Carbon offsetting: a false good idea
Discover our all-in-one solution
The summer of 2021 was particularly marked by the monstrous fires, consequences of global warming. These phenomena raise the question of the relevance of trees planted as part of carbon offsets.
These forests are burning due to global warming even though they were supposed to capture carbon dioxide emitted by human activity. Ironic no? At least that's what Greta Thunberg thinks about it in a Tweet on the issue.
What is carbon offsetting ? Real ecological commitment or simple greenwashing? Is the neutrality wanted by Cop21 in 2015 really possible? Rzilient gives you some thoughts on the subject.
What is carbon offsetting?
Offsetting your footprint Above all, carbon means that we want to balancing one effect with another. Planting trees or investing in renewable energy projects is done with the aim of neutralizing a disadvantage.
Since the 2015 Paris Agreements, many companies have been deploying climate strategies and CSR policies to meet the objective of staying under +1.5° by becoming “carbon neutral”.
In itself, the idea of offsetting is not bad for unavoidable CO2 emissions - the so-called “incompressible” ones - but many companies offset their emissions without trying to reduce them first.
The 6 myths of carbon offsetting
The challenge, today, is to changing the foundations of the system. Carbon offsetting and “carbon neutrality” reinforce this idea of subtraction and cancellation of CO2 emitted. To get out of the idea that carbon offsetting is the miracle to follow in the fight against global warming, here are some myths questioned.
- Compensating won't solve the global warming problem
Plant trees to absorb CO2 emissions during an airplane flight, any purchase or other high-impact action will not solve the current ecological crisis.
It is Impossible to be completely carbon neutral one day or to have 0 CO2 emissions. There are always incompressible emissions. And that's normal.
A ton of CO2 emitted cannot simply disappear because we finance projects with a positive impact or the planting of trees. This summer's fires are proof of that.
Taken as the only solution to fight against global warming, offsetting its footprint is not strong enough. It is a good way to Start the transition towards a model that emits fewer emissions, but it cannot be the only tool in a climate strategy.
- Carbon offsetting can quickly turn into greenwashing
Continuing to fly but planting trees, or continuing to extract rare materials while funding projects with a positive impact seems to be antithetic. Carbon offsetting cannot be a way to get rid of your responsibilities in the face of climate change. Offsetting does not cancel out negative impacts.
It is not about reducing CO2 emissions OR offsetting them. It is not a choice but a necessity to build a strategy where the two go hand in hand.
UN Environment goes further by saying thatYou have to be careful with : “the dangerous illusion of a 'fix' that will allow our huge emissions to continue to grow. (...) It's not a magic bullet and can lead to complacency.”
- Technology to remove CO2 won't solve the problem
To imagine that future technologies will be able to capture all the CO2 emitted is somewhat misleading. In addition to requiring numerous resources to see the light of day (water, energy, rare materials), they are still in the research phase.
Even if some are emerging, they are not yet deployed on a large scale. And they continue to Reinforce the idea that it is possible to subtract CO2 emissions of our atmosphere, while the most effective thing is to limit them at the source.
- We must continue to plant new trees to compensate for the cutting of old forests.
This summer's fires have shown it: trees planted to capture CO2 have released enormously when they burned. If these forests burn when they had to offset the carbon emissions of the companies that financed their plantations, everything comes to an end. The tons of CO2 released by companies are no longer “captured”, they have polluted more than anything else.
Old forests need to be preserved for several reasons:
- they contain centuries of carbon in their soil;
- They continue to capture carbon for hundreds of years;
- when you cut them off, The stored CO2 is released.
It is better to avoid destroying old forests under the pretext of planting new ones because young trees store much less carbon than the oldest ones.
- Each ton of CO2 is not the same and cannot be treated interchangeably.
Carbon dioxide has no borders. Regardless of the country from which it was emitted, it will diffuse into the atmosphere and will have the same weight in global warming. It's the same for greenhouse gases (GHGs).
However, Not all carbon emissions have the same value in a strategy to combat global warming. Those that result from so-called “luxury” consumption do not have the same weight as those that come from essential actions.
- Climate neutral is impossible.
