45331 GF:Layout 1 2/11/10 13:52 Page 1 a greenfutures ... · 11.02.2010 · Offset Positive Buying change: the case for carbon offsets a greenfutures special publication 45331_GF:Layout

Offset Positive

Buying change: the case for carbon offsets

a greenfutures special publication

45331_GF:Layout 1 2/11/10 13:52 Page 1

Offset essentials

2 Green Futures January 2011 www.greenfutures.org.uk

� Every organisation and individual has, like it or not,a carbon footprint.

� Even with the most determined efforts to cut emissionsat source, we are all still responsible for some carbondioxide and other greenhouse gases going into theatmosphere, so causing global warming.

� We can choose to ignore this, and take no action to tacklethe consequences of those unavoidable emissions which mightdwarf everything we’ve been able to cut.

� Or we can take responsibility for them. One way of doing sois to ensure that an equivalent amount of carbon is eitherabsorbed, or avoided being emitted, elsewhere.

� This can be achieved by financing the introduction of renewableenergy or energy efficiency measures to replace the need forfossil fuels, or by conserving or planting forests, to absorb carbonfrom the atmosphere.

� This, in essence, is carbon offsetting.

� In practice, this is usually achieved through buying credits fromemissions reduction projects, preferably those which areaccredited to an internationally recognised standard.

� These standards are becoming increasingly rigorous and robust,particularly on the ‘voluntary market’, allowing companies to fundsuch schemes with confidence.

� Increasingly, these standards include provision for wider socialand environmental benefits, particularly among less well-offcommunities in developing countries.

� Such socially progressive offsets simultaneously reduce carbonemissions and improve the quality of life of people who arethreatened by the impacts of climate change.

� As such, they can be a powerful tool for sustainabledevelopment.

Fron

tCover

Pho

to©GarethBentley

45331_GF:Layout 1 30/10/10 15:09 Page 2

For a surprisingly large number of environmentalists,offsetting is a still a dirty word. Deep scepticism aboutthe Kyoto Protocol’s Clean Development Mechanism,combined with a few early stories about dodgy deals,persuaded several ‘green gurus’ to adopt stridentlyhostile positions. This sowed the seed for doubt in manypeople’s minds, with the result that offsetting is still notseen as it should be: that is, as making a critical andhugely beneficial contribution to a low-carbon society.

Don’t get me wrong. We’re no more sympathetic toineffective, poor quality, ‘socially blind’ offsetting than anyof these critics. Every emerging market, withoutexception, has its fair share of rubbish products.

But in this Special Edition, we invite you to share ourexcitement at the other end of that market, representedby a growing number of schemes and organisationsdoing exactly what it says on the tin: cost-effectivelyachieving measurable reductions in emissions of

greenhouse gases, whilst generating real value for thecommunities and nations involved.

For those who are still doubtful about that kind ofvalue, I have only one question: when you’ve doneeverything you can to reduce your own carbon footprintthrough changing your lifestyle and being super efficientat home, work and play, what are you going to do aboutthe rest? Ignore it – or deal with it by finding the bestpossible offset product on the market?

That’s the challenge that confronted Forum for theFuture right from the start. So we dealt with it – in aneffort to be genuinely carbon neutral. And we’re proud ofthe offset initiatives in which we’ve invested to makethat possible.

Jonathon Porritt is Founder Director of Forumfor the Future.

www.greenfutures.org.uk Green Futures January 2011 3

Pho

to©WalterB.M

cKenzie/Getty

45331_GF:Layout 1 30/10/10 15:09 Page 3

spices, for their own consumption and for sale. As aresult, everyone’s better fed, healthier – and much betteroff, thanks to selling surplus crops. This means they nolonger have to decamp en masse in the dry season towork for an unreliable pittance as labourers on thenotoriously hazardous building sites of one of India’sburgeoning cities. Instead, the children can stay at school,and the family no longer lives in fear of losing their land.

