Why carbon offsets are worse than you think
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 16 พ.ค. 2024
- Carbon offsets sound so promising: If you emit some CO2, you can just pay someone else to reduce that amount somewhere else, and you’re good! But is it too good to be true?
We're destroying our environment at an alarming rate. But it doesn't need to be this way. Our new channel Planet A explores the shift towards an eco-friendly world - and challenges our ideas about what dealing with climate change means. We look at the big and the small: What we can do and how the system needs to change. Every Friday we'll take a truly global look at how to get us out of this mess.
#PlanetA #CarbonOffset #CarbonOffsetting
Reporter: Kiyo Dörrer
Camera: Henning Goll
Video Editor: David Jacobi
Supervising Editor: Joanna Gottschalk
Read More:
Carbon Offset Guide by the Stockholm Environment Institute:
www.offsetguide.org/
Study on the effectivity of mandatory carbon offsets:
ec.europa.eu/clima/system/fil...
Market Report on voluntary carbon markets:
www.ecosystemmarketplace.com/...
Study on the effectivity of carbon offsets among Indian wind power projects:
www.cesifo.org/en/publikation...
Investigation on Cambodian rain forest conservation:
features.propublica.org/brazi...
Special thanks to: Lambert Schneider, Raphael Calel and Grant Rosoman for background interviews.
0:00 Intro
1:05 What are carbon offsets?
2:10 Carbon offsets in action
5:58 Scale and scope of offsets
6:55 Problems with carbon offsets
8:19 Additionality of offsets
10:24 Leakage and double counting
13:39 Solutions
![ตรงที่เดิม - ฝน พรสุดา [ต้นฉบับ :เบส ขวางหวัน]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/c5YnbGEztI8/mqdefault.jpg)
![🔴 [TRỰC TIẾP] HCĐG LÀO CAI - U20 THÁI LAN | Cúp VTV9 - Bình Điền 2024| JET STUDIO](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/nXSwoEuqsFM/mqdefault.jpg)
Have you ever bought a carbon offset - or if not, would you buy one now?
Nope, always considered it to be green washing.
While I support many of the projects that fall under the category (like tree planting and remaking wetlands), I just don’t see the point in citizens financing it.
Take the money from my taxes I say. Also, I worry about people getting such a good feeling from buying offsets so that they don’t make any of the necessary changes in their life in order to reduce emissions.
I see offsets as an absolute must. Not purchasing offsets is denying our responsibility for our emissions past and present. The CO2 stock we have emitted is just not going to disappear anytime soon. None of these issues are unique to carbon offsets: just speak to any accountant. If we are serious and honest about tackling climate change, then we must find a way to make offsets work while holding each other accountable for actually reducing emissions past, present and future.
I think the focus should be on efforts to make carbon offsets legit instead of buying them vs not buying them. I agree that carbon offsets are relied upon too heavily and that they aren't even always actually offsetting carbon, but what about the carbon offset programs that actually are making a positive difference? The re-claimed wetlands that you visited are a good example. We need to put money toward these types of carbon reducing projects that require money but aren't money makers. The truth is, money motivates people even more than the threat of impending doom.
I offset a portion of my carbon emissions by donating to the non-profit Everybody Solar, an organization that partners with other non-profits across the United States such as homeless shelters to finance the installation of solar panels on their buildings. It’s the most transparent form of carbon offsetting that I’ve found and I think transitioning to clean energy is the best place for me to put my money right now
I've used to buy them a few years ago, but then I thought that my money would only make the company that is offsetting look better (like when big corporations ask for your change for charity). If I want to offset carbon emissions I do it by directly funding these projects, not through a multibillion company.
There are already publiciy traded companies which only focus on the developing and maintaining of natural projects which offset carbon credits which are sold to big companies. Just do your research.
preach! NEVER donate to a for-profit business! It's a racket.
Right? If I had a business, I would include the offset into the price of the product, if I truly cared about it.
All carbon projects are scams, do not spend on these just to feel virtues
Am I the only one that feels that big businesses are trying to transfer their responsibility to their costumers? I feel they justify their production on our needs but they are earning money too. Of course maybe the entire world hasn´t been able to find a solution for a clean production yet, but as long as I see this problem they are not doing as a favor when they give us things.
In a part of Australia that I grew up in, they bulldozed thousands of hectares of forest and healthy bush to plant monoculture tree forests for "carbon credits" back in early 2000's. I've never seen carbon offsets as a positive thing after this
Wow, whereabouts is this?
Interesting story. What is the location of this? Any sources?
That's awful
Not to mention the majority of the blockchain used to track and record the offsetting is also a major polluter.
@@Nathan-sh1re Probably near brisbane. Every time i drive into bris you see the countryside full of the same trees perfectly placed apart all looking the same for kilometers. Looks like a forest grew up amongst arid bushlands.
It should be noted that nature-based offsetting methods, like tree planting and peat bog re-wetting etc often take yeeeaaars to start actually offsetting any significant amount of carbon (trees need to grow, peat bog has an incredibly slow metabolism), then once they do start offsetting, they need to pay off the carbon debt from planting them first, THEN they can actually start working on the emissions created by a corporation or whatever. But by that time, it could be decades in the future and we don't have that timescale to fight the climate crisis. The reason corporations are jumping on offsetting is because it's cheap and they don't have to change their behaviour. It's not because it's a truly effective way of solving climate change.
" we don't have that timescale to fight the climate crisis." this is where you lose normal people. this doom and gloom kills engagement.
Stop it.
Well, when do you want to tell those normal people that going everywhere by car my get more expensive, that heating and water will get more expensive? There are huge limitations on what is achievable on a voluntary "I do not want to loose any of my current lifestyle perks"-basis. If you want to seriously battle climate change, things must happen, and they will not be funny for a lot of people. That is the truth, and it seems many people simply do not really care about it.
sorry but you can’t just “no bad vibes” a climate crisis - it’s happening whether you’re comfortable with the reality of it or not. the scientific consensus has given us a window to act, and many of these green offset strategies aren’t doing enough within that window to be helpful.
of course strategies such as rewilding, watershed restoration, reforestation should still be taking place, but all of that should be happening in addition to concrete efforts to reduce carbon output at the point of origin.