Hard to talk about carbon neutrality or product (or action) climate-neutral under these circumstances. Offsetting all of your greenhouse gas emissions does not mean that there is a reduction in your carbon footprint.
Having a carbon footprint of 0 is technically impossible. Compensation can encourage increased consumption because we are relieving ourselves of our responsibility for the environment. It is misleading to use terms like “neutrality” or “neutral” since the footprint, even when offset, is far from being inconsequential.
To avoid greenwashing, talk about carbon contribution rather than compensation
What to do to have a real impact in the fight against global warming ? In addition to measuring your emissions and seeking to reduce them, it is interesting to do what we call voluntary carbon offsetting.
It is a better alternative to compensation since it concerns So-called incompressible emissions and is part of a global and committed approach reducing the carbon footprint.
The difference between contribution and compensation
Using the term contribution instead of compensation underlines several things:
- We are not not in a CO2 subtraction process ;
- We reinforce the idea that we are aware that funded initiatives do not cancel carbon emissions;
- This is part of an approach where emissions reduction and contribution are intertwined in a truly committed vow.
The voluntary carbon contribution highlights the idea that the initiative is genuine, useful and reliable. She gets to The end of the journey: avoid - reduce - compensate.
According to the INFCC (Info Compensation Carbone), for contribute voluntarily, a funder (businesses, communities, individuals) supports a project to reduce or sequester GHG emissions for which he is not directly responsible.
This results in carbon credits that measure the impact of these projects. Each credit represents an equivalent ton of CO2 reduced or locked up.
But be careful, these credits are not used to:
- cancel the impact of one of its actions;
- buy back all of its carbon footprint.
Originally, these carbon credits were created so that countries couldmimic their GHG emissions within the framework of the Kyoto Protocol and therefore strive for carbon neutrality.
Each country had to respect imposed emission ceilings, and in case of overtaking, balance their emissions by financing low-carbon projects that took place in countries where the Kyoto Protocol was not taking effect.
Today we are in a voluntary carbon offset market where each country and company can buy as many credits as needed to be “carbon neutral.” Hence the need for Review the calculation schedule compensation for switching froma system of “possession” of credits to a “contribution” for the discount.
The Net Zero Initiative
La Net Zero Initiative, launched in June 2018 by Carbone 4, is setting up a new contribution repository system carbon neutral organizations.
What's at stake? Reach zero global net emissions thanks to the alignment of actors on the same objectives, concepts and methods.
To contribute to global carbon neutrality in an effective manner, the framework is based on 5 key principles:
- The terms “carbon neutrality” cannot be applied to an organization because they refer to the global objective of balancing;
- organizations can only contribute to this trajectory ;
- The emission reductions and negative emissions (those that are “absorbed” by the compensation) are counted separately ;
- carbon finance cannot “cancel” operational emissions of a company, only create avoided or negative emissions;
- The design of “contribution to global neutrality” Also concerns The products and low-carbon services. The avoided emissions are divided into two: those that correspond to a real absolute decrease in the level of emissions, and those that are a “smaller increase” compared to the baseline situation.
This new way of accounting for carbon contributions reinforces the fact that to reduce global emissions, it is necessary to act in 3 ways:
- reduce your own emissions direct and indirect;
- reduce the emissions of others
- Increase carbon sinks.
It is not a question of choosing between the 3 but of Leading the whole thing head-on.
Rzilient's ambition in the digital sector
We know it,The carbon footprint of digital technology is consistent. And the trend is not going down in the coming years.
Instead of planting trees to offset digital emissions, Rzilient has chosen to have a more global vision for a conscious and responsible sector, thanks to The circular economy.
But this ambition goes further. The challenge of Rzilient is to play a real role insupport for structures in reducing their environmental footprint allocated to their digital equipment.
Rzilient also seeks to:
- promote digital technology with a positive impact ;
- Put responsible and circular practices at the center of digital business approaches;
- sensitize on these issues of responsible digital technology.
And when you have reduced your GHG emissions as much as possible, Rzilient offers, with its partner PUR Project to make a voluntary contribution to offset incompressible emissions.
Are you looking to fight effectively against global warming and to integrate responsible digital technology into your company? Let's talk about it!