It’s a success story repeated, with variations, amonghundreds of thousands of families right across northernIndia, where the relatively high water table lends itself tosuch technology. The pumps were developed byInternational Development Enterprises, India (IDEI) andnow form the heart of a thriving network of energyentrepreneurs – manufacturers, retailers and installers -which has generated sales of approaching two millionpumps in total. Studies by the World Bank and theAcumen Fund confirm that families with treadle pumpsenjoy better nutrition, health, income and prospects thanthey did before.

It is a triumph of simplicity and scale: astraightforward, robust technology: living proof thatdramatic improvements in quality of life don’t have to

In the middle of a field on the plains of northern India,farmer Ram Dyal is making a point. One hand grabbingmy sleeve, he wraps his other round a sturdy bamboopole. “This”, he says, slapping it for emphasis, “haslifted poverty from our valley. It has lifted poverty frommy home.”

He’s speaking through an interpreter, but looking mehard in the eyes to make sure I understand.

‘This’ is a simple treadle pump, costing around $30,which uses a couple of hours a day of human power –Ram Dyal’s feet and those of his family – to raise waterfrom a tubewell to irrigate the fields.

It doesn’t sound that exciting – a bamboo frame andtreadles, a simple two cylinder pump, and a long plastictube thrust deep into the soil. But its effects are nothingshort of revolutionary. Because by enabling crops to begrown all year round, rain or drought, it transforms thelivelihoods of the rural poor.

A rural revolutionTake Ram Dyal’s family. Since installing the pump,

they’ve diversified on a grand scale, growing garlic,cauliflower, cabbages, tomatoes, cucumbers, herbs and


PPuummpp action

A simple piece of human-powered technology has revolutionisedlives across northern India, reports Martin Wright, andsparked fierce debate about the morality of offsetting.

45331_GF:Layout 1 30/10/10 15:09 Page 4

come from the use of fossil fuel. As such, it was a fittingwinner of an Ashden Award for Sustainable Energy (itwas as an Awards Judge that I was lucky enough tosee the project and talk to dozens of its beneficiaries atfirst hand).

Heart-warming stuff – but what has this got to dowith offsets? The answer lies in the alternative: the dieselpumps, which, despite their shortcomings, had beenspreading rapidly across the country. By replacing diesel,or removing the need for its adoption, the introduction oftreadle pumps is avoiding the emission of substantialquantities of CO2 (around two-thirds of a tonne annuallyper pump). And that makes it an ideal candidate foroffset funding.

Emissions credits bought on the voluntary marketthrough ClimateCare have enabled IDEI to roll out thetreadle pump programme much faster and further thanwould have been possible otherwise. It’s not been theonly success story of this kind. Numerous othersmall-scale renewable energy schemes, from solarelectricity to clean, energy-efficient cookstoves; frombiogas digesters to micro hydro, have been boostedthanks to emissions credits sold by ClimateCare and

other offset providers.Together, they exemplify just what can be achieved

through the best sort of voluntary offsets. Get them right,and they don’t simply result in measurable carbonreductions – important though these are. They alsoproduce measurable improvements in the quality of lifeof ordinary people, particularly the rural poor indeveloping countries – and the quality of theenvironment on which they depend.

Who could possibly argue with that?

Enter the backlashBrendan O’Neill, for one. Writing in Spiked Online in

2007, the influential commentator lambasted the treadlepump offsets as nothing short of “eco-enslavement”.ClimateCare, he argued, was “encouraging people in thedeveloping world to ditch modern methods of farming(such as diesel pumps)… so (its clients) can fly aroundthe globe with a guilt-free conscience on the basis that,thousands of miles away, Indian villagers, bent overdouble, are working by hand … doing hard physicallabour … rather than using machines that emit carbon.”

“Feeling guilty about your two-week break in


Water of life: treadlepumps bring prosperityto Indian farms

Pump aaccttiioonn Pho

to © Sarah Butler - Sloss/Ashden Awards

45331_GF:Layout 1 30/10/10 15:09 Page 5

“Hard work? It’s only walking up and down…!”

