Carbon emissions trading
First there was carbon emissions trading schemes between countries, then carbon emissions trading schemes between companies. Participants were given a 'CO2 ration' - the total amount of CO2 they could emit in, say, a year. If this was, or looked like being, insufficient, they could buy extra ration from countries or companies who expected to be able to operate well within the ration they had been allotted. The concept of carbon emissions trading was devised by the rich and dirty, primarily in order to put off the day when they would finally have to change the way they operate, and clean up their act. The 'feel good' factor was the notion that poor less industrially developed countries would probably earn money from rich more industrially developed countries, and that some of these earnings might even get spent on renewable energy projects.

No surprise, then, that carbon emissions trading schemes have not resulted in significant emissions reductions. The price of a tonne of carbon emissions was not set to reflect the true cost of the damage those emissions would cause, but left to market forces. Poorer countries and companies with lots of ration to spare were more than willing to drop the price for ready cash. In Europe the current trading price for one tonne of emissions is 1.2 euro/$1.6), rather lower than the $85 calculated by the recently published 'Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change'. Poorer countries and companies also found far more pressing demands on their newly earned foreign currency than windmills and biogas digesters for remote villages.

Carbon offsetting
The next concept for not changing the way we live was 'carbon offsetting' - keeping your 'CO2 balance sheet' (sometimes called your 'eco footprint') close to or even below zero by balancing your carbon-emitting activities with carbon-reducing activities. A classic example for an individual would be to take an air flight (carbon-emitting) then contribute towards the cost of, say, a wind farm in a less industrially developed country (carbon-reducing). Properly operated, carbon offsetting has huge potential for both reducing the world's carbon emissions and reducing environmental pollution, but nowhere near as much as could be achieved if Governments, businesses and individuals acted to reduce their emissions in the first place.

Also, carbon offsetting is only as good as (i) current scientific knowledge and (ii) the organisation overseeing the offsetting. Most people, for instance, still do not know that planting new trees, the offsetters initial 'big white hope', is no longer regarded as much use by environmentalists when it comes to fighting global warming (see (e.g.) 'Barking up the Wrong Tree' in Green Health Watch 28) although it is still a very good idea in terms of restoring forest, fixing soil and providing for wildlife. Even leading offsetting companies which should know better, like Oxford-based Climate Care and The CarbonNeutral Company, are still putting money into temperate forestry. And will your non-forestry 'offsetting donation' towards, say, biogas digesters in India, installing energy-efficient light bulbs in Kazakhstan, or buying efficient stoves for villagers in Honduras, actually be spent on its intended purpose or, again, will more pressing needs (like food, shelter and clean water) or, for that matter, local corruption, siphon away the funds?

Friends of the Earth criticise carbon offsetting as "a smoke screen to avoid real measures to tackle climate change". The author of The Carbon Neutral Myth, Kevin Smith, likens carbon offsetting to the Roman Catholic church's selling of Indulgencies to rid rich people of their sins in the Middle Ages.

Changing the way we work
Take the fantastically profitable business British Petroleum (BP). It is extremely likely that, if carbon emissions trading became the principal order of the day, BP would buy emissions credits from companies with spare for as long as they could, rather than change. If 'carbon offsetting' were to become the principal mechanism, they would likely continue to pollute at the same rate while simultaneously put in place 'compensatory products' which might (if the science is right and climate change does not accelerate) neutralise those emissions some time in the future, perhaps distant future, perhaps too distant future to make any difference. Remember, climate scientists are only giving world Governments 30 years or so to massively reduce carbon emissions in order to (possibly) prevent environmental disaster (= human society disaster).

The only way to make BP change the way it works immediately would be to impose a 'polluter pays' tax which reflected the true and full environmental cost of its activities and products ('extended producer responsibility'). The Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change calculated the full environmental cost of one tonne of emitted carbon dioxide at $85. If this tax was applied to BP today it would be transformed from a company making $24 billion a year into a company losing $24 billion a year.

Changing the way we live
As for Governments and big businesses, changes in individual and community lifestyles will be far more effective than carrying on emitting carbon dioxide at the present rate then trying to 'suck' it back in again. 'Carbon offsetting', like the 'Recycle Paper to Save Trees' campaign in the '80s, (see ed.(ii)) may be a useful 'totem', a good way of raising public awareness of the issue, but what is needed is to reduce the amount of carbon dioxide each of us emits in the first place.

This is where non-tradable, non-compensatable, individual 'CO2 rations' could make a big difference. Supposing, for instance, each individual or local authority was only allowed to buy so much energy in the form of petrol, diesel, gas, aviation fuel, coal or electricity a year? Low-purchasers could give or sell part of their ration to high-purchasers or, if wishing to help reduce carbon emissions more quickly, decide not to give or sell any remaining ration at all. But that would allow richer individuals and local authorities to behave more dirtily than less rich individuals and authorities, as well as effect change more slowly. Even better, suppose carbon rations could not be sold or given away. Would that not change public behaviour far more quickly than any Government public education campaign, and be fairer to boot?

Ed.- (i) If you are beginning to feel a little guilty about aspects of your lifestyle but cannot bear to go without, the magazine The Ethical Consumer judges the best carbon offsetting organisation to be Atmosfair. The price of its offsets are closer to the real costs (i.e. dearer) than most and 80% of its income is invested in 'Gold Standard' projects.*

The Atmosfair website (www.atmosfair.de/index.php?id=5&L=3) also provides visitors with an excellent 'air travel emissions calculator'.

(ii) In the '80s, recycled paper was heavily promoted by the Green Movement using slogans like 'Save a Tree' and 'Save Energy'. It still is promoted in this way to a lesser extent even though:

• most recycled paper comes from 'printers trimmings', which have never seen a spot of ink and have never been used by the public, and
• the energy saved (60%) by turning printed paper back into paper sheet rather than pulping new wood for paper was often cancelled by the energy spent getting ink out of printed paper and disposing of the sludge

The main benefit of recycling paper is reducing pressure on (i) landfill sites and (ii) broadleaf forests, which provide habitat and food for many more species of wildlife than closely-planted pine forest.

The benefit of raising people's awareness of the need of the three Rs (recycle, re-use and repair) as a way of starting them on the road to a Greener lifestyle is, of course, extremely significant.

(iii) Another mistake made by some carbon offsetting organisations is to credit entire offsetting donations to your and their carbon balance sheet the moment they are received rather than apportion them year by year as the offsetting actually takes effect. Thus, the emissions savings inherent in a biogas digester should only be claimed when the digester begins to operate, and then apportioned year on year throughout the digester's working life.

* The classification 'gold standard' is only given to the highest grade of carbon offsetting project which (a) reduces energy consumption or increases energy efficiency and (b) involves high levels of community engagement. This Swiss certification scheme was devised by 43 environmental non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and launched in 2003.

The UK Department of the Environment, Farming and Rural Affairs (Defra) plans to issue its own certification scheme in the near future. It promises to be very strict. If its current proposals are finally adopted, only four of the around 60 carbon offsetting organisations currently offering their services in the UK - Pure, Global Cool, Equiclimate and Carbon Offsets - would qualify for the highest grading.

Sources: Cahal Milmo, The Ecologist 1.1.07
Independent 11.1.07