Daily Mail - 21.08.2019

Daily Mail, Wednesday, August 21, 2019 Page 15

High-flyers: The

Duke and Duchess

It’s the scheme jet-setting celebs like

Harry use to salve their eco-conscience:

giving cash to ‘carbon offset’ firms. But

as critics claim it’s a load of hot air, is it...

last year, its assets increased by

£375,000 to £1,531,775.

All very well and good. Yet critics

regard their lucrative line of busi-

ness with disdain.

‘Offsetting is a con,’ Friends Of

The Earth has stated. ‘It encour-

ages businesses and individuals to

carry on polluting when we urgently

need to reduce our carbon emis-

sions. It allows people to develop

the mindset that it’s OK to carry

on polluting if green schemes in far-

off locations make up for it.’

Sceptics point out that many off-

setting schemes take ages to have

a significant effect. Newly planted

trees may never mature, and even if

they do, won’t reach peak CO

reducing powers for decades,

whereas the carbon we release by

driving or flying is going into the

atmosphere immediately. They also

say the real effect of offsetting

projects is hugely tricky to meas-

ure, since it’s never entirely clear

how much carbon is actually taken

out of the atmosphere by them.

Meanwhile, you never really know

whether the wind farm financed by

donations from offsetting firms

might have been built anyway.

‘Just as in the 15th and 16th cen-

turies you could sleep with your

sister and kill and lie without fear

of eternal damnation, today you

can live exactly as you please as

long as you give your ducats to one

of the companies selling indul-

gences,’ Monbiot has written.

O

ThErS have criticised

the impact of offsetting

projects on indigenous

communities, likening it

to a form of colonialism.

In 2017, a controversy erupted in

Ecuador over a Californian project

to turn 2.5 million hectares of forest

into a reserve. Indigenous people

were told they were no longer

allowed to gather firewood or hunt

in traditional tribal areas.

Then there are environmental

problems caused by some carbon-

capturing trees. A 2017 report by

Kew Gardens observed that huge

‘monoculture’ plantations of thirsty

eucalyptus, a plant that is espe-

cially good at soaking up CO2, were

using up valuable water required by

developing communities, and also

increasing the danger of forest fires,

since they are highly flammable.

Yet for all that, offsetting contin-

ues to grow. While supporters

accept that some providers, partic-

ularly in the early days, were ‘cow-

boys’, they say the industry has

improved its methods considerably

and disasters of the sort that befell

Coldplay are now unlikely.

Though it remains unregulated,

supporters say that a trade body

called the International Carbon

reduction and Offset Alliance,

which now has 14 members, help

consumers identify reputable off-

setting companies, and ensures

their work is properly audited.

‘I am actually in violent agree-

ment with Friends Of The Earth

and Greenpeace,’ says Edward

hanrahan, of ClimateCare. ‘Like

them, I accept the best way to

reduce your emissions is

not to take that flight in

the first place. But I am

also a pragmatist and

believe in dealing with the

world as we find it.

‘So while what we do isn’t

perfect, I would say that off-

setting is the most effective

option around today.’

In other words, it’s better

than doing nothing.

But, as Prince harry and his

wife Meghan are doubtless

starting to realise, you can

either be an environmentalist,

or you can fly in private jets.

But no matter how many

trees you plant, you will never

truly be able to do both.

Greenwash...

or hogwash?

Additional reporting by

Sharon Braithwaite