Is carbon offsetting a sham?

Is the notion of carbon offsetting a sham? This Guardian investigation seems to suggest so. One such project, the Kariba Project in Zimbabwe, appears to have generated 100m euros, largely for the project director, and the technical lead on the project but very little for local communities, and thus it hasn't enhanced their developmental prospects. In short, this expose suggests that it's possible for carbon credit schemes to be used to make some people rich at the expense of the environment and those that steward it.

Carbon offsetting is a practice used in environmental economics to compensate for greenhouse gas emissions. It involves investing in projects or activities that reduce or remove greenhouse gases from the atmosphere, such as reforestation, renewable energy, or methane capture, to balance out the emissions generated from an individual, organization, or event.

Carbon offsetting is based on the principle that greenhouse gases have the same effect on the atmosphere regardless of their origin. Therefore, if an entity cannot reduce its emissions directly, it can finance emission reduction projects elsewhere to achieve carbon neutrality or a net-zero carbon footprint.

Carbon offsetting has faced criticism for several reasons, including the following:

1. Questionable effectiveness: Critics argue that some carbon offset projects may not deliver the promised emission reductions. For example, a reforestation project might fail to sequester the expected amount of carbon due to poor management or natural events such as forest fires. This makes it difficult to accurately measure the true impact of the offset.
2. Greenwashing: Carbon offsetting can be used by companies or organizations as a public relations tool to present a greener image without making significant efforts to reduce their own emissions. This practice, known as greenwashing, can mislead the public and delay the transition to more sustainable practices.
3. Double-counting: There is a risk that the emission reductions achieved by an offset project are counted more than once if multiple entities claim credit for the same project. This double-counting undermines the effectiveness of carbon offsetting in reducing overall greenhouse gas emissions.
4. Leakage: Leakage occurs when the emission reductions in one area lead to increased emissions elsewhere. For example, a forest conservation project in one region might displace deforestation to another area. This displacement results in no net reduction in emissions, despite the appearance of progress.
5. Delayed reductions: Some carbon offset projects, such as reforestation, require many years to achieve their full carbon sequestration potential. In the meantime, greenhouse gases continue to accumulate in the atmosphere, contributing to climate change.
6. Lack of regulation and standards: The carbon offset market has faced criticism for inconsistent standards, poor regulation, and a lack of transparency, which can lead to low-quality offsets and fraud.
7. Incentivizing emissions: Critics argue that carbon offsetting allows individuals and organizations to continue emitting greenhouse gases without facing the true costs of their actions. By paying for offsets, they might feel justified in maintaining high-emission activities instead of investing in sustainable alternatives.
8. Social and environmental justice concerns: Some offset projects, such as large-scale tree plantations, have faced criticism for causing negative social and environmental impacts, including land grabs, displacement of local communities, and biodiversity loss.