Bhikram Singh, a vigorous seventy-nine year old, is oneof life’s enthusiasts. “In the old days”, he told me, “I justhad one crop, the wheat. I used to use the dieselpump, but it was expensive, and I couldn’t always hireone when I needed it, and it washed all the topsoil overto one side of the field. I really wanted to get out of thatmess...”

The great advantage of the treadle pump, heexplained, was the way it sent just the right amount ofwater, at the right time, across the fields, at a steadytrickle which allowed the moisture to sink into the soilrather than sluice it away. “Now I get three or four cropsa year ... we can eat so much better. I buy new clothesfor all the family. Next year I’m renting more land so Ican expand…”

Wasn’t the pumping hard work? “Nooo! It’s onlywalking up and down! It’s like climbing a hill. If you wanthard work, try carrying the water all the way from thewell, like we used to.” (I tried the pump; once I’d gotused to the rythym, the effort felt like cycling gentlyuphill at a slow but steady pace. Others have describedit as being like a step machine at the gym.) ThenBhikram pointed at his knee. “See this? It used to beswollen and painful. Now, the pain’s eased and theswelling’s gone down…”

Across the field, a girl aged 12 or so leapt onto apair of treadles, laughing and showing off to me thatshe could work it, too. Photos of children like this havesparked allegations in the West that such ‘humanscale’ technology encourages child labour. To whichthe only answer is: yes, children – mainly teenagers, butsome younger – do indeed work the pumps: onaverage for around 30 minutes a day, according to anAcumen study, either before or after school.

This is hardly child labour of the sweatshop variety;more a case of helping out on the family farm, acommonplace for children across India. Far better tospend half an hour on the pump and the rest of the dayin school, than long months on a building site…

Barbados … living it up with cocktails on sunlitbeaches?”, added O’Neill with a flourish. “Well, offset thatguilt by sponsoring eco-friendly child labour in thedeveloping world! Let an eight-year-old peasant pedalaway your eco-remorse…” And so on, at some length.

It was wonderfully polemical stuff – and wildly wide ofthe mark, at least as far as the facts were concerned (seebox, ‘Hard work?...’). But O’Neill’s central claim –that carbon offsets were no more than a rich Westerner’sguilt-trip – struck a chord with many. It epitomised thebacklash which erupted against offsets in the mid-2000s,and which still has considerable influence today.

In some respects, it was inevitable. Offsets hadbecome a bit of a green fashion badge amongcelebrities, with everyone from Coldplay to Atomic Kittenreleasing ‘carbon neutral’ albums. Such a surge of popstar glamour might have made life easier for the pictureeditors (the lissom bodies of the Kittens being a welcomealternative to yet another biogas digester), but it was ared rag to the bullish scepticism of your averagejournalist. Set against a lifestyle rich in planes and limos,offsets could easily look like a token gesture – and in

some cases, they probably were.O’Neill is no environmentalist – quite the contrary –

but his views found echoes in the green movement too.From George Monbiot to Greenpeace, many argued thatoffsets effectively ‘legitimise’ carbon emissions: after all,why bother with the thorny task of reducing CO2 whenyou can simply pay someone to do it for you?

Some described it as ‘buying complacency’ – aguilt-free pass to carry on as normal. Monbiot and otherseven likened offsets to the indulgences sold to medievalsinners to earn time off purgatory. And one websitememorably satirised the whole process by offeringunfaithful partners the chance to become ‘CheatNeutral’. Want to betray your spouse? Simply pay £2.50to someone who pledges to stay faithful…

Dubious motives aside, other more concretecriticisms fuelled the backlash. Under close scrutiny,some early offset schemes looked at best ineffective, andat worst no more than a scam, providing little or noassurance that the money invested was really going tomake a difference. A few high-profile failures drewwithering fire. Coldplay supported a mango plantation


45331_GF:Layout 1 30/10/10 15:09 Page 6

Making the connection:by bringing solar powerto remote communities,offset funding can speeddevelopment


Pho

to © M

artin W

right

45331_GF:Layout 1 30/10/10 15:09 Page 7

project in India to help offset emissions from a world tour.The trees were planted, but someone forgot to ensurethey were watered…

Forestry offsets in particular attracted flak. If you’rerelying on trees to sequester your carbon, you have toensure they’ll be there for decades to come – up to acentury, in fact. Which, at a time of growing pressure onland resources, is a big ask.