I donate £10 a month to a small very well research ethical rewilding company. I’ll continue to do so for my entire life and I’ll probably put in 15% of my income to climate change in the future. I’ve also registered interested in many climate volunteering projects. I’ve also alleviated many things in my life that were carbon intensive. I live very low carbon and I still have a great life and I’m able to do the things I want to do. If everyone done this sort of thing it would have a great impact. The middle class especially have the maneuverability in their lives to do so.
@manjoumesan Hi, I donate to a small company called mossy earth. They’re great, they send you the exact GPS coordinates of your trees planted every month and send you updates and a personalised video.
Carbon offsets: the modern version of medieval indulgences.
Excellent analogy should print your own t-shirts over previous logos upcycled.
@@marklimbrick I was thinking about doing that
That comparison is made a lot. I think it's cynical and wrong. Indulgences didn't actually go to the people wronged by the sinner. But the video does show that if you're careful with how you choose your offsets, it can be effective.
Koos Looijesteijn
Privileged hypocrites do it in order to feel better about their lavish consumer behavior, so there are definitely parallels...
terrible analogy
I looked into buying carbon offsets years ago, but the low price left me suspicious. Recently I've studied sustainability and found myself deeply suspicious of most corporate activities in this realm: the big emitters are the ones writing the rules about how we should count carbon and decarbonise. Otherwise, why would it be so complicated? Complicated is hard to solve. It's time to change who writes the rules of the conversation.
Kiyo Dorrer is a great presenter who can talk about such complex subjects and make them totally understandable
Agreed, but in the end shes just telling a script that everyone could have told.
@@kynshra8960 She’s a writer on her own segments
DW is much better than many news outlets in the US. The Internet is a great resource to get different perspectives.
A good job of presenting a complex topic. One update: with the agreement on Article 16 at Glasgow, it is now possible to avoid double counting by buying only "authorized" carbon offsets. These are subtracted from a country's Nationally Determined Commitments, so there ahould be no double counting.
Also, regarding permanence, forests may be damaged by fires, but they do grow back. The permanence of forest offests relies on commitments to good forest management. Of course that can be reversed. But is "keep-it-in-the-ground" any more permanent? It only takes one Trump to reverse those commitments, and then the carbon will not return underground by itself.
The question then is, how is the carbon offset made by reforestation counted? My impression from various marketing campaigns is they basically promise to plant a given number of trees for your contribution. They never say anything about caring for those trees until they are fully grown and making sure they don't just die and rot.
@@ZrJiri If you see a project like that offered, avoid it! Certified projects can now use a combination of on-the-ground surveys and satellite image analysis to verify the carbon storage.
How do we know if they’ve been authorized? We know there will be many imitations so if I’m theory I wanted to buy a carbon offset what do I need to look for to make sure it’s authentically the kind you are talking about? Are they only sold in or via Scotland? Just trying to clarify.
@@nicksurfs1 not related to Scotland. That was just where COP 26 was held.
I have never researched this topic properly, but thanks to your video it's got more clear. Probably I'll consider offsetting my GHG emissions if particular program is verifiable and looks trustworthy.
'why not' as the easyjet advert says. if it makes you feel better about that holiday. you need to get away. its been a terrible year
Buy carbon offsets through national projects and not through international projects if you’re worried about their validity. Other then that this video is just typical lazy journalism from another person who lives in a big city and knows nothing beyond the concrete jungle.
@@wattsy4468 why would national projects be valid?
@@climatechangedoesntbargain9140 because they’re more trustworthy than international schemes.
@@wattsy4468 why?
I think individual carbon offsetting (by consumers and companies) is actively harmful. It makes people feel like they are doing something to reduce their impact, which makes them less motivated to do the thing we actually need and change their lifestyle. It provides an easy cop-out for high emission companies, since they can just charge customers for their "climate action" without doing anything about their emissions.
I hear you, however you make reduction sound too easy. Just "changing your lifestyle" will not get you to zero emissions, quite the opposite actually. A huge part of your carbon footprint - called the carbon floor - can't be avoided as long as you life in carbonized society. You still need to heat your home during winter, eat fruits and vegetables and you also share responsibility in public emissions of your country, like hospitals, national defense or highways. So I disagree that offsets are only harmful. Following that logic a garbage company is harmful, too - even though it's disposing of the trash we can't avoid. In my opinion we need to stop throwing our unavoidable carbon on the streets and instead pay an offsetting provider to dispose of the emissions we can't avoid - all while meanwhile reducing and taking political action of course.
The issue is that some companies pay massive amounts of money for marketing campaigns trying to convince people those offsets are enough to make their emissions a non-issue. When I say changing lifestyle, I don't just mean on the individual level. Many things about our society need to change to have a chance at solving the issue. Only people really hate when someone tells them they need to change, and that goes for individuals as well as company leaders. So long as most people treat it as someone else's problem, the situation isn't going to improve, and the offset industry is enabling the perception that the problem is being dealt with, when in reality no realistic amount of offsets can ever put a dent in the amount of co2 in the atmosphere. As a concept it doesn't scale. And then there's that thing where Germany decided to shut down working nuclear power plants when a huge chunk of their energy mix is coal, because... hur dur nuclear worse than literally destroying the planet, I guess.
@@ZrJiri I'm not saying that society shouldn't change. We need to decarbonize asap! I just personally feel strongly that I couldn't morally justify to not dispose of the carbon emissions that I currently can't avoid. That feels like throwing my garbage on the streets instead of paying the garbage company to pick it up. Yes, CO2 is invisible and humans can't see it, but that should not stop me from taking responsibility over my emissions. That's why I am currently offsetting the personal emissions that I can't avoid at the current stage of society. So I'm very thankful for that carbon offsetting projects. In my opinion it is one important cornerstone of a personal climate action strategy (Reduce, offset, advocate).
