By Isabelle Doyle

Humans have been harming the planet with increased carbon emissions for centuries now. We have gotten so good at this that it will take a long time to recover from the damage. As mentioned by Hank Green in one of his recent videos, we are not the first species to disrupt the climate, however, we are the first species to be aware that we are doing it. With this awareness comes the responsibility to find solutions to lower our impact. The idea of carbon credit offsetting has been popularised in recent years to help neutralise our carbon emissions. This is done by companies or individuals paying a small fee to invest in projects that reduce carbon emissions such as forest preservation or wind farms. While carbon offsetting can be a good temporary solution as we phase out the use of fossil fuels, it is currently being used as a replacement for systemic reforms. Furthermore, there is little evidence that the current offsetting projects have any real benefits for the environment.

Since the industrial revolution, we have not only increased the carbon in the atmosphere, but we have also reduced the tools used by the planet to regulate excess carbon through deforestation. As is continually pointed out by environmental scientists, the only way to allow the planet to heal from this is through a drastic reduction in emissions. This problem highlights the virtue signalling being done by large oil companies such as Shell, who are using carbon credits to work towards becoming a carbon neutral company. To reach this goal, they announced earlier this year that they would invest $450 million into carbon offsetting projects. However, an investigation into this scheme found that over 90% of their planned investment projects are likely “phantom credits”, having no real impact on the environment. Companies like Shell are what brought us into the climate crisis, and we cannot trust them to be the ones to fix it. Shell is a company that relies on the exploitation of natural resources and is one of the top five oil companies in the world. They benefit financially from the exploitation of oil which leaves them with very little incentive to truly reduce their emissions. Even if the carbon credits they were using were beneficial, it would not stop the fact that they are polluting the environment.

The criticisms of carbon credit offsetting goes further than the investment projects being unreliable. Many investment projects are being called out for engaging in ‘Green Colonialism’. This is when investors from the Global North use land in the Global South for environmental projects to reduce carbon such as reforestation. However, investors are buying land that belongs to indigenous communities, which causes these communities to become displaced by losing their traditional livelihoods and their cultural traditions. They devalue and undermine the knowledge indigenous groups have of their land. An example of this can be seen with the Norwegian carbon offsetting organisation, Green Resources. Their projects are aimed at preserving two forests in Uganda in hopes to rebuild the land to help neutralise carbon purchases made in the West. This has turned the forests into a commodity to ease the guilt of carbon purchases made by companies in the West, disconnecting the buyers from the effects of carbon in the broader ecosystem. An interview was carried out with the locals in Uganda who were personally affected by this investment project. They mentioned there were some things to be happy about, as it brought new jobs to the area and caused more money to go into public services. However, for the most part, people were not happy with these changes and believed the investors did not have locals’ interests at heart. Local laws were not followed or respected; The residents no longer owned large portions of the land which led to more precarious food security. A local leader called out the investors who he believed were getting a lot more out of the deal than the locals. This shows the importance of making environmental changes equitable and beneficial to all communities. We cannot continue to let indigenous and less privileged communities deal with the hardest burdens of the climate crises.

The concept of carbon offsetting is not inherently bad and could be beneficial if used correctly. However, the way it is currently being carried out has a lot of issues. David Antonili, who was the CEO of one of the biggest carbon offsetting schemes resigned after recognising they were not useful. If they were used correctly and invested in meaningful projects, carbon credit offsetting could be a very beneficial tool to start the process of carbon reduction as we come up with new systems and ways of living based on more sustainable and renewable energy sources. However, the current way offsets are being used ignore the damage being done by the overconsumption of fossil fuels. We must commit to take meaningful action to reduce our emissions to make a meaningful change.