Is There a Best Way to ‘Offset’ Flight Emissions?
A basic and non-exhaustive guide.
This article provides a fairly brief introduction to the complex and often problematic world of carbon offsetting, as well as some suggestions for best practice. In particular, it’s about exploring ways to reduce and offset flight-related emissions. My interest in this subject has grown over the last year, partly as a result of becoming director of a project called Making Tracks, which I’ve set about turning from a travelling concert series into an international music exchange. As someone who considers himself an environmentalist, I’ve been faced with a fundamental dilemma: is it better that a project like this takes place— bringing together musicians from the UK and around the world to exchange ideas and foster greater tolerance and understanding across borders — or have it not exist at all and save on the emissions? For now I believe that, as long as we make a real effort to minimise our environmental impact and advocate positive change, it is better that Making Tracks exists (though I can’t deny it’s a question that still ocassionally keeps me up at night). As well as taking concrete steps to reduce our carbon footprint (see link at the end of this article), selected musicians also take part in an opening residency, where, among other things, they get to explore strategies for touring more sustainably and using their music as a tool for environmental engagement.
The issue of flying seems to be something of a barred topic in the music industry (it doesn’t help that private jets are, for some reason, still the coolest thing imaginable — just ask superstars like Drake or Rosalia). Unfortunately, the reality for projects like Making Tracks — and for many internationally touring musicians — is that the bulk of our carbon footprint comes from flying. Having spent several months looking into ways to reduce and minimise the impact of Making Tracks’ flight-related emissions I wanted to share what I’ve learned. It’s time we did more to tackle the [flying] elephant in the room.
Disclaimer: I am not a climate scientist and cannot guarantee the credibility of my opinions or advice. By all means, do further research of your own — just don’t let it paralyse you into inaction.
An introduction to carbon offsetting
Carbon offsetting refers to calculating emissions from one source and then paying into projects that prevent or remove emissions of a theoretically equivalent amount elsewhere. This sounds great in principle, but the reality is more complicated. Firstly, offsetting is still very far from a precise science and it can never ‘undo’ emissions at source. This is because those emitted by flying are more or less measurable and verifiable, whereas those absorbed by offset projects are typically not (hence why terms such as ‘carbon neutral’ and ‘net zero’ are so problematic). For air travel moreover, there’s no consensus on how much carbon dioxide a journey emits, ongoing arguments over the most effective ways to reduce emissions and a host of different offsetting companies to choose from. There’s also understandable cynicism, given that airlines and airports — like other big corporations and even entire cities — are using offsetting to shift responsibility and legitimise further growth. It’s tempting to tar all types of offsetting with the same brush. In reality, there’s a signicant difference — at least morally — between companies that cynically use offsetting as a loophole to avoid emission caps or ‘greenwash’ their image and individuals or small organisations that turn to offsetting out of a genuine sense of responsibility to the environment. That said, the concept of offsetting is still unhelpful and misleading, since it suggests a ‘rebalancing’ of the scales. Although this is true to an extent, it would be helpful if we stopped thinking of offsetting as rebalancing, and more as an apology. If you slap someone in the face and then apologise, it’s usually a lot better than just slapping someone. You can’t undo a flight, or take away a slap, but perhaps you can limit the consequences.
Tree planting — great, but…
Once you’ve decided to ‘offset’ your emissions, the next step is to select which projects or actions to support — and there are many to choose from. Tree planting is still the most widely known type of offsetting, but it comes with some considerable problems. Projects that safeguard existing forests or help with reforestation can significantly contribute to climate protection, but if we’re going to hang on to the central principle of offsetting — the idea that we’re trying to get as close as possible to absorbing the same amount of carbon emissions that we’ve emitted — then tree planting isn’t a great option in the short term. Why? Well, to start with, a forest usually needs to exist for at least 50 (if not 100) years in order to have any real impact on climate protection — especially if it subsequently gets cut down or disappears in another way (eaten by a hungry, climate-hating goat, for example). Forests need to be looked after — especially in economically less-developed countries where people compete particularly fiercely for different ways to use the land — but there’s currently no central protection system in place. None of this means that you shouldn’t support reputable forestry or other conservation projects — do! Just be aware that they are even less likely than others to give you measurable offsets in the short term.
What other projects are available?
