Post 9 – What does carbon neutral really mean?

This week the cold weather has really set in and it has been quite limiting.  For most of most days, the temperature has not risen above 10 degrees.  Going outside to work in the garden has been easy to defer, two pairs of socks have been needed with four layers of clothes on top and two elsewhere, and drying the washing on the outside line has not been an option.  So, what have I learnt from the cold weather.  First, the highly efficient reverse cycle air conditioner that we installed 18 months ago is a winner; second, you need slightly bigger boots if you are going to wear two pairs of socks; third, the local news and weather presenters don’t dress to reflect the weather which skews our sense of typical clothing for the season (I know TV studios are warm if not hot but that’s not the point); and, finally drying clothes in the house means they don’t flap about in the breeze like they do when they are outside so they are more inclined to be wrinkled, which is annoying  – to me anyway!

Another result of the cold weather is that I have spent more time in my study reflecting on issues related to a low carbon life.  I decided that we could no long justify buying electricity that was not 100% green and we could no longer justify buying electricity from an organisation that was heavily invested in coal-fired power.  Over the years, we have variously purchased 100% green power, then 25% green power, then ‘normal’ power, then ‘normal’ power with carbon offsets purchased from a third-party supplier and now I have switched us to 100% green power from an electricity retailer that claims to be carbon neutral.  But what does carbon neutral really mean?  I was quite excited when I saw an article saying that the airline Qantas was making a gesture towards a carbon neutral airline industry for World Environment Day (last Friday).  This excitement was hard on the heels of having read quite a lot of the book I referred to in Post 8,  called ‘How Bad Are Bananas?’, which lists carbon emissions by tonnage (parked) for many of the items we regularly use or buy and, let me assure you, air travel is right up there (so to speak) as a huge emitter of greenhouse gas emissions.  So, was Qantas about to lead the way in a low carbon air travel?  Unfortunately not, at least not in the way that I, in my optimism, spent at least 20 seconds hoping for.  Now having indulged in a bit of digression I’ll refocus on the issue of this post.

For quite a number of years, when you purchase a flight with Qantas or Jetstar, you can also purchase ‘carbon offsets’ which, according to their website, make your flight carbon neutral.  I have usually done this when I have flown because it makes me feel better about travelling and, as I said earlier, I have also done it in relation to our electricity. But I repeat my question.  What does carbon neutral really mean?  How does the money I pay for carbon offsets flow from one organisation to another?  Are any of these arrangements monitored and by whom?  Could we, theoretically, buy sufficient carbon offsets to solve the whole problem of global warming?  If not, and no is the bound to be the answer, then what are the limits to carbon offsets and the notion of being carbon neutral?  As I pose these questions, I don’t think the remainder of this post will be sufficient to answer them so the story might be a ‘to be continued’ one.

First things first, I decided to find a definition of ‘carbon neutral’ that was generally accepted as correct.  On the face of it, I expect carbon neutral to mean the amount carbon, or carbon dioxide equivalent green house gases, that we emit is measured, then an equivalent amount of carbon is extracted from the atmosphere.  As a result, our activity is carbon neutral because our actions have not added to the sum of green houses gases in the air.  The results of my quick search for a definition indicate that the idea of being carbon neutral is usually linked to the concept of carbon offsets and it is usually only linked to carbon not all greenhouse gases.  The term used to encompass all green house gases is, apparently, climate neutrality but I can’t say I have come across it before.  The definition of carbon neutral, and its link to carbon offsets, leads me to look for a definition of carbon offsets.  Basically, it seems that carbon offsetting  involves paying money to have someone else, somewhere else, do something that removes, or potentially removes, carbon from the air.  The most often cited example is tree planting because trees use carbon dioxide to photosynthesize and thus grow.  If I return to the Qantas example, they are reported as saying more than two million tonnes of carbon emissions have been offset since 2007 which is equivalent to planting 12 million trees.  Note that they are not saying they have organised the planting of 12 million trees just that their initiatives are equivalent to this figure.  I looked at their website and their projects that are linked to their offset program, seem to be aimed at preventing more carbon being added to the atmosphere but not actually removing it.  Of their four showcased projects, three projects prevent trees being cut down in Tasmania, Papua New Guinea and Peru and the fourth project supplies new types of stoves to people in Cambodia to prevent them using stoves that are more emission intensive.  Each of these projects is worthy and I am glad my small payments have contributed to their viability, but it is not what I hoped was occurring as a result of my purchase of carbon offsets.

As I anticipated, one post is not enough to answer all the questions I have about carbon neutrality and carbon offsets.  My conclusion, is that carbon offsets do not actually remove the carbon that has been put into the atmosphere as a result of my activities; they fund worthy projects, but it would be a mistake to sit back and think that my flights, for example, are carbon neutral.  I have decided I would rather give the money, that I would otherwise spend on carbon offsets, directly to an organisation that I assess as being effective in helping to reverse climate change.  Here is a quote from James Hansen from Colombia University in the US that describes offsets as “modern-day indulgences, sold to an increasingly carbon-conscious public to absolve their climate sins.”

A little example on which to conclude is from the how ‘How bad are bananas?’ book.  In this book an economy class return flight between London and Hong Kong is listed as emitting 3.4 tonnes of carbon.  The Qantas website lists the same return flight as emitting 2.1 tonnes of carbon.  The cost of offsetting the whole trip is just under $20.00 according to Qantas.  I so wish I could believe that $20 removed all dangers to the environment of such a flight. Bye for now, Jane