| Our view on carbon offsetting |
 |
 |
|
Our view on carbon offsetting We believe that carbon offsetting is a useful tool for businesses, but with some reservations. Firstly, it's important to point out that carbon offsetting is a downstream measure rather than an upstream measure; it does not reduce the use of fossil energy in the company that purchases the offsetting. So carbon offsetting must always be considered to be a temporary measure. Critics say that people offset carbon dioxide emissions to buy themselves free, to satisfy a bad conscience and so that someone else makes a change, not the buyer himself/herself. Isn't this a somewhat negative view of mankind? It assumes that people choose to deceive themselves and others. The companies that we work with see carbon offsetting as something positive. They have strategies, goals and action plans to limit their impact on climate change. Carbon offsetting is an additional measure to take responsibility and minimise climate impact. U&W [you&we] always signs a Letter of Intent with customers which states that carbon offsetting is not the only measure the business is taking, rather that the measure is part of a package which aims for reductions in greenhouse gas emissions within the business. By buying carbon offsets, the business is paying for the external costs of its climate impact. When this cost becomes clear, it is a driver for reducing emissions year by year. In this way, the cost of carbon offsets is a driver for change 'at the source' i.e. reducing fossil fuel usage. Carbon neutral businesses – an illusion? The concept of a carbon neutral business is to reduce the greenhouse gas emissions to a minimum and to then compensate for the remaining emissions. The idea is commendable and we support it. However, we recommend our customers against the use of the term 'carbon neutral' . The term implies that a business not contributes to any net emissions of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere. The problem with the term is partly that there are no clear standard guidelines for how such calculations can be made. This can result in different system boundaries being used. For example, indirect emissions from subcontractors may or may not be counted, some transport emissions may be omitted, or emissions from the use and recycling of company products may not be considered. The use of the term carbon neutral can therefore give the impression that work with climate change issues is more advanced that it is. And it is easy for critics to pick holes in the claim. |
