Since the term ‘carbon neutral’ was first introduced, thousands of companies
have issued reports and strategies outlining the myriad ways they plan to offset
their carbon emissions in a few years — with tree planting being the
marketing-friendly offset of choice.
However, paying to pollute — as some see it — has never been without
controversy. And recently, many have questioned if any of those trees were
planted, anyway. The ‘carbon-neutral industry,’ based upon buying offset
credits
equal to your emissions, is in a crisis faintly reminiscent of the climate
crisis it’s supposed to help solve.
When the carbon-neutral craze started, it felt bold and groundbreaking. In 1988,
Allied Energy Services and the World Resources Institute introduced the
first-ever project to offset emissions from a coal-fired power plant. In 1997,
more than 150
countries
had signed the UN’s Kyoto Protocol — an international treaty that aimed
to limit or reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Emissions trading was one of
the three core mechanisms of the treaty — carbon became an internationally
recognized commodity; and the carbon market was born.
In the early 00’s, major companies including Sky
Media
and
Google
became some of the first to offset their emissions or go carbon neutral —
setting off a domino effect of companies announcing ambitious targets and goals.
DEI and sustainability: The ROI of inclusive corporate cultures
Join us as leaders from the Accomplis Collective, Bard, Beneficial State Foundation, ReEngineering HR and REI share best practices for cultivating a culture of belonging and insights into how inclusive leadership can lead to more effective and equitable sustainability outcomes — Wednesday, Oct. 16, at SB'24 San Diego.
Many of these pioneers were credible and committed to transferring vast amounts
of capital from polluting industries in rich countries to finance nature-based
projects in poorer ones. It’s been reported that the voluntary carbon market has directed over $5
billion into
international projects addressing social and environmental issues, ranging from
providing local communities with clean cookstoves to protecting biodiversity. In
many ways, carbon offsets were an attempt to redistribute capital, not just
carbon.
But, in the years since then, we’ve learned that that’s not how carbon really
works.
With our legacy, ‘permission to pollute’ is no longer viable. Like other areas
of sustainability, over the years many honest and well-intentioned attempts to
redistribute emissions have become excellent fodder for corporations to
greenwash their
efforts.
For example, while carbon offsets promised the benefit of delivering economic
benefits to poorer nations, they have perpetuated the exploitation of
indigenous
communities
in some cases. The lack of transparency in the
market
has also led to the sale of outdated
offsets
from projects over a decade old and otherwise ineligible for trade on most
commodity exchanges.
The shiny market of offsets is feeling murkier by the day. But we don’t want to
throw the baby out with the bathwater. It’s important to remember the power of
the carbon-neutral concept:
-
The public understands the necessity for climate action and wants
companies to do
more.
This recognition has taken over a decade to build; and for many companies of
all sizes investing in offsetting, consumer recognition motivates them. This
is all voluntary — and that requires a business
case.
The size of the cheques that companies sign to
nature
is directly proportional to the size of the reputational value.
-
Carbon-offset projects do transfer huge sums towards people and nature
when they respect the knowledge and rights of local and indigenous
communities.
For example, Carbon Tanzania’s project in
partnership with the Hadza people has reportedly captured an estimated average of
22,000
tonnes
of carbon dioxide annually in its first seven years of operation, resulting
in nearly $500,000 in revenue to the community.
Which is why I don’t believe we should just dump offsetting or carbon
neutrality.
Some may be ok with the decimation of that market because the risk of
greenwashing
and the poor quality of many offset schemes are a bigger problem than losing the
positive impacts. But doing so will cut off massive capital flows to projects
and programs that benefit people and nature. And we do have viable options in
nature-based solutions, including nature
restoration
and regenerative
agriculture.
The only viable alternative at the moment seems to be Nature
Positive. This idea started with a demand for
governments to be nature-positive by 2030 by taking urgent action to halt nature
loss now — which culminated in a corresponding pledge by over 190
countries
at
COP15
in December. Investors worldwide are waking up to the reality that nature-based
solutions offer a viable and lucrative solution to the climate
crisis.
In the last five years, natural climate solutions have received $21
billion
in investment.
There has been some debate regarding the definition of “nature positive.” As
Oxford biology professor EJ Milner-Gulland argued late last
year,
“It is already starting to feel like any actions that increase biodiversity
anywhere, and by any amount, can be called nature positive. This trend has to be
resisted.”
Ultimately, the concept of nature positive aims to address ecosystem degradation
by actively promoting the recovery and resilience of
biodiversity.
The approach goes beyond conservation efforts — emphasizing ecosystem
restoration, biodiversity
conservation,
and sustainable use of natural
resources. The
nature-positive by 2030 target is intended to be harmoniously integrated with
the Sustainable Development Goals
(SDGs) and the climate
targets outlined in the Paris
Agreement.
-
Zero net loss of nature from 2020
-
Net-positive improvement in nature by 2030
-
Full recovery of nature by 2050
It’s a goal we all need to get behind to have a chance of reaching the same
level of recognition and business value as net
zero.
The WEF’s Future of Nature and Business
report estimates that a nature-positive future “can unlock an estimated $10
trillion of business opportunities.”
But this concept currently misses two crucial attributes:
On the one hand, claiming to be carbon neutral while continuing to conduct
business-as-usual isn’t sustainable. Conversely, ending massive capital flows to
projects that benefit nature would be a disaster. Instead, we need to invest in
public campaigns for nature positive — and for brands to shout it from the
rooftops. That way, we save what was originally valuable about offsets while
actually doing what’s right for nature.
Get the latest insights, trends, and innovations to help position yourself at the forefront of sustainable business leadership—delivered straight to your inbox.
Solitaire Townsend is cofounder and chief solutionist of Futerra — an award-winning sustainability agency (read more ...)
Published Jul 5, 2023 2pm EDT / 11am PDT / 7pm BST / 8pm CEST