Investing in renewables and energy efficiency, whichdisplace carbon emissions rather than soak them up,sounds more certain. But, as with forestry, it leaves thenagging ‘additionality’ question: would the developmenthave happened anyway without your support? Because ifit had, you couldn’t credibly claim that it was offsetting‘your’ emissions. And at a time of massive investment insuch technologies, that is an extremely hard call to make.

Some of these shortcomings were perhaps inevitablein a market that was less than two decades old, andmaturing fast. And the critics have done everyone aservice by prompting the offset industry to examine itspractices and draw up new, more robust standards.

Guilt-tinged or gilt-edged?But it’s worth dwelling here a little on that core

question: are offsets merely an easy distraction fromtaking real responsibility for our own emissions?

The honest response is: yes, possibly, on occasion.There have no doubt been some, usually individuals ratherthan companies, who have bought carbon offsets as atoken gesture, with little or no intention to modify theirlifestyles further. These are the caricatures savaged byO’Neill and others.

However, even if that were the case, the criticismwould only be valid if the offsetter would otherwise havetaken more direct action to cut emissions. And there’sprecious little evidence that this is so.

Take a hypothetical Land Rover driver, who might, oneassumes, be quietly reassured that his miles have beenoffset thanks to the company’s deal with ClimateCare.Then he reads that it’s all a con. So does he think: “Hangon, this offset stuff isn’t all it seems… I need to do more,

much more…?” And so the scales fall from his eyes, andhe gives up his car, gets on his bike, and stops flying tohis weekend pad in the Med? It seems, to say the least,unlikely.

The decline in numbers of individuals buying offsetsover the last five years has hardly been matched by asurge in personal commitment elsewhere. And it’s notsurprising. A large part of offsets’ early appeal was topeople who genuinely wanted to do the right thing, butwere never going to buy into making revolutionarylifestyle changes – no matter how much they werehectored by environmentalists.

For them, the relentless ‘carbon-sin’ rhetoric simplyhad the effect of chipping away at their willingness tohelp out. And it failed to acknowledge the very real limitsof ‘carbon austerity’ in industrial societies with acarbon-intensive infrastructure. One in which, unlessyou’re a monk on the one hand, or a wealthy greengadget freak on the other, it’s hard to get through yourdaily round without emitting significant amounts ofcarbon.

Development potential

Many see a promising marriage between offsetprojects and more conventional development. “Africais littered with half finished projects, where, say, cleanwater provision’s been put in and then the funding’sdried up”, says ClimateCare’s Edward Hanrahan.“Many of these projects also reduce carbonemissions, which can provide a sustainable source offinance.” He promotes a vision whereby charitiesidentify the most worthwhile aid projects and buildrelationships at the sharp end, and offset providerscan focus on achieving verification and buildingrelationships with corporate buyers.


Pho

to © Vikram Raghuvanshi - iS

tock

45331_GF:Layout 1 30/10/10 15:09 Page 8

So it’s not surprising if, rather than abandonoffsetting their car emissions and taking to the bicycleinstead, many appear to have used the backlash as atrigger to do nothing at all. And for those who werealways inclined to feel cynical, the criticisms have giventhem the perfect excuse for inertia. They have decided,as it were, that it is better to curse the darkness thanlight a single candle…

Corporate buyers have taken up some of the slack,with volumes rising year on year apart from recession-hit2009, but the negative press has made many wary ofbeing associated too closely with offsets, whether or notthey think they are effective. As Paul Monaghan, Head ofEthics and Sustainable Development at the Co-operativeBank, puts it: “All the negative publicity just givescompanies another excuse not to buy... The greenmovement”, he concludes, “has shot itself in the foot here.”

