it is really not
an offset. Would spending the carbon offset funds by paying off persons who own
large track of forested land to not allow their property to be developed into a
residential neighborhood or an industrial farmland be a more low-carbon
solution?