Is Carbon Offsetting Really The Answer?
By James Rowley, BBA MSC AIEMA
Carbon offsetting is a system that has been around for several years now. As Glenmore is always looking for ways to improve their environmental and social standing, the idea of carbon neutrality was kicked around upper management. As more and more companies inside and outside the printing industry are starting to buy into this way of thinking, we thought we should share our company views on carbon neutrality. The words by themselves "carbon neutral" instantly conjures up positive notions about an organization's environmental track record, although there are pros and cons to the carbon neutral debate. Before using a company that brands itself as carbon neutral, or deciding to purchase carbon offsets, consider these factors.
Where does the money go? - Money collected by carbon offseters rarely arrives into the hands of the desired projects. In fact, in December of 2009 a report published by the BBC suggested that less than 30% of money spent for carbon offsetting actually makes it to an environmental project. Brokers (or re-sellers), company overhead, government (by way of taxes), and shareholders of the projects take 70% of the dollars spent for carbon offsets. Your company may be better off keeping 100% of your money and directly investing it into social and environmental projects of your own.
A lack of regulation –A troubling factor in the offsetting industry is that there is no governing body, meaning that any organization can purchase carbon credits resold by a broker and call themselves carbon neutral without any backlash or negative impacts. If an organization, or 'watch dog' is used, they are governed by their own standards, which vary widely from organization to organization. If carbon neutrality is claimed for a specific printing job, factors considered in the neutrality are calculated by an organization without a strict set of standards.
Impossible to achieve a correct carbon report – Measuring every aspect of materials used, freight, energy used, and all other factors is a process that only comes up with a very loose approximate. Unfortunately, neutrality is impossible to calculate correctly in either a scientific or non-scientific manner.
Reports should only be calculated after a job is printed – Two similar jobs printed in the same printing company will rarely be produced in the same way. Did the job take twice as long to print? Did it require twice as many sheets to print? If so, the end user should have to buy twice as many credits upon the delivery to honestly claim carbon neutrality for a specific job. The supply chain of a printing company is never consistent. For example, humidity may change, requiring a different production process which should require the end client to absorb an extra environmental offsetting charge to honestly claim carbon neutrality. Unless a globally recognized organization like the carbon trust is calculating your carbon footprint after the job is completed, it is difficult to suggest that the report is reflective of the actual carbon emitted.
Business as usual - While in England, I had the unique opportunity to hear George Monbiot speak about the pros and cons of carbon offsetting. Generally regarded as one of the most forward thinking environmental activists around the world, and best-selling author of the book "Heat", Monbiot suggests that carbon offsetting is an excuse for an organization to continue operating without making any changes. It often creates an 'eyes closed' approach where the result is a company producing a product the exact same way, without improving their processes.
Bad Timing – The projects that carbon offsetters invest into are often in the developmental stage of their existence. Essentially, you are paying an organization to pass your money along to a development that won't start reducing environmental impacts for many years to come. One example is planting trees: it takes 30-80 years for a healthy tree to absorb the carbon associated to an offset credit.
A company is not carbon neutral – The term carbon neutrality is used to suggest that a company effectively no longer emits carbon. Often thought of as a pollutant, humans emit carbon every time they exhale. Unless a company locked its doors, and ceased to exist, it cannot be carbon neutral.
More often than not, the words 'carbon neutral' and 'carbon offsetting' are marketing terms more than realities. There are benefits that carbon neutrality has created a fun way for organizations to invest into social projects, although it is false that carbon offsetting creates a print job without any emissions. Your money would be much better spent investing directly into environmental programs and companies with sound environmental and social track records.