Maybe this is getting old … at the end of May, The Guardian published yet another investigative report on carbon offsets purchased by companies such as Delta, Gucci, Volkswagen, ExxonMobil, Disney, easyJet and Nestlé. According to the report’s authors – which include the NGO Corporate Accountability – “This report documents the prevalence of ‘worthless’ or ‘likely junk’ carbon offsets in the global Voluntary Carbon Market, and undermines the corporate rationale for claiming emissions reductions based on such credits.”
A couple excerpts:
“… for 33 of the top 50 corporate buyers, more than a third of their entire offsets portfolio is ‘likely junk’ – suggesting at least some claims about carbon neutrality and emission reductions have been exaggerated according to the analysis. The fundamental failings leading to a ‘likely junk’ ranking include whether emissions cuts would have happened anyway, as is often the case with large hydroelectric dams, or if the emissions were just shifted elsewhere, a common issue in forestry offset projects…
At least 43% of the 81m CO2 credits purchased by the oil and gas majors are for projects that have at least one fundamental flaw and are ‘probably junk’, according to the analysis.The transport industry, which accounts for about a fifth of all global planet-warming emissions, has also relied heavily on carbon offsetting projects to meet climate goals. Just over 42% of the total credits (55m) purchased by airlines and 38% purchased by automakers (21m) for the top 50 projects are likely worthless at reducing emissions, the analysis found.”
Before you start looking for a “report,” I didn’t find anything other than The Guardian article, even on Corporate Accountability’s website. The article contains a short description of the methodology used, which “drew on information from academic studies, civil society research, offset project certifiers/registries, private sector databases and ratings, and media investigations. In addition, the strength and rigor of the available evidence was assessed.” Admittedly, Alex Edman’s work has permeated my thinking, so I question whether confirmation bias and selective data play a role in studies and investigations these days, so I just don’t know…
In one sense, it may not matter how valid the criticisms are as the mere perception of continuous negative reports is causing companies to question their use of voluntary offsets and hastening development of regulatory guardrails.
Our members can find more information about carbon offsets here.
If you aren’t already subscribed to our complimentary ESG blog, sign up here: https://practicalesg.com/subscribe/ for daily updates delivered right to you.