Why can't you do both?
Real purpose is to present to the world that they r doing smth to reduce the dmg that they r doing. In reality, how effective r these measures is anyone guess and its nvr the aim of these companies to invest in offsetting, bcoz if they do they would have been forthcoming on the effects of their fracking activities have on the environment, in particular climate change, 30 yrs ago. Yes, shell had known of the climate change and sea level rise back in the 80s. Thats why they built their oil rig few meters higher for it in the Antarctica
It's a real shame that noone from Gold or Verra was interviewed for this. They would have provided much detail on the methodologies used to measure carbon offset, and also the mitigations set in place to insure against forest fires, corruption, damage, etc.
They may have provided a more clear explanation in how these public registries avoid double counting. Essentially every tonne recognised by these standards is logged. When they get retired/discontinued, they cannot be discontinued against a second emitter's emissions.
All public domain and a powerful tool since the wild west days of early carbon offsetting.
Absolutely though, reduce first. There frankly isn't enough offset projects around to mitigate everything, and they often take years to go live!
Agreed. I actually read through their procedures and requirements. Granted they arent watertight, however there are checks and balance systems in place to safeguard. I believe in future, it can be finetuned. Because we have to be realistic that not all sorts of manufacturing or industries can reach 100% 0 emission. Eventually someform of offset is still required to synergize & complement the emission reduction goal.
There are other registries besides VERRA and GoldStandard. Conservation, forestation, reforestation, upkeep and mitigation procedures and protocols are introduced, followed by participants aggregated to these projects and closely monitored by the project developers. Once a credit is registered you are able to follow the project from inception to the final disposition of the credit (retired, sold, transferred, etc.) There is more to this than meets the eye. The optimal scenario is to reduce our emissions, in the meantime these projects work and offer real life changing conditions and endless possibilities for communities who partner up with the project developers.
I wondered about this! I was even thinking of stopping my gold-standard carbon offset because the video implied all of them are a scam
Unfortunately in the grand scheme, focusing on these standards orgs and defending or debating their policies - their intent - is unintentionally distracting. The studies presented show 75-90% of projects are not effective. Ergo, these standards are not effective regardless of the details of their policies or counting databases. There is something wrong there. It would be helpful for all involved to admit that and find out what it is.
As someone who has worked on creating carbon offset standards and accounting methodologies, a few things that come to mind. First, the content here is well informed and explained. Second, we have to keep in mind that carbon offsets are not the problem, it's the guidelines put in place that allow projects to become carbon offset projects that are the problem. In the video there is mention of 85% of projects under global standards not actually offsetting carbon. These standards have since been removed for this reason. This all brings me to my last thought, which is, if you are careful and purchase carbon offsets from projects that have gone through proper evaluation, they are an amazing tool to immediately stop atmospheric carbon emissions from getting any higher. Its then up to us to lower our emissions at the same time.
I just cant wait till we can capture the emissions.
Like the smoke stacks or catalytic converters.
Think of chimneys with carbon captures, a carbon abortion system for airplane, and other emission recaptures.
The sequestration would be great.
Like planting not only trees but also coral to reestablish the reefs.
carbon offsets can very well be a problem, specially if they are not effective, where they encourage companies to not actually reduce emissions and just pay to pretend they are doing it, and we end up not actually doing anything.
@@lcg3092 yes! That’s exactly my point. Carbon offset programs are only as effective as the standard they are built on. Strong standards means environmental integrity while weak standards likely means greed.
Wow! This is a very insightful coment. I would love to ask you a question if it Is ok. Do you know of any academic paper that talks about the carbon secuestration of well implemented Miyawaki forests? Do they meet carbon offset standards? Are they "accepted" as valid projects under the Clean Development Mecanism under the Paris Agreement?
Hey I'd like to offset my carbon emmissions but I find it hard to find a proper carbon offset project that I can fully trust. Do you have tips for such projects and where/how to find them?
Also I was thinking that what we really need is a label for carbon offset projects, given by an independent non-profit, to help consumers make informed decisions.
I think a question that should be asked when offsetting carbon is this: For how long is the carbon going to remain offset? Who can guarantee that this swamp project for example will remain in this state for 100 years or 500 years? Wont the man made dams trapping the water eventually erode away? Considering all sorts of natural and human made changes like forest fires, erosion, world wars, etc. I have hard time believing that almost any of these compensation projects successfully keep the carbon stored for extended timeframes (hundreds of years), unless it's literally pumped back to Earths crust where it came from. I get the feeling we are just kicking the can forward with these compensation projects. I'd spend my money elsewhere.
Kicking a can is the goal until we invent something better
well in the moor case, it's helping restoring something to a state which nature can sustain on its own, so done right it should be stable. But of course land use could change, and that's more of a problem - how to ensure it stays a moor? There could be investments in it, where it has a non-profit ownership funded by the offsets and maybe other ways of funding? I don't know in this case, but being able to make money out of an co2-sinking-asset seems like a great idea. I.e. paranuts, which are collected in the rainforest, giving the local people an incentive to keep it instead of burning and cultivating.
In Germany I think the situation is quite different, with laws and control surrounding these moors. Not entirely safe, but less likely that someone just pays a politician and then starts to cultivate that land.
This concept is called permanence. The standard set by Verra, the carbon third party verifying body, has 100 years as the duration. They have a Buffer Pool of credits stored over time as well to serve as an insurance vehicle. This helps with permanence
Hats off to DW for providing English subtitles: thank you!