A thorough investigation by the UK Parliament’sEnvironmental Audit Committee, published in 2007,concluded that the voluntary offset market could play animportant role in both cutting emissions and raisingawareness - and it urged both government and businessto get behind it. But by then, the cynicism was wellentrenched. Forum for the Future’s Jonathon Porrittdescribes the reaction to voluntary offsets from fellowgreen activists as “nervous, muddled and hostile,” withcommentators distracted by the “variable and uncertain”aspects of the evolving market, along with simpleignorance of what it can achieve. “Inevitably somecompanies have dropped out,” because of the negativepublicity, he notes – and that means more greenhousegases are being emitted than they otherwise would be.

Emissions impossibleAnd there’s the rub. Everyone involved agrees that

offsets should never be the sole, or even the prime,strategy for cutting carbon. That should always begin athome. But unless you source all your energy fromrenewables, transport all your products in electric trucks,never step on a plane, train or bus, let alone consumeanything made in a Chinese factory, you’ll still have some

carbon emissions against your name. So what are yougoing to do about them – unless you offset?

Intriguingly, such evidence as there is suggests that,contrary to the activists’ rhetoric, individuals andcompanies who make a positive choice to offset don’t,as a rule, end up merrily burning more fossil fuels, smugin the knowledge they’ve atoned for their sins. Moreoften, it seems to act as a prompt for moreengagement, rather than less. And in the worst casescenario, as ClimateCare’s Adam Harvey points out,even if the offset gesture is token and the motive is guilt,the money spent is still out there, doing some good.

In time, of course, there might be a genuinely globalcarbon market, where these transactions happenseamlessly, driving down carbon emissions. Until then,investing in socially progressive offsets can make adirect, tangible difference to both your carbon footprintand the quality of life of some of the world’s poorestpeople, none of whom, it’s pretty to safe to assume,give a damn whether that funding has preciselybalanced your emissions or not.

On which note, it’s worth reminding ourselves justwhy we’re concerned about carbon emissions in thefirst place. It’s not because we have some abstractobsession with atmospheric chemistry. Rather, it’sbecause we fear the human consequences of climatechange. These will be felt all the harder, and sooner, bypeople like Ram Dyal and his family, people who are inevery sense on the front line of climate change.

So when we invest in a rigorous, pro-poor offsetscheme, we’re achieving two goals simultaneously. Weare both fulfilling our responsibility to reduce ourenvironmental impact – and improving the quality of lifeof those threatened by it.

Get offsets right, then, and they’re about muchmore than simply balancing emissions; they’re aboutspeeding sustainable development, right across the globe.

Martin Wright is Editor in Chief of Green Futures, and a Visiting Judge for the AshdenAwards for Sustainable Energy.


Pho

to © Vikram Raghuvanshi - iS

tock

Pho

to © George Clerk - iS

tock

45331_GF:Layout 1 30/10/10 15:10 Page 9

The market for carbon as a traded commodity consists oftwo main sectors:

• Regulated, or ‘compliance’, carbon markets, whichare governed by international rules defined in the KyotoProtocol, and which include Clean DevelopmentMechanism (CDM) projects. (Some uncertainty hangsover CDM’s future post-2012, with negotiations for asuccessor to Kyoto still very much in the balance.) Anumber of national schemes also fall into this category.

• Voluntary carbon markets, which are unregulated andinclude a range of different trading relationships andvoluntary project standards. Many emphasise socialbenefits as well as carbon ones.

These markets differ radically in the way they operateand who they cater for. The compliance market is aimedmainly at large energy-intensive industries that need topurchase huge numbers of credits (usually at thecheapest possible price). Although open to all, this marketis dominated by companies who have compulsory targetsunder the Kyoto Protocol or other national or regional

‘cap-and-trade’ systems. As such, the credits they buytend to be generated by major industrial-scale projects –such as cleaning up emissions from Chinese factories –which have relatively few benefits for local communities,and are hardly inspiring stories to tell.

The CDM projects share, in theory, the ambitions ofthe Millennium Development Goals for alleviating poverty.However, unless they are certified to the Gold Standard(see below), this remains more theory than practice.

