The Prince's Mayday Network

Log back in to this forum on Tuesday 16th August at 1:00pm for a lively online debate around the topic of carbon offsetting.

Come prepared to discuss the following:
- Who should and should not be carbon offsetting?
- What are the better alternatives to carbon offsets?
- What are examples of carbon offset projects that have and haven't worked?
- Share what your business is doing whether you are for or against them.

We look forward to having a good debate with you over lunch!

Hello and welcome to our first ever Mayday online lunchtime debate!!

Mayday members often ask us if they should be investing in carbon offsets. Does it have real benefits or it is just a marketing ploy?

Whilst you eat your sandwiches we want to know what your views are and whether your businesses are currently engaged in carbon offsetting programmes?

Re the benefits..There's a very good analysis that's been done by New Energy Finance called 'An Independent Business Case for Carbon Offsetting' which states that the major benefits are corporate reputation and PR, and that around 36% (I think!) of companies that went carbon neutral report a direct increase in sales as a result.

Carbon offsets are not a new query to us and there is still an uncomfirmed decision on their role. BITC believes all businesses should focus their efforts on reducing their carbon consumption as far as possible before looking into offsets. There is nothing wrong in investing in a project that clearly has societal and environmental benefits but using them to reduce your overall carbon footprint figure can be misleading and detract from work on true carbon reduction.

Some businesses decide to offset specific asoects of their carbon footprint that they cannot reduce. For example some law firms that cannot eliminate all their flights might invest in offsetting (or similar projects) just for the flights they cannot remove - it is not take off of their reported carbon footprint but done as an additional benefit. Others may invest in projects or tree plant to offset carbon associated with unavoidable deliveries.

It is good when carbon offsetting activities can lead to broader awareness for example BP have committed to offset the entire carbon emissions from 5,000 Games vehicles. But then they are also challenging and supporting a group of athletes to reduce and offset their carbon footprint as they prepare for the Games and to share that experience with London 2012 audiences.

How are companies engaging their stakeholders ( customers,employee and suppliers) when they do embark on carbon offsetting programmes?

Good afternoon.

The issue I have is that all offsets are not created equal. Many commercial offsets may be created by reducing pollution in industry in a developing country, for example for adding a scrubber to a chimney in a Chinese factory. It is better to do this than not to do this but clearly this is not actually offsetting anything. There is still pollution and output from the factory could increase.

I prefer offsets that actually draw CO2 out of the atmosphere (as opposed to reducing emissions which we should do anyway). You can’t beat a good old tree for this and the great thing about planting trees is that in doing so you can also support natural habitats and their species.

BITC that's a good point. In organisations where here's no attempt to reduce emissions, offsetting can be seen as greenwash or an excuse for inaction.

There are some interesting examples of companies that are using offsetting to promote action as well though - rather than treating reduction and offsetting as different things. e.g. offsetting flights and then charging the offset cost back to business units to discourage them from flying.

Or offering employees the option to offset their person emissions as part of an employee benefits scheme, which gets them engaged and open to hearing about how they can reduce their emissions.

Carbon offsetting is definitely a good idea and a back-up option. But before deciding to offset, companies should first look at ways to reduce the negative impacts of their operations, such as reducing the amount of business travel and commuting, through the efficient use of technology available, enabling more people to work remotely and flexibly.

Eco hustler are there any specific programmes or projects in particular that are worth their while for companies to look into investing into?

Great point Carbon Retirement - if companies can use communications around their offsetting programmes to explain why it is being done and how stakeholders can avoid charges by changing their behaviours then it becomes an additional engagement tool - but it has to be done in the right way to inspire change and not just a way to pay out of the problem. Many companies are doing this well though.

Ecohustler, I agree all offsets are not created equal, but there are issues with trees as well as other projects. For example the reduction is only temporary as the carbon is re-released once the tree dies. A lot of measurement and verifications issues also remain, although NGOs and other parties are working hard at resolving this given how important trees are to any global activity to mitigate climate change.

Because of the uncertainty around projects, we actully use a different method for offsetting: buying up European pollution permits and permanently removing them from the emissions trading system so they can't be used.

On the trees point - and I agree that they are still not 100% measurable the Government has recently approved a new Woodland Carbon Code with the Forestry Commission to start making it a bit easier for companies that want to invest in tree planting schemes. you can find more info on the Forestry Commission's website.

Are people familiar with the Carbon Trust's gude to developing an offsetting strategy, and if so what do you think about it? It highlights that offsetting should be the last resort for unavoidable emissions.

NBTN as flying is the most carbon intensive of all travel what do you recommend businesses to to avoid it instead of offset it? How can we change the behaviour or just jumping on a flight when it has become so quick, easy and cheap? Also what do you say to companies who insist that they need to meet face to face across the world for "relationship building"?

