Carbon offsetting: a false good idea

‍

The summer of 2021 was particularly marked by the monstrous fires, consequences of global warming. These phenomena raise the question of the relevance of trees planted as part of carbon offsets.

These forests are burning because of global warming when they should be capturing the carbon dioxide emitted by human activity. Ironic, isn't it? At least that's what Greta Thunberg thinks in a tweet on the matter.

What is carbon offsetting? Real ecological commitment or simple greenwashing? Is the neutrality wanted by the Cop21 of 2015 really possible? Rzilient gives you some thoughts on the subject.

‍

What is carbon offsetting? 

Offsetting one's carbon footprint means first and foremost that one seeks to balance one effect with another. Planting trees or investing in renewable energy projects is done with the objective of neutralizing a disadvantage.

Since the 2015 Paris agreements, many companies have been deploying climate strategies and CSR policies to meet the objective of staying below +1.5° by becoming "carbon neutral". 

In itself, the idea of offsetting is not a bad one for unavoidable CO2 emissions - the so-called "incompressible" ones - but many companies offset their emissions without trying to reduce them first. 

‍

The 6 myths of carbon offsetting 

The challenge today is to change the foundations of the system. Carbon offsetting and "carbon neutrality" reinforce this idea of subtracting and cancelling CO2 emissions. To get away from the idea that carbon offsetting is the miracle to follow in the fight against global warming, here are some myths questioned. 

‍

1. Compensating will not solve the problem of global warming

‍

Planting trees to absorb CO2 emissions when flying, making a purchase, or other high-impact actions will not solve the current ecological crisis .

It is impossible to be completely carbon neutral or to have zero CO2 emissions. There are always incompressible emissions. And this is normal.

A ton of CO2 emitted cannot simply disappear because we finance positive impact projects or tree planting. This summer's fires are proof of that. 

Taken as the only solution to fight global warming, offsetting one's footprint is not strong enough. It is a good way to start the transition to a model that emits less emissions, but it cannot be the only tool in a climate strategy.  

2. Carbon offsetting can quickly turn into greenwashing  

‍

Continuing to fly but planting trees, or continuing to extract rare materials while funding positive impact projects seems antithetical. Carbon offsetting cannot be a way to avoid responsibility for climate change. Offsetting does not cancel out negative impacts.

It is not a question of reducing CO2 emissions OR offsetting them. It is not a choice but a necessity to build a strategy where both go hand in hand.

The UN Environment goes further to say thatwe must beware of: "the dangerous illusion of a 'fix' that will allow our huge emissions to continue to grow.(...) This is not a quick fix and can lead to complacency." 

3. CO2 removal technology will not solve the problem 

‍

To imagine that future technologies will be able to capture all the CO2 emitted is somewhat misleading. In addition to requiring many resources to be developed (water, energy, rare materials), they are still in the research phase. 

While some are emerging, they are not yet widely deployed. And they continue to reinforce the idea that it is possible to remove CO2 emissions from our atmosphere when the most effective way is to limit them at the source. 

‍

4. We must continue to plant new trees to compensate for the cutting of old-growth forests 

‍

This summer's fires demonstrated that trees planted to capture CO2 released a lot of it when they burned. If these forests burn when they were supposed to offset the carbon emissions of the companies that financed their planting, everything is cancelled out. The tons of CO2 released by the companies are no longer "captured", they have polluted more than anything else. 

Old-growth forests are worth preserving for several reasons: 

• they contain centuries of carbon in their soil; 
• they continue to capture carbon for hundreds of years; 
• when they are cut, the stored CO2 is released.
  

It is better to avoid destroying old-growth forests under the pretext of planting new ones because young trees store much less carbon than older ones. 

‍

5. Each ton of CO2 is not the same and cannot be treated interchangeably. 
   

‍

Carbon dioxide has no borders. No matter where it was emitted from, it will diffuse into the atmosphere and have the same weight in global warming. The same is true for greenhouse gases (GHGs). 

However, not all carbon emissions have the same value in a strategy to fight global warming. Those resulting from so-called "luxury" consumption do not have the same weight as those from essential actions. 