Thank you for this, it has confirmed what I had long suspected. I use to buy carbon credits for my small one man IT business. It was once I had looked into carbon credits I decided the best solution was simply to look at investing the money into more efficient systems and reducing our carbon foot print by producing less power hungry solutions, shutting down systems that were not in use. Also I have started promoting reusing old equipment instead of buying low budget systems to prevent systems going into landfill for as long as possible. We have some computer systems still in use 12 years down the road and still being productive. We also upgrade just what we need to upgrade, so if someone wants a new system but have an old one, we often reuse as much as possible to make that happen. So much IT equipment just gets binned after 3 years it's ridiculous. Simple upgrades can keep that system out of landfill for at least twice that time, often three to four times the projected life span. Just because something is old does not mean it's useless.
This is also why the right to repair projects are so important.
Considering computer equipment and processors don't age any more as those did in the nineties, updating the rules for replacing might be a good idea. Maybe add some upgrade path rules. Maybe add some replacement requirements: the new system must have significantly higher performance or better energy efficiency or both.
You are quite right. If it still does what you need, don't change it. Today, I've been using my 40-year old Hotpoint washing machine.
You should also look into the higher efficiency of newer systems and VMs you might find that you can do more with less. Another idea is cloud services. They do want to do more computing with less hardware.
Don't simply stand up a server in the cloud... That's so old school. Build a system that can ramp up or down according to the systems needs. It takes good resource management but once you have that figured out. The systems that do almost nothing can cost you almost nothing.
Destruction of surplus industrial gases shouldn't happen because of carbon offsets. It should be part of the cradle-to-grave responsibility of the manufacturer. Heck you folks have large deposits to drive recycling of PET bottles. Can't you do the same for this issue?
Coming as someone who lives in Indonesia, i love that almost every videos on climate and/or inequality always put the blames mainly on the big corporations and not the usually corrupt government on the global south. I get it, to the western audience the overarching influences of big corporations is the main societal issues that need to be dealt with, but, due to the disproportionate influence of western media to the global south, it creates the situation where the local corrupt government can still doing their same corrupt way while yelling "ThIs iS ThE wAlL StReEt fAuLt". Im not suggesting that the companies should not be blamed, im suggesting to introduce the context on how most of global sout government works to know that people or at least the governments in global south has some agency in the problem regarding climate and/or inequality.
Totally agree with your point. They could at least mention that corrupt global south governments don't take actions. But as usual, people in foreign countries have no hand in the matters of another country. The only thing they could do is raise awareness and influence the people to make decisions they can make, such as being skeptical towards big corporations and eventually boycotting them.
Thanks for your feedback. We have touched on this with regards to the plastic export trade in the following video: "Your plastic waste might be traded by criminals" th-cam.com/video/tID-AChSg7o/w-d-xo.html
@@DWPlanetA You welcome. I will check at that video as soon i got the opportunity. Thank you for the response and keep up the good work.
As someone from North America, I can tell you that the view put forward by the large media networks on this continent is that it's the citizens who need to reduce their pollution. Corporations are doing the right thing, so don't look into them! Get that cardboard into the recycling bin: It doesn't matter if there's nowhere for the recycling to go to after. Global warming is your fault, because you haven't been putting enough in the recycle bin.
@@YesThisIsCrass Well, you say it better than how can i say it. The problems are different. Maybe in developed countries it is corporations that tried to wash their hand,in developing countries it is different. Most of our food already comes from local sources and while we are lacking in the recycling department, we do more of the "re-use" aspect of 3R (It is quite common to see single use plastic to be reused as grocery carrier or packed food storage for example). The main problem here is usually governmental corruotion that causing a lax enforcement of environmental protection laws or even the lack of the law in the first place. Developed countries problems mainly comes from consumption, developing countries problems usually comes from production.
Great video. One very important distinction which you didn't really cover is the distinction between carbon removal projects and carbon emissions mitigation projects. Most (especially the cheap) projects are about avoiding emissions. It will invest cleaner cooking facilities in African homes that emit less, or will install solar panels that emits less than the diesel generator etc. The problem is that this can't be sustained. In 2050 the whole world HAS to be climate neutral and in order to achieve that you can't pay others to reduce their emissions so that you can continue to emit carbon. Once the others hit zero emissions your emissions continue to contribute to global warming. Carbon removal projects that actively extract emissions from the air (like planting trees) are therefore the future (with many caveats as pointed out in your video)
But there is not enough unused/underutilised deforested landmass available for all the required replanting for existing offset requirements let alone future needs. Geosequestration might end up being one of the main options
Except there aren’t any effective large scale removal projects at anything more than very early prototype stage. The technology is not developed. Secondly, we’ve also seen a ton of corporate greenwashing going into extraction R&D, sadly, exactly because they don’t have to actually do anything today except “research” unproven tech for the future. I too would love real carbon extraction tech to be a thing we could shift to, but honestly, it is today much more a tool of the laggards, delayers and deniers rather than those committed to changing things.
@13:25 "The IPCC calculations show that it will be extremely hard to reach our climate targets without some form of offsets."
What the IPCC says is that it will be difficult or impossible to achieve our climate targets without negative emissions. Offsets, by definition, don't reduce carbon emissions; they are just a shell game that moves emissions from one source to another -- generally from the most expensive to the least expensive marginal reductions. The problem is, those cheap reductions can't get us to net-zero, let alone net-negative; we're still going to have to make the more difficult and expensive emission cuts, which will likely be much more expensive -- or impossible -- without early action. Offsets are are a form of institutionalized procrastination and delay -- just kick the can down the road.
Contributing to bonafide emission reduction projects should be encouraged as "charitable contributions" without any expectation that they can "offset" or avoid the need to make emission reductions elsewhere. You can't clean up the garbage by just moving it from one side of the street to the other.
It's not that the offset doesn't reduce emissions, it's that using it to mean you don't try to reduce your own emissions defeats the benefit of it. We need to do both.
Just discovered this channel, really great videos - clear, informative and well produced (and well researched). Thanks so much and keep it up!
carbon offsets seem like an elaborate way for polluters to keep on polluting whilst gaming the system and pretending to care about the planet.