BITC and The Carbon Trust's view align in saying offset should be the last part of a carbon management strategy. BUT if businesses have reduced and have resource (not just in terms of monetary funds) to invest in wider impacts what are the other options alongside 'traditonal carbon offsets' and tree planting...?

Re: The Carbon Trust guide. The Mayday Sustainable Business Tracker has the same view. Placing offsetting at the very bottom of things one can do to reduce carbon emissions.

Until we come up with transformational business models, products and services which allow us to to reduce carbon even more it seems that carbon offsetting does play a role and makes business and people take account for every single emission. So perhaps it's role is to make people more accountable as opposed to an easy option.

We recommend that companies look at the necessity of meeting face-to-face. But just to be clear, we are not saying: 'Don't ever fly'. We rather think it should be about an informed and educated choice. We have recently produced an online tool to help companies make these choices. For example, here you can find exmplanations of when a certain form of meeting is most appropriate: http://www.nbtn.org.uk/ways2work/howtodoit/rethinkingbusinesstravel/redu...

Relationship building is improtant and we recognise that, but it can be spread out across the year, rather than taking a longhaul flight for an hour-long meeting every two weeks.

BITC, on the Woodland Carbon Code, it is something to look at for those interested in UK tree planting and protection, but they are keen to strees it's NOT offsetting, as it's not possible to offset in the UK. This article from Environmental Finance has a good overview of what carbon markets professionals think about it http://www.environmental-finance.com/news/view/1887

Yes, i realize that there are issues about trees but not all of the carbon will be released when the tree dies.

Trees also do other ecological services like holding the soil and protecting watersheds.

I havent bought an offset before but if I was going to I would probably go to one of these:

http://www.woodlandtrust.org.uk/en/support-us/carbon/business/Pages/wood...

http://www.planvivo.org/plan-vivo-certificates/purchase-plan-vivo-certif...

As well as the Carbon Trust guidance, the Department for Energy and Climate Change (DECC) guidance on carbon neutrality is very good, as it recommends particular credit types (CDM credits and EUA retirement) as well as giving guidance on what can be claimed http://www.decc.gov.uk/en/content/cms/emissions/neutrality/neutrality.aspx

If the aim of a business is to widen positive impact rather than just remove a carbon figure from its footprint by offsetting is it valuable for them to think of others ways to do this? For example can investing in a renewable technology or supporting a low carbon technology bring benefits to a business as well as the wider environment?

Carbon retirement - thanks for the link. Are you doing anything or know of any ways we can stop companies from claiming to be carbon neutral when they are not? Is there a lot of ignorance out there in the market about this term?

Some businesses that are looking into alternatives to carbon offsetting for wider environmental benefit and not claiming carbon reduction are making donations to charities that work with responsible forestry projects to avoid emissions from deforestation / degradation. You don't get a certified amount of offsets and can't call yourself carbon neutral but you do help to generate a wider impact. One example is: http://www.tft-forests.org/climate-tree/

I am a new, small consultancy business (Woodman Farrow Ltd). On the subject of changing behaviours and avoiding unecessary travel by teleconferencing etc, my exerience is that after an initial face to face to get too know someone, conf calls can still be a very efffective way of doing business. Trouble is, very few conference calls are well chaired to ensure they are a productive experience for all. That seems to be why people don't like using them. I know Ways2Work offers good advice - is this being included in management skills training?

A programme that has been recommended to us is WLT's REDD+ projects. REDD+ is a term used to expand the scope of REDD activities beyond avoided deforestation and degradation activities to include forest restoration, rehabilitation, assisted natural regeneration, sustainable management and/or afforestation/reforestation.

http://eco-services.worldlandtrust.org/redd-plus/wlt-redd-projects

Mayday - re your question about organisations claiming to be carbon neutral when they're not, or giving unclear or conflicting information about their use of offsetting, it is a very large issue and the source of a lot of the negative press around offsetting. In the past 3 or 4 months there have been two very large corporates criticised for the offset claims (Fiji Water, which is now being taken to court http://www.fastcompany.com/1714334/fiji-water-sued-for-greenwashing, and Chevrolet, which was accused of over-claiming reductions to a very large degree http://www.carbonretirement.com/content/bloomberg-report-chevrolet%E2%80...).

The first step is for companies that use carbon offsets to be very clear about a) what they have offset and how that tonnage has been calculated, and b) what kind of offsets they have bought, accredited to which standards.

THANKS TO EVERYONE FOR JOINING IN OR JUST VIEWING THE DEBATE.
GET IN TOUCH WITH US IF YOU HAVE A PRESSING ISSUE YOU WOULD LIKE EXPLORED IN A LUNCHTIME DEBATE.

THANKS,
THE MAYDAY TEAM

Surely after 5 weeks, it's time for another discussion. So how about social, environmental and financial impact?

So, here's the case for the triple bottom line. laissez-faire Capitalism, as money imagined into existence as debt is unsustainable

http://www.p-ced.com/1/projects/ukraine/sumy/