6. Climate neutrality is impossible. 

‍

It is difficult to talk about carbon neutrality or climate neutral products (or actions) under these circumstances. Offsetting all of one's greenhouse gas emissions does not mean that one's carbon footprint is reduced.

Having a carbon footprint of 0 is technically impossible. Offsetting can encourage increased consumption as it removes one's responsibility towards the environment. It is misleading to use terms like "neutrality" or "neutral" since the footprint, even when compensated, is far from being without consequence. 

To avoid greenwashing, talk about carbon contribution rather than compensation

How can we make a real impact in the fight against global warming? In addition to measuring your emissions and trying to reduce them, it is interesting to do what is called voluntary carbon offsetting.

It is a better alternative to offsetting because it concerns so-called incompressible emissions and is part of a global and committed approach to reducing the carbon footprint.

‍

The difference between contribution and compensation 

Using the term contribution instead of compensation highlights several things: 

• we are not in a process of subtraction of CO2; 
• we reinforce the idea that we are aware that the initiatives funded do not cancel out carbon emissions; 
• This is part of an approach where emission reduction and contribution are intertwined in a truly committed vow.
  

The voluntary carbon contribution emphasizes the idea that the initiative is sincere, useful and reliable. It comes at the end of the pathway: avoid - reduce - compensate.

According to the INFCC (Info Compensation Carbone), to voluntarily contribute, a financer (companies, communities, individuals) supports a project to reduce or sequester GHG emissions for which it is not directly responsible. 

‍

This results in carbon credits that measure the impact of these projects. Each credit represents an equivalent ton of CO2 reduced or locked in.

But be careful, these credits are not used for : 

• cancel the impact of one of its actions; 
• buy back its entire carbon footprint. 
  

Originally, these carbon credits were created so that countries couldlimit their GHG emissions within the framework of the Kyoto Protocol and thus move towards carbon neutrality.

Each country had to respect imposed emission ceilings, and in the event of exceeding them, balance their emissions by financing low-carbon projects that took place in countries where the Kyoto Protocol did not take effect.

Today we are in a voluntary carbon offset market where each country and company can buy as many credits as necessary to be "carbon neutral". Hence the need to revise the compensation calculation scale to switch froma system of "possession" of credits to a "contribution" to the reduction. 

‍

The Net Zero Initiative 

The Net Zero Initiative, launched in June 2018 by Carbone 4, sets up a new benchmark system for organizations' contribution to carbon neutrality.

The challenge? Achieving zero net global emissions by aligning stakeholders on the same objectives, concepts and methods.

To contribute to global carbon neutrality in an effective way, the benchmark is based on 5 key principles: 

• the term "carbon neutrality" cannot be applied to an organization because it refers to the global balancing objective; 
• organizations can only contribute to this trajectory;  
• emissions reductions and negative emissions (those "absorbed" by the offset) are counted separately; 
• Carbon finance cannot "cancel" a company's operational emissions, only create avoided or negative emissions; 
• The concept of "contribution to global neutrality" also concerns low-carbon products and services. Avoided emissions are separated into two: those that correspond to a real absolute decrease in the level of emissions, and those that are a "lesser increase" compared to the baseline situation. 

‍

This new way of accounting for carbon contributions reinforces the fact that in order to reduce global emissions, we must act in three ways: 

• reduce its own direct and indirect emissions; 
• reduce the emissions of others 
• increase carbon sinks.
  

It is not a question of choosing between the 3 but of carrying out all of them together. 

Rzilient's ambition in the digital sector 

As we know, thecarbon footprint of digital technology is significant. And the trend is not decreasing for the next few years.

Instead of planting trees to offset digital emissions, Rzilient chooses to have a more global vision for a conscious and responsible sector, thanks to the circular economy.

But this ambition goes further. Rzilient's challenge is to play a real role insupporting structures in reducing their environmental footprint allocated to their digital equipment.

Rzilient is also looking to : 

• promoting positive digital impact;  
• Putting responsible and circular practices at the center of companies' digital approaches;
• to raise awareness on these issues of digital responsibility.
  

And once the GHG emissions have been reduced as much as possible, Rzilient offers, together with its partner PUR Projet, to make voluntary contributions to compensate for the incompressible emissions. 

Are you looking to effectively fight global warming and integrate responsible digital technology into your company? Let's talk about it!