It's for meeting quotas. It's not really enforceable
For double-counting:
You could count all offsets twice deliberately: a given project (say 100,000 tons once completed) would award a geographic 100k carbon offset based on the country it's physically located in, and 100k capital carbon offset based which country/nation paid for it. If geo and capital carbon offsets are quoted, everyone would know you'd need to divide by two to arrive at the TRUE carbon offset. So Nicaragua would get 100k geo offset, Germany would get 100k capital offset, and both would get a true carbon offset of 50k each. The peet marsh project on the otherhand would award 100k geo and 100k capital offsets to Germany, adding to 200k. The true offset works out to 100k, exactly what you'd expect for a fully domestic offset project.
Actually doing this for my company but in reverse, I will suggest to offset the double amount, and do half globally and half locally.
You know every company will take advantage of this and blatantly lie. While most people remain uninformed.
The Glasgow agreement already took care of this for "verified" projects. They're deducted from the country I believe. Voluntary ones remain mainly unverified, since they're selling stars or land on the moon.
@@raoulluijten5972 I doubt they will allow you to do that. If so, wouldn't they lessen their profit?
@@panithera2552 Sure but these numbers are not in the order of magnitude of the profits so its a relatively small investment, and you want to avoid people claiming greenwashing, so that way you have a built in safety mechanism with regards to the flimsiness of how accurate carbonsequestration works, we don´t really have the available data and investigations to prove exactly how much carbon is being stored and will remain stored so some redundancy I think is in place.
Brilliant video. It's sad how everything is been reduced to a bottom line.
I honestly in concept have zero problem with fighting global warming with carbon offsets. There is too much of just living life that emits carbon. Offsetting will always have to be a thing, and how can you really expect the common person to live beyond carbon neutral? That being said, I love your points here. Clever bookkeeping doesn't actually reduce carbon, so true carbon neutral has to be done through properly and monitored avenues. This is possible, but takes a lot of work and strong will power to keep companies honest. I don't think I would personally buy carbon offsets from the company selling the service like an Amazon or airline, but I definitely would buy offsets into a well researched and very honest company or non-profit.
Thank you DW for pointing out this greenwashing.
The only solution is :
REDUCE, Reuse, Repair, Redistribute, Ride (a Real bicycle), Replant, Reconsider, Recycle, Rejoice...
Btw, the carbon footprint of the military industrial complex anybody?
this basically confirmed what i thought. I never offset my carbon through the polluters' websites, I will do it myself by funding specific projects
I've been buying offsets for several years now. I do endeavor to ensure I'm funding reputable brokers/projects but, as is everything in life, there are no guarantees. There's fraud and misappropriation in every business, but doing nothing is no recourse. Better to police the system than end it entirely.
Where do you buy it?
Two additional considerations: reforestation projects also reduce the land surface albedo, thereby increasing the absorption of solar radiation, which has a warming effect. This effect likely exceeds the cooling effect of reducing CO2 concentration for reforestation in mid to high latitudes. So, even if reforestation there is offsetting the effect of emissions on atmospheric CO2 concentration, it is not offsetting the effect on climate (there would be a net warming effect). In low latitudes, reforestation has a net cooling effect, but not as large as would be expected from the absorption of CO2 alone. Further complicating the picture are likely effects of reforestation on cloudiness (at least in some regions). Concerning the peatland offset project, the rewetting of the drained peatland will create some methane emissions that will cancel some of the benefit of the CO2 absorption. This does not seem to have been considered.
1. That really depends on the color of the terrain that is reforested. If it was green anyway, not much changes in the absorption spectrum.
My understanding is that when agencies like verra and gold standard vet and quantify a project, they will consider such factors, eg amt of C02 reduced - amt of Methane produced. Same for renewable engery project, eg solar farm, they will net off the amt of carbon produced from the manufacturing of the PV cells. So do ensure projects you are gg to pay is listed on such reputable registries, to better safeguard against dodgy projects.
It was my understanding that the water suppresses the reactions that causes methane to be released.
Natural peat bog produces slightly more warming than cooling. www.hutton.ac.uk/sites/default/files/files/publications/Peatlands%20final_web_reduced%20size.pdf But re-wetting peat bog produces a lot more warming than cooling see figure 1 in this document.
What a fantastic overview of the the subject! I went into this knowing very little and now I feel informed.
Our next video comes out tomorrow. Stay tuned and hit that subscribe button!
Instead of congratulating them for going “carbon neutral” we should be putting them out of business for doing so much harm for so long.
@@vsstdtbs3705 so from that i can deduct that you do not wipe yours, cant say im surprised
Fedora-wearing cringelord. Check.
Doesn't your argument has to make the connection that women invented Free Market Capitalism, "@@vsstdtbs3705"?
Another brilliant piece on this complex subject!
Another amazing video on a very important topic! Also, ❤ Kiyo!
Are there updated links to those referenced in the initial notes. Great work by the way!
I will start reducing my carbon footprint as soon as Lufthansa will stop flying empty planes to keep airport spots.
Have you seen our video on why Big Oil companies love talking about your carbon footprint th-cam.com/video/vqZVCEnY-Us/w-d-xo.html Let us know what you think.
King of the Hill made fun of this concept in the early 00’s and here we are still having the same conversation. We are so screwed, everything is a joke
Really informative video, thanks a lot for sharing!
Nice sweater! I also wear warm clothes at home and don't use much heating in winter
There are a few companies that are sequestering CO2, can validate the process, amount of CO2 and selling the credits.. Show a few of those. CarbonCure comes to mind.
Learn something new. Thank you. Please make video on agroforestry as an offset strategy. Whether agroforestry is a good offset or not?
that was more complete than I thought it would be, good job!
I still support offsetting. However it's good to understand the base pricing. Your video has provided a list of good questions to asks.
Excellent video!
4:37 I don't know why the editor left that in, but it was quite refreshing
What fuel did the car used to visit the farm use? E85 or gasoline?
