from Sunday Herald, 15 July 2007
Schemes used by some of the world's top companies to offset pollution are flawed and failing to save the planet, it has been claimed.
Oil giant BP has been accused of exaggerating cuts in emissions from pig farms in Mexico, while Sky TV's claims for a renewable energy plant in Bulgaria may prove illusory.
Estimates used by British Airways to offset pollution from air travel were also described as being too low. And trees planted in Britain to reduce greenhouse gas emissions may prove ineffective.
These revelations - due to be broadcast in a Channel Four Dispatches documentary on Monday evening - will reignite fears that much of the burgeoning carbon-offsetting business might be a con.
"Carbon offsetting is more about salving one's conscience than solving the problem of climate change," said Duncan McLaren, the chief executive of Friends of the Earth Scotland. Carbon "cowboys" could damage genuine efforts to combat global warming, he warned.
Many big companies are now claiming green credentials by reducing their carbon footprint or aiming to become carbon neutral. But investigations suggest that some of the projects they use do not live up to expectations.
Until recently BP said on its website that trapping methane emissions from hundreds of pig farms in Mexico could cancel out pollution from three quarters of a million cars. But the methane savings are turning out to be only about half predicted levels.
And BP has confessed that it has only bought enough offsets to account for 2,500 cars. The company admitted that the anticipated saving from pig farms "will not be reached", and has corrected the claims on its website.
Sky television has offset 12% of its pollution by paying The Carbon Neutral Company (TCNC) to invest in a hydro-electric plant at Katuntsi in south west Bulgaria. But in an interview with Dispatches the plant's manager, Vladislav Tsvetkov, said that the money was "not required" to make the business work.
He later insisted that the investment was "critical" and TCNC said that it "increased the financial performance of the project". But the bank in Sofia which financed the plant said that the carbon money "was not a prerequisite".
Sky said it had assurances from TCNC about the quality of the investment. "We regularly review our approach and if it is shown that any offsets do not meet their claimed environmental contribution they will be replaced," added a Sky spokesman.
TCNC argued that offsetting had a vital role to play in cutting pollution. "We work with 150 projects and demonstrate, through independent monitoring and verification (pdf), that they reduce greenhouse gas emissions now and will continue to do so into the future," said a spokesman.
Another of the UK's leading carbon companies, Climate Care, has a deal with British Airways for offsetting emissions from flights. But estimates of the impact of pollution, and how much to pay for it, vary.
Climate Care itself quotes £39.79 to offset emissions from a return flight from London to Adelaide in Australia. But BA's online emissions calculator, provided by Climate Care, says that offsetting the same flight will only cost £27.58.
The problem is that BA does not accept that emissions from planes are as damaging as experts say. Climate Care's founder, Mike Mason, said he wished BA would change its mind.
TCNC is also heavily involved in financing tree-planting projects to offset pollution from companies and individuals. Among its many blue-chip clients are the car manufacturer, Honda UK, the car rental company, Avis Europe, and Barclays bank.
But in some cases there are doubts about whether the forestry projects it finances really deliver additional carbon savings. The owner of Donkleywood (pdf) in Northumberland, Bryn Howson, said that TCNC's investment wasn't "absolutely essential" for the creation of the woodland.
He received £55,000 from TCNC for the right to sell 20,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide offsets. But the main source of funding - £320,000 - came from the government's Forestry Commission.
TCNC defended the scheme by arguing that the money it provided was necessary as the "last piece of funding" for the project. "When we contract with a partner, we require them to confirm that the funds are additional," said a TCNC spokesman.
Dr Richard Dixon, the director of WWF Scotland, accepted that many renewable and forestry offsetting projects did useful things. "But these ones look like they would have happened anyway," he argued.
"Companies are paying to appear green, and encouraging their customers to think they have done their bit when in fact little or no real contribution has been made to cutting emissions. These schemes are worse than useless because they let people off the hook from taking responsibility for their own contribution for climate change."
The Dispatches programme "Great Green Smoke Screen" is due to be screened on Channel Four at 8pm on Monday night.
Read an earlier exposé of a carbon offsetting forestry farce here.
Comments