As it turns out, a lot. The most reputable offset certifiers such as Gold Standard and Verra offer hundreds of different projects around the world. Those pertaining to renewable energy would appear to be good choice, in so far as they address one of the central issues of climate change: our reliance on fossil fuels. You could, for example, put your money towards solar energy projects in Rajasthan, or wind energy projects in Turkey. Energy efficiency projects are similarly popular, for example those providing homes in Rwanda with cooking stoves that emit 80% less CO2. You might have noticed a trend here — international offset projects are typically implemented in economically less-developed countries, mainly due to cost effectiveness. There are two main ways to look at this. Climate change has irrefutably been mostly caused by western countries, and yet it’s the poorest populations of the world that bear the brunt. From this perspective, it seems like madness to ask those in economically less-developed countries to reduce their emissions so that we can continue as normal. On the other hand, carefully monitored projects in the global south have the potential to bring resources, technology, infrastructure, and ‘know-how’ to some of the world’s poorest nations. For those who feel a moral responsibility to help economically less-developed nations, offset projects may seem like a legitimate way of repaying the ‘ecological debt’ of the north. The Gold Standard certification system (established in 2003 by WWF and other international NGOs) claims to verify all its projects, ensuring that they contribute to sustainable development alongside reduced carbon emissions. Personally I would still rather use domestic offsets but few, if any, currently exist that meet the highest levels of verification.
Best practice for carbon offsetting
1. Combine with a carbon reduction strategy
This comes first because it’s the most important thing. The best strategy is always to find ways to reduce your own emissions first. At Making Tracks, for example, we’ve reduced flight emissions by establishing a ban on selected artists or staff flying from anywhere within 15 hours reach of the UK (by train or boat), avoiding indirect journeys and, where viable, selecting international artists based in the UK. Offsetting should be a last resort to compensate what can’t otherwise be avoided or reduced.
2. Calculate emissions responsibly
Since there is no single way to calculate emissions, results among the top carbon offset organisations can prove highly variable. The German non-profit Atmosfair (which has repeatedly won acclaim for its transparency and accountability) has one of the most sophisticated flight emissions calculators currently available, taking into account factors such as altitude, plane model and flight class, as well as distance. Better still — compare calculations among several offset organisations and take the highest reading (other organisations with emissions calculators include MyClimate, Climate Care, Carbon Footprint Ltd and Clevel).
3. Choose projects that adhere to the ‘Gold Standard’
Gold Standard was established in 2003 by WWF and other international NGOs to ensure that carbon offset projects follow the highest levels of verification, while also contributing to sustainable development in the places where they’re based. Gold Standard is the strictest standard available for climate protection projects and is supported by various social and environmental groups. This makes it a fairly safe bet, although that’s not to say it’s perfect or that there aren’t decent (or even better) non ‘Gold Standard’ projects to be found.
4. Try to avoid ‘additionality’
Emissions reductions are ‘additional’ if they occur as a direct result of an offset initiative and would not have happened otherwise. In reality, additionality is often extremely difficult to prove and so it’s more of an ideal than a reality — but it is worth bearing in mind. For example, it’s likely that many families in Rwanda would not have bought energy-efficient cook stoves without subsidies from offset projects, but it would be almost impossible to prove this in every individual case.
5. Try to avoid ‘carbon leakage’
Carbon ‘leakage’ happens when carbon emissions are simply moved elsewhere, rather than removed. Again, avoiding carbon leakage is much more complicated than you might think and requires every step of a project to be carefully monitored. Even then, it’s clearly unreasonable to ask the owner of an energy-efficient cook stove who previously spent hours a day collecting firewood to make sure they fill the extra time on their hands with entirely non-polluting activities...
6. Add an additional ‘DIY offset’
Given the complexity of some of the issues discussed above, adding an additional ‘DIY offset’ is a great way to increase the likelihood of ultimately doing some good. This is when you donate to projects that are not official offsets, but which are still likely to result in long-term carbon capture. Think of it as an insurance policy — even if your chosen offset project turns out to be ineffective, you’ll still have done something positive one way or another. Another liberating thing about DIY offsets is that they don’t aim to be precisely measurable, so you’re free to donate to forestry, conservation and other projects that contribute to natural climate solutions. In the UK you can donate to many different organisations including our wonderful national parks, the Woodland Trust and Rewilding Britain.
Some final thoughts
Perhaps by this point you’ve lost any hope you might have once had in carbon offsetting. That would be understandable given the complexities; carbon offsetting is understandably controversial. Whether in the end you think it’s worth offsetting in a conventional sense or not, what’s important is that we make steps to change the way we think. We must understand that when we take actions that risk negatively affecting the environment, it’s our responsibility as the most self-aware species on this planet to go out of our way to undo as much of the damage as possible. If we don’t manage to undo all of it, we’ll still have altered our brain in a positive way in the process.
If you want to check out Making Tracks’ flight reduction and offsetting strategy, you can find it at www.makingtracksmusic.org/environment