Thanks for the video on this important topic. In Switzerland you can get incentives for replacing your oil/gas heater with wood or heat pump, financed with carbon offsets. Personally I find this ridiculous for multiple reasons:
-Installing new oil/gas heaters is illegal anyway in some Cantons (for example Zürich)
-Oil/gas heaters may be cheaper to install, but they are already cheaper in the long run without subsidies (so most would’ve been built anyway)
-you „surrender“ your prevented emissions. So you‘re not allowed to feel good about it. (bc of double accounting) I wonder what happens if a new renter asks about the heating system. Are they gonna say „actually wood but technically oil“?
Why would they want you to replace an energy dense oil/gas with wood? Far more will have to be burned for the same output and the input are trees which take decades to absorb carbon dioxide and grow yet will be burned every winter. This isn't just unsustainable it's completely backwards.
@@hurrdurrmurrgurr if you burn wood, it releases carbon that was previously absorbed in the trees. Because of that, it would be carbon neutral. In contrast, burning fossil fuels like oil or gas adds new carbon dioxide to the system/circle, which hasn't previously been there. This is what's causing global warming, really. Not saying that burning wood is the perfect solution, though. There will be a lot of particles arising, polluting the air if no filters would be installed. And I doubt there would be enough wood. In the end, forests should also serve a non-economical cause to sustain an eco-system that can buffer some of our emissions. I would rather try to subsidise renewable energy for private households as well
@@hurrdurrmurrgurr They have abundace of wood in Switzerland loged in sustainable managed forests, for centuries already. Oil and gas in the contrary are 100% imported and everything but sustainable.
@@meerkathero6032 According to Global Forest Watch Switzerland has lost 2.6% of its forest cover in the last twenty years. All things considered that is a low number but it isn't neutral and convincing people to switch further into biomass will only accelerate that figure. I agree oil/gas heaters should be switched out but for electric and geothermal heating not trees.
@@hurrdurrmurrgurr The loss is related to urbanisation and recent droughts harming the forests in some cantons. Something the statitic created from satellite observation data does not show. Clearcuts are forbidden by law in Switzerland, although, every tree logged must be replanted. In fact a lots of pasture land is turning into forests since grazing on the high pastures stopped due to economical reasons.
Any time someone asks me if they should purchase carbon offsets I always say: “is there really nothing you can do to ACTUALLY lower your carbon footprint?”
Once you’ve worked hard to reduce your fossil fuel usage as low as possible then sure, buy carbon offsets. But I’ve potentially reduced my emissions from 10 tons to 7 tons just by changing my diet, electricity usage, and transportation method. And I have plans to push to go lower.
Much better then buying something online which may or may not be real in my opinion.
I somehow have minus tons of carbon since I am vegan and do not buy anything. At least carbon calculator told me so.
@@hrabi8209 yea carbon calculators can be really silly sometimes. I don’t use them in an effort to actually know EXACTLY what my footprint is…I’m just using them to get a rough idea of where my worse area is so I can focus on that next.
Absolutely 🙋🏼♀️
I think there are several ways people can easily lower their carbon footprint.
Switch to a renewable energy provider.
Switch off things not in use, turn down thermostats, and try not to use air-conditioning.
Become vegan.
Avoid traveling by aeroplanes.
Walk or cycle rather than using a car or public transportation.
Buy second hand goods preferably from a charity shop.
Plus many more things I haven't listed.
I think putting pressure on politicians and companies by writing letters, signing petitions, and taking part in campaigns also helps.
@@ladyselenafelicitywhite1596 yea, I avoided mentioning what we can do politically since that’s not typically in the conversation when we talk about carbon offsets…but you’re absolutely right.
Heck, I could get my personal footprint down to almost 0 and it would be virtually pointless cause my country still has an infrastructure which keeps the population up around 16 tons! So engaging fully with the political process is absolutely necessary for real long term gains.
@@SaveMoneySavethePlanet Absolutely. I think it's really a threefold thing.
A) personal actions to reduce individual carbon footprints.
B) offsetting via means which are verified and reliable.
C) political action and campaigning.
The DW is the best medium that talks about sustantiability, keep doing the best you can to go on helping the world
What about using the offset Benjamins to transition households to green power? I would definitely buy the offset on many items if in return i would get a photovoltaic install.
The most important thing to understand about trees: they absorb CO2 which becomes part of the wood, then when they die and decay, the exact same amount of CO2 is release back to atmosphere, down to every single C atom.
Excellent work as usual! Comment for the algortihm people!
HAIL ALMIGHTY ALGORITHM
Only if I could very the project(s) as you did. Thank you for the video!
Hit that subscribe button! We release a new video every Friday.
It's as if the best way to reduce emissions is to actually regulate big companies to reduce their emissions and not buy offsets..
So you drove 400 km to investigate carbon offset...
I will think twice before buying a carbon offset , PS great video
Offsetting in high quality projects is better than doing nothing.
Sick tune @ 2:52, berlin vibe i guess
I've just done a regen of about a 1sq km or 300 acres and have not taken any carbon credit "deals" due to access to my land with the caveats that go together with the contract of being paid for it and my main worry is about the carbon catching machines and if that carbon is going to be trucked onto my land as I think the next step of fracking is using that carbon to push oil out of seems that can't be accessed through traditional oil rigs. In Australia we have a lock the gate protest to keep big mining from prospecting on private land and I think the CCS deals are just a sneaky way of getting onto land that big business don't own. Do U have any ideas on this.
I just love you guys for as much as I learn here and the importance of the information you give. I just love you guys, sincerely ♡
Wow thank you what an eye opener! I think I would need to research before buying a carbon offset!
Great video! Subscribed :)
Thank you. Finally a good explanation for my gut feeling U had for years. It just doesn't make sense to think that we can reduce something without changing our lifestyle. No we can't buy our way out.
Sadly this video makes it seem like all offsets are a scam, when some are legit.
