In response to criticisms of his personal environmental record Tony Blair has paid £90 to a carbon offset company to compensate for the environmental impact of his Christmas holiday in Barbados. In doing so he was contributing to one of Britain’s growth industries, with the Britain-based Carbon Neutral Company reporting an annual turnover of £2.7 million during 2006, while reaffirming the Labour government’s bankrupt approach to climate change.
Much like the sale of indulgences by the medieval church, carbon offset schemes allow individuals and businesses to relieve their guilt for CO2 emissions by paying a sum of money calculated in proportion to the size of the environmental sin. After a commission is taken this money is invested in a project to remove or prevent the equivalent amount of CO2 from being produced elsewhere. There are now at least 23 offset companies based in the UK and the USA, managing projects that range from planting trees in India to installing energy saving light bulbs in hotels in Jamaica. Whatever else can be said for them, they are succeeding in one crucial area – making money. The industry had a combined turnover of £60 million in 2006, which is predicted to rise to £480 million by 2009.
Serious doubts about the methods used to calculate the positive effect of offset schemes have led to the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) ordering the Scottish and Southern Energy Group to stop making claims about ‘neutralising’ its customers’ emissions, while a parliamentary select committee has been set up to investigate the many criticisms levelled at the carbon offset industry.
However, the real problem with offset schemes is more fundamental than concerns over the efficacy of this or that method of removing or avoiding emissions. Carbon offset schemes promote the pernicious idea that stressed-out business executives can continue taking weekend breaks in New York as long as they pay for enough energy saving light bulbs to be given to peasants in Honduras.
The reality is that if unnecessary consumption continues to grow, as the needs of capital dictate, then not only will we very quickly run out of ways to offset our emissions, but we will find it is too late to make the economic, social and technological changes necessary to reduce our reliance on fossil fuels.
As Kevin Smith, researcher at Carbon Trade Watch, points out, offset schemes and the market solutions culture that they are a part of, only serve to divert people from the real task at hand: ‘There are no offset schemes that encourage individuals to engage in collective action to bring about wider structural change. Offset schemes place the onus on individuals acting in isolation from others, and thus inhibit their political effectiveness.’ (Green Left Weekly, 12 January 2007)
In Britain, Sir Terry Leahy, Chief Executive of Tesco, has called for the green movement to become ‘a mass movement in green consumption’. At the same time British oil companies continue to destroy the environment in Nigeria.
Meanwhile, socialist Cuba has been recognised by the environmental charity WWF as the only country that combines a developed quality of life with a sustainable per-capita carbon footprint. 2006 was designated Cuba’s ‘Year of the Energy Revolution’ and saw a range of energy- saving measures implemented, including the mandatory installation of government-provided energy-saving light bulbs at homes throughout the island. Under the twisted logic of the offset companies they would have sold the emissions that have been avoided as a result.
Sam Baker
FRFI 195 February / March 2007
