You are probably already aware of this connection: the earth is constantly warming up due to immense emissions of greenhouse gases1, and we humans are the main culprits2. Climate change is now also felt in our everyday lives.
Carbon offsetting is often touted as a possible solution, as its simple but powerful mechanism is particularly convincing: offsetting payments are intended to enable climate protection projects that prevent further emissions and that would not have come about without these funds.
However, due to this methodical simplicity, CO2 compensation is often referred to as modern-day indulgence trading. This is because offsetting payments allow even climate-damaging practices to give themselves a supposedly climate-neutral or climate-positive veneer if they only have enough money to do so.
In the resulting greenwashing jungle, it is not so easy to distinguish between effective and ineffective projects. So are offsets nothing more than a green masquerade? The following facts should help you to recognize ethically correct and sensible action.
Measuring the trees in our protected areas helps us to determine the CO2 sequestration capacity in our protected areas.
To combat global warming, humanity must reduce its carbon footprint to virtually zero. There are various ways to do this. The key lies in reducing and avoiding greenhouse gas emissions (for example, by refraining from activities that emit greenhouse gases, such as burning fossil fuels). However, despite the best efforts, some emissions will always remain unavoidable. These residual emissions can be offset by CO2 compensation. It is therefore a case of avoid - reduce - offset.
When it comes to CO2 offsetting, a basic distinction is made between statutory and voluntary offsetting. The legally prescribed forms of offsetting include the statutory allocation of 'CO2 pollution rights' such as EU emissions trading. Voluntary offsetting, on the other hand, is the core area of so-called CO2 certificates, to which this article refers. The certificates finance two types of projects:
Projects to avoid emissions:
The aim is to reduce the amount of CO2 emissions through projects that would otherwise not be financed. Examples of this include the use of renewable energy instead of fossil fuels, the use of new, energy-efficient stoves or the reduction of methane emissions in landfills or in agriculture. Reducing emissions through forest protection, known as REDD+ projects, are also part of this. This is because they prevent deforestation from releasing CO2 that is bound in the biomass of forests.3
CO2 removal projects:
These projects focus on removing CO2 from the atmosphere and creating new reservoirs. This can be done through natural sinks (e.g. through improved forest management, reforestation or peatland rewetting), but also through the development of technologies for CO2 capture and storage (technical term: carbon capture and storage, or 'CCS' for short).
The Peruvian Amazon rainforest is bursting with life.
The fact is: CO2 offsetting is not a substitute for previous efforts to reduce emissions and should always be seen as a complementary measure.
Not all compensation projects are equally effective. For example, natural sinks that actually remove CO2 from the atmosphere are considered an effective means, but tree planting campaigns, for example, require a lot of previous knowledge, site-specific plans and several decades before carbon is actually sequestered. They offer the charm of "making up for" emissions that have already been released.
On the other hand, projects that avoid the draining of peatlands or stop deforestation can prevent far more emissions with immediate effect than would be possible to bind again later in a period of time relevant to humans. Especially in view of the fact that 12 to 15 percent of global emissions4 are caused annually by forest destruction and the draining of forest peatlands, the preservation of forest areas, for example, is a greater lever than the reduction of emissions in the entire global aviation sector (global share of emissions: around 3%).5
Emission avoidance projects reduce emissions directly and therefore have an immediate impact, as fewer greenhouse gases are released into the atmosphere. Their advantage is an acute and direct relief for the climate. Projects to remove CO2, on the other hand, have a slower effect and only have an impact in the future. This also largely applies to technical innovations such as carbon capture and storage (CCS). They remove CO2 that is already in the atmosphere. However, the process is slow, complex, expensive, consumes a lot of energy and current technologies only have limited capacities. Their effect can often only be measured in the long term. CO2 removal projects can compensate for unavoidable emissions in the long term, but are not a short-term solution.
In the long term, both types of project complement each other, which makes both fundamentally indispensable. In addition, the totality of all efforts at a voluntary, individual level must also be accompanied by political changes in order to actually bring about sustainable social change. In summary, carbon offsetting in combination with previous reduction efforts and political changes is therefore an important tool in climate protection.
First of all: assessing the actual effectiveness of a project is extremely complex. In theory, international and regional standards (VCS, Gold Standard, Plan Vivo) and third-party certifications should help donors like you to make an assessment. They take away important research work and promise credibility.
In spring 2023, however, a Guardian investigation revealed the uselessness of some projects that had been awarded VCS certificates. That's why we always advise people to assess projects with their own minds.
Effective offsetting projects can be recognized by various criteria. The most important of these is regular and transparent disclosure of the actual impact. The following six criteria show you the effectiveness of voluntary offsetting projects:
Financial additionality: The climate protection measure would not have taken place without the sale of certificates.
Legal additionality: Emission reduction/avoidance is not already required by law.
It is ensured that the emissions are not displaced elsewhere by the project (also known as leakage ).
The project guarantees a long minimum duration (at least 30 years of guaranteed effect).
Double counting of saved greenhouse gas emissions is excluded.
Social and ecological aspects are taken into account just as much as the impact on the climate.
To be fair, we would also like to note at this point that the complexity of the topic makes it difficult to map the exact impact 1:1 using models and calculators. Despite this, environmental protection foundations, including ourselves, communicate precise values and impacts. For example, we communicate that one square meter offsets 60 kg of CO2. You can find out how we arrive at these values here.
A black-and-white distinction in offsetting is hardly possible. That is why we at Wilderness International see CO2 compensation more as a means to an end. Above all, because the protection of forest ecosystems has many other valuable functions for a healthy climate and life on earth in addition to CO2 sequestration: for example, by ensuring intact material cycles, preserving biodiversity and maintaining space for recreation. The CO2 footprint is only intended to help you determine the extent of your contribution to nature conservation.
1 Lashof, D. A., & Ahuja, D. R. (1990). Relative contributions of greenhouse gas emissions to global warming. Nature, 344(6266), 529-531.
2 Cook, J., Oreskes, N., Doran, P. T., Anderegg, W. R., Verheggen, B., Maibach, E. W., ... & Rice, K. (2016). Consensus on consensus: a synthesis of consensus estimates on human-caused global warming. Environmental research letters, 11(4), 048002.
3 The abbreviation REDD+ stands for 'Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation' and has existed since the negotiations of the international Framework Convention on Climate Change in 2005 to make the protection of forests as carbon reservoirs financially attractive.
4 Wille, A. (2018, November 23). Rainforest destruction releases huge amounts of CO2. quarks.de; Quarks. https://www.quarks.de/umwelt/klimawandel/
rainforest destruction releases huge amounts of co2/ ; Friedlingstein, P., Jones, MW, O'Sullivan, M., Andrew, RM, Bakker, DCE, Hauck, J., Le Quéré, C., Peters, GP, Peters, W., Pongratz, J., Sitch, S., Canadell, JG, Ciais, P., Jackson, RB, Alin, SR, Anthoni, P., Bates, NR, Becker, M., Bellouin, N., … Zeng, J. (2022). Global carbon budget 2021. Earth System Science Data, 14(4), 1917–2005. https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-14-1917-2022
5 Ritchie, H., & Roser, M. (2023). Climate change and flying: what share of global CO2 emissions come from aviation? Our World in Data. https://ourworldindata.org/co2-emissions-from-aviation
How useful is CO2 compensation really? And how can I offset CO2? Our LifeVERDE expert Kai Andersch (Wilderness International) answers all the important questions on the subject.