No matter our lifestyle, we will still produce some emissions so I think voluntary offsets should be advocated (if the right projects are used)
"85% of carbon offset projects dont actually offset carbon." I think the number of projects is a really unprecise metric here. Maybe its just 85 small tree plantation projects failing to offset their 1 ton of carbon each and 15 large projects that succeed in offsetting 100 tons of carbon each. Or worse: the other way around. The amount of money going into carbon offsets that dont work, would have been more meaningful. The ratio of (the amount of carbon actually being offset) to (the amount of carbon that was pledged to be offset) would also be good. (Oof this is hard to write.)
Anyway, id probably still pay for carbon offsetting. Even if only 10% of the offsets is effective its still something. Also if the market for these offsets gets larger, it will probably face more scrutiny and better regulations. Great and thought provoking video 👍
Thank you for sharing this information with us. It shows it pays to investigate carbon offset projects carefully.
Yes I would buy a carbon offset because it's better than doing nothing at all.
The reality is that people still need to travel so it's impossible to completely shut down the world.
I think the main issue here is governance.
Since the projects lack integrity that doesn't mean the initiative is bad. I
believe this is the best we can do in today's circumstances/context.
It really warms my heart that DW is putting this excellent information out there. I’m proud that a small portion of my taxes can fund quality, transparent journalism!
I would appreciate it if you guys could provide more citations or further readings, though. The claim that indigenous groups aren’t consulted when offsetting projects occur is totally accurate and correct (in Chad a plot of agricultural land for a minority group within the country was sold to a TNC, who ‘offset’ emissions by attempting to afforest it and inadvertently increased local desertification rates, for example) but it never hurts to show where that info came from.
Even in the context of some of the best projects there are, carbon offsets are a very individualistic way of looking at a global problem. If 100% of the CO2 is still being emitted, whether or not you can absolve all or some personal responsibility for them is irrelevant to the fact that CO2 is still being added to the atmosphere. We can do all the clever bookkeeping we want so that every single one of us has a net negative carbon footprint and feel good about ourselves while the world burns, or we can actually stop polluting the planet while reclaiming emissions on a larger scale and actually have net negative emissions within a system where it doesn't matter if every single individual themselves is net negative.
Thanks for the education and the insight, DW! These issues are more nuanced and complicated than yelling "wE wAnT cHaNgE nOw!"
The nature of Carbon Offset is: You do have an outlet of CHC, but then you do (or pay someone to) an action, that reduces the outlet of Greenhousegasses from other mandatory sources. In the German case, you stop the outlet of GHG from moor, that were drained and disturbed by a former generation. When the moor is restored, the outlet of GHG will be reduced for centuries to come.
What can be sold? The reduction of GHG, from stopping the accident (=drainage) once?, or can we sell the same reduction every year? When the more has been restored its outlet of GHG will be zero.
The moor is a difficult example, as the peat is in between fossil and renewable carbon. But another way of compensation the outlet of GHG from our plane would be to harvest the peat from the moor, and use it as a fuel - a fuel used for warming houses, and thereby reduces the need for fossile fuels (and reducing the amount of GHG from an fossil source).
Don't burn the peat. The amount of heat emitted per ton of carbon is much lower than the amount you could get by more modern technology. We need to leave the peat in the ground and stop using fossil fuels as well.
@DWPlanetA Great video. I have one doubt, when it comes to double counting and you are a customer are paying for the offset of the flight, it is only you that are offsetting your carbon footprint. The airline cannot claim that carbon credit for itself, they act as an adviser to you. You are offsetting some Scope 1 and 2 of them, and some Scope 3 of them which in total will be your single Scope 3 to go on that flight with other xx persons. They cannot offset their emissions with the same credit. At least, this is how I intend carbon accounting.
Hey there! Exactly, this is not allowed. The airline cannot claim any carbon offsets that customers voluntarily purchased.
5:18 for context this means 3 tonnes PER person
DW describes this issue very accurate. Good job, like to see more of excelent journalism on your channel.
I had a stake (engineering, feasability studies, due dilligence, economical assessments, etc.) in solar PV projects for mining operations, natural gas and oil fields, refineries, pipelines, a cement factory and other not so green clients. They invest in solar because it is the cheapest energy source available and it reduces the total energy bill. Additional they (not all but most of them) receive an extra windfall profit for the CO2 compensation certificates and the positive PR. That much about the motivation and the effect of carbon offset projects and the CO2 trade system.
The peat project in Germany sounds positive, even if it is really astonishing that your flight alone would require 3,000 m2 wetland for offset. I would like to share my view on another peat project with you. It is somehow OT and at the same time it is part of the bigger picture in which the CO2 offset projects are just a small piece. In Rwanda is a power plant fired with peat from intact wetland, they harvest the peat on several thousand hectars wetland, dry and mill it and fire it in the power plant with a very low efficiency combined with very high and problematic emissions and devastated land left behind. Additional the cost of such a power source is high. With the USD 350 Million invest for the thermal peat power plant they could have financed several hunderds of megawatts of solar PV which would have a significant lower LCOE compared to the peat project, even combined with storage it would have been more economical. Sometimes it would be good to re-direct funding from CO2 compensation and conversation projects to such projects, just to ensure that the local government does not funnel the money to a peat fired power plant and instead to invest into something that has a future. Still, this would be windfall profits, but hey, if it prevents such projects it would be very efficiently used money.
Thank you for this video!
It is always a good ideal to hire the same company in rescuing our world who are activly destroying it.
I've been suspicious for a while and this put a real focus on it. Thank you. The lack of enforceable standards & long term tracking, along with the ability to double count are especially egregious. It reminds me of the solid waste problem of the world - we cannot reuse or recycle our way out of it unless reduction is the first priority.
This is why I laugh out loud anytime I hear about a fossil fuel company making a net zero pledge. All the offsets in the world won’t make it so they don’t have to reduce oil and gas production!
@@SaveMoneySavethePlanet Have you seen our video on Why Big Oil companies love to talk about your carbon capture: th-cam.com/video/vqZVCEnY-Us/w-d-xo.html Let us know what you think.
