Carbon Offsets - the Challenge of Additionality
I worked on the first carbon offset that got underway 33 years ago, funded by independent power producer AES (then Applied Energy Services), and implemented through the relief agency CARE. I was with the World Resources Institute at the time, which helped AES come up with an implement the idea of offsets. And I’ve remained actively involved with carbon offsets since then.
It became clear early on that the concept of offset additionality was going to be a challenge. Any given emissions reduction or carbon sequestration project can only “offset” emissions somewhere else if the incremental reductions or sequestration associated with the project can be traced back to drivers provided by a carbon market. If the reductions or sequestration would have happened with or without the existence of the carbon market, then they can’t be turned into legitimate “offsets.”
A large literature has built up around the topic of additionality, and I’ve published quite a bit on the topic myself. Unfortunately, there is good reason to believe that a majority of the carbon offsets being bought and sold today never should have been approved as carbon offsets. And the problem is systemic - it’s built into how we quality offsets today. There are better ways to do offsets, but they would disadvantage important market participants so they don’t happen.
Over time interest in offsets started to wane. Lots of companies started focusing more on internal emissions reductions, as opposed to relying on carbon offsets that seemed to always be getting bad press. Quite a few offset providers went out of business, and a lot of people working in the offset field moved on to other things.
But that’s all changing now. Suddenly, that’s all changing. The aviation industry is talking about buying billions of tons of offsets to demonstrate their environmental bona fides while their actual emissions rise rapidly. Some airlines are committing to going carbon neutral through carbon offsets. In fact, lots of other companies, responding to growing public concerns over climate change, are committing to decarbonize by 2050, often through a substantial reliance on carbon offsets. Even the maritime industry could start using carbon offsets to demonstrate its environmental bona fides.
Coming 30 years after the first carbon offset, the sudden resurrection of enthusiasm about carbon offsets is truly a case of climate change deja vu. And in the absence of a fundamental rethink of how we do carbon offsets, the results are likely to be the same. Lots of critiques, lots of exposes about poor-quality offsets, very little climate change benefit.
The Climatographer Newsletter is about deploying evidence-based strategies to combat climate change. It’s about avoiding greenwashing and minimizing greenwishing. As such carbon offsets will be an important focus of the Newsletter, bringing you up to date on developments in the field, and making you informed offset consumers. So stay tuned for more on carbon offsets. Of course, offsets won’t be the only topic we cover; there’s plenty to talk about when it comes to a lack of evidence-based strategies in tackling climate change. We need to do better if we want to improve our chances of fighting climate change, and as a subscriber to Climatographer you’ll be well-positioned to do your part!