In contrast, the voluntary market, which is what anycompany considering offsetting out of choice will bedealing with, has a much wider range of customers, fromindividuals to large companies, with very different needsand aspirations, resulting in a much broader range ofprojects. For these buyers, voluntarily purchasingrelatively lower volumes of credits, price is often not the overriding concern. They are for the most part buyingbecause they see the ethical, strategic or reputationalbenefit of doing so, and so the provenance of the credits,and the story behind them, become more importantfactors in their purchasing decisions.

The voluntary market can also act as a kind ofproving ground for technologies, which later go on to be


Anyone coming to offsetting for the first time could be forgivenfor thinking they’d fallen into an alphabet soup. So here’s a (verysimple) guide to the essentials.

Raising the standards

45331_GF:Layout 1 30/10/10 15:10 Page 10


Raising the standards

Pho

to © Simon

Bon

d

45331_GF:Layout 1 30/10/10 15:10 Page 11

recognised in the compliance market. This happened withefficient cookstoves, for example, and may well do sowith water filters (which qualify for offset funding becausethey avoid the need to purify water by boiling it – usuallyusing wood as fuel).

Because the compliance market is regulatedinternationally, you might assume it is more tightlygoverned. In fact, there have been a number ofhigh-profile allegations of dubious behaviour or worse.Recently, it was alleged that some Chinese chemicalcompanies were deliberately ramping up production ofHFC-23, a highly potent greenhouse gas, purely to makemoney from its destruction via CDM finance.

That’s not to say the voluntary market has alwaysbeen a pillar of rectitude. In its early days at least, a lackof rigorous standards undoubtedly saw some poorprojects slip through the net. But partly because of all thecriticism, voluntary standards have recently become agreat deal tighter, under the influence of the InternationalCarbon Reduction and Offset Alliance (ICROA). Thisincludes the vast majority of respectable offset providers,and was itself set up to promote the highest standards of

Sunset sector: the regulated market

focuses on heavy industry


industry practice. The standards are not entirely uniform, however, and

that’s no bad thing. It can help encourage innovation,and spur providers to design products for a range ofbuyers. And because the voluntary market is just that –voluntary – it is buyers who have the bargaining power:this in itself is helping drive standards up, as after all thecriticism, no-one wants to be seen buying – or selling – asub-standard offset.

Raising the standardThere are now around 20 standards covering the

voluntary market, offering various degrees of rigour.Some are specialist – aimed at forestry offsets, forexample. As Jonathon Porritt points out, though, while awide range of standards may encourage innovation, italso ferments confusion among consumers. Now,however, two have have emerged as widely respected,notably the Gold Standard and the Voluntary CarbonStandard (VCS).

Each standard is endorsed by ICROA, and includestough verification elements to avoid the classic ‘elephant

Pho

to © JetJock / iS

tock

45331_GF:Layout 1 30/10/10 15:10 Page 12

Where does the money go?The main types of projects funded through the voluntarymarket are as follows:

• Renewable energy (eg solar, wind, hydro andbiomass)• Energy efficiency (eg improved cookstoves, CFL orLED lights)• ‘Fuel switching’ (eg crop waste substituting forwood in stoves; biogas schemes – animal and humanwaste used to produce cooking gas via anaerobicdigestion; and coal to gas)• Forestry (includes conservation, improvedmanagement, agroforestry and tree planting)• Emerging technologies (such as water filters, whichreduce emissions principally by avoiding the need to boilwater on a wood-fired stove).

The average price per tonne of CO2 equivalentsaved in 2009 was £4.16. But prices vary widely,depending on the provider, the technology, and theextent of social and other benefits included. As a rule,solar and some forest projects come out as moreexpensive than simpler energy efficiency ones. Offsetproviders often package high cost offsets together withlower cost projects. This helps support projects with ahigh social impact that may cost a little more.

In 2009, the voluntary market accounted for 94million tonnes of CO2 equivalent, with a combined valueof US$387 million.