@@DWPlanetA yea I watch everything that you guys put out cause I think you’re one of the best channels on TH-cam.
I think your final viewpoint in your video is spot on. In fact, it’s why I did a major pivot with my own channel recently after a long break. Now I focus every video on what long term changes we need to support by our government and what personal changes we need to make in the meantime.
I just also have 0 interest in what fossil fuel companies have to say about the matter. They had 50 years to act on this problem and didn’t so I say we make the decisions without their input!
What a big surprise... you create mass hysteria around an exaggerated problem, and then someone abuses the scared people. Like that has never happened before ...
I wish you also mentioned mono-culture tree planting for offsets. Only mixed and native species should be planted
Very interesting video. I have a question: is there a regulation, a visit or a report for the offset carbon? I mean it's an obligation for big companies to have reduce their footprint, but does COP26 or the Paris agreement also put a head, a team, an audit or examiners to check it regularly, like every year (and to avoid CO2 emission, they can use local examiners).
Yes, there is an audit for the Paris agreement, but only if it is authorized as part of a naionally determined commitment (NDC).
@@borneobill1 thanks for the reply. so it means it is rather words than action. So I wonder if people by CO2 offsets where the money goes? if it dosent go for the project?
I’m vegan and am putting solar energy into the house I’m building. One day when they’re affordable I’ll get an electric vehicle, and of concourse I’d use public transit but the US doesn’t really have any. I feel like all of this is a better way for me to personally contribute.
I would buy a carbon offset. But only if I knew this happens in my country
As far as I know New Zealand don't exist, stop being delusional.
@@prasun6084 stfu Australia
So for that flight to japan it would cost like 200€ to offset the carbon? (using the project in germany)
Excellently video, you're really making strides on production quality. There's definitely a lot of sketchy stuff going on with these company claims. But there are also companies like atmosfair that do great work in provably reducing emissions in the global south + actually improving the lives of those living there big time (for example by providing clean drinking water or efficient ovens). And these are projects no one would fund otherwise.
Yeah, that's why they say 85%
Solution: Don't fly! Anyone's priority should be to reduce personal footprint by deselecting activities, and use offsets only where no other option is available. Flying is something you can choose not to do.
I have been reading a lot of economics books, and all the rage right now is how the major issues that we are dealing with on our planet are because of the lack of markets. That experiential value is disregarded because of a lack of its exchange value, and the question I have, since this is a perfect example of markets failing, is how are the market fundamentalists/neoliberals going to handle this issue since their go to response is always "more markets, more privatization, and less government"?
Yes, I have bought and will buy more carbon offsets. I spread it across certified projects to increase the probability of real effect. My next goal is to offset more than I produce, because net zero is not good enough!
We are doomed.
That attitude is a self-fulfilling prophecy
They seem more like a peace of mind fee/confession that you give to priest than an actual solution.
Don't forget to hit subscribe so that we can figure out how to get out of this climate crisis mess. We release a video every Friday.
This was great journalism! Thank you.
Great video, thank you
Whenever people can make a profit, there's always room for fraudulent practices, especially without proper supervision by honest inter-/national/local authorities.
Then we think you'll love this video we did a few weeks ago: "Your plastic waste might be traded by criminals" th-cam.com/video/tID-AChSg7o/w-d-xo.html
Richtig guter Bericht! Toll, dass es auch einen deutschen Kanal gibt, der so wichtige Recherchen macht!
Congratulations on this great video!
Glad you enjoyed it! We release a video every Friday so don't forget to hit that subscribe button.
Thanks for this great episode
One major issue with the trillion tree initiative that most companies like to claim that they're a part of is the issue of where are we going to plant these trees? Currently the Earth has 4 trillion trees and all the land that got deforested is currently being used as farmland, cities and mining. You can't very well plant trees anywhere that they didn't naturally exist in the first place without destroying some other biome and causing more issues. Some places that trees could be added back to are northern Scotland, all that grassland used to be a giant pine forest and that area still gets plenty of rain. 80% of Iceland was once forested, Kenya was once mostly trees and now is about 5% covered mostly due to local reforestation efforts. Even deteriorating Detroit could be turned into forest and it once was.
The second issue is making sure you plant native trees in the areas you find and not just 1 type like China has northwest of Beijing where they're trying to stop the desert from expanding further. Another issue is, who will plant the trees, planting trees is very tiring if you've ever done it before, you'll be sapped after just a half dozen or so.
Yes, I have already bought carbon credits here in Australia, with a company that is using the Blockchain and cryptocurrencies to achieve the goal. I'm not buying carpet credits off an airline or a Energy company, I am personally buying carbon credits to offset myself.
Great work
Really great video!
In Ireland there are thousands of acers of cut away peatlands that are and could be rewetted .So yes in this case I would buy carbon offsets. Trees also provide shade, reducing the heat island effect (reducing the need for air conditioning) and sequestering carbon a double edged sword in tackling climate change. Trees in a colder climate reduce the wind chill from cold winds when planted on a northerly side of dwellings ,planted as a shelter belt they allow animals to graze longer into the season. Planted along a motorway trees reduce cross wind .Yes I would buy carbon credits but it needs to be value for money and the scheme needs to maximize the environmental benefits.
🌱Thanks for your comment. We explored in our video if there is a way to keep the ground wet AND grow food on it. Please check out our piece on peatlands here 👉 th-cam.com/video/ws_ysJx3MEg/w-d-xo.html
Murat was here. Thanks for Sharing.
I always joke about pavement Weeds,
Everyone said let’s go green and reduce co2, at the same time they still cutting those weeds
This is an amazing documentary. I use carbon offsets, and feel more reluctant to use them, and that when I use them I now know which types of projects to donate to
I think projects that provide green electricity to remote communities are very worthwhile. You are improving people's lives as well as reducing emissions.
1:14 what’s the background music?