Nishant Bioenergy’scookstove – using cropwaste instead of LPG


traps’ of non-additionality, leakage and impermanence(see box). On top of this, it is now standard practiseamong ICROA members to guarantee offsets, so if theydon’t materialise from one project, another must beprovided as a replacement.

Further assurance is provided by the rapid adoptionof a registration system. First established in 2007, thisallocates a unique serial number to each project andeach tonne of CO2 reduction achieved, and keeps arecord of all the purchases. Offsets are tracked for life,traded securely and ‘retired’ permanently. So in theorythis means they cannot be double counted, and projectdevelopers and offset providers alike cannot cheat thesystem. In a surprisingly short time, the registries havemade the voluntary carbon market as transparent, if notmore so, than the regulated market.

All this rigour makes it doubly frustrating that, fornow, the UK Government has failed to include any of thevoluntary market standards in its best practice scheme,which only recognises offsets validated by the CDM – adecision described by Forum’s Iain Watt as “utterlypointless… The Government was meant to be settingacceptable standards for the voluntary market, nowparticipants are just not bothering (with UK verification).”ICROA decries “the marginalisation of voluntaryprojects”. Hanrahan agrees, arguing that if theGovernment is serious about encouraging offsetting as akey strategy, then it really should recognise the GoldStandard and the VCS.

Such has been the outcry from inside and outsidethe industry, that many expect the Government tochange its mind on this before long.

Pho

to © M

artin W

right

Pho

to © JetJock / iS

tock

45331_GF:Layout 1 30/10/10 15:10 Page 13

Forestry was the earliest target for offset funding, and nowonder. Everyone loves the idea of planting trees for thefuture. One of the first specialist offset companies (alongwith ClimateCare) was originally called Future Forests –now the Carbon Neutral Company.

Some early forest offsets drew sharp criticism,however, and were found wanting on the three key‘tests’ of additionality, permanence and leakage. Wary ofbeing associated with something so controversial, manyorganisations stopped buying forest offsets altogether.But recently they’ve returned to favour, not leastbecause of renewed focus on the speed and scale withwhich the world’s tropical forests are being destroyed.

This has in part been encouraged by theconclusions of the Stern Review, which warned thatrainforest loss alone would, in just four years, releasemore carbon into the atmosphere than every flight fromthe dawn of aviation until 2025. Forest conservation isalso now part of the global climate negotiations, withattention focused on the potential to reduce emissions

caused by deforestation or degradation (REDD, as it’sknown). While there is no guarantee that this willdeliver, it could end up providing a massive shot in thearm for rainforest protection (see ‘Forest futures’,GF74, p26). Already, some forest governments areeyeing up the success of Belize in attracting fundingfrom Norway (which is channelling its substantial oilearnings into forest protection). Peru, for example,wants to incorporate REDD into a broad conservationstrategy that will cover 54 million of its estimated 64million hectares of rainforest, with a final goal ofeliminating all emissions from deforestation anddegradation.

A number of forest projects have now wonaccreditation under both regulated and voluntarystandards, such as Plan Vivo, specifically designed forforestry by the Edinburgh Carbon Management Centre.While any forest offset will require fierce scrutiny tomake sure it meets acceptable standards, it’s fair to saythat it’s no longer the neglected member of the family.

Seeing the wood for the trees: offsets and forests

Green horizons: forestoffsets are controversial,

but could be crucial toconservation.


Pho

to © Nikad

a / iStock

45331_GF:Layout 1 30/10/10 15:10 Page 14

AdditionalityIf a project funded by offset money would havehappened anyway, without that finance, then it can’tcredibly claim to offset carbon. So, for example, ifChina were to insist that all new power generationprojects in a particular district must be renewable, thenany renewable energy offset projects yet to beundertaken there would fail the additionality test.Safeguard Thorough checks carried out as part of averification process, ensure that there were no fundsalready in place to enable such a project, or that itwasn’t simply required by law. Additionality remains acomplex issue. “It is part of the risk of our business,”explains Edward Hanrahan. “It’s one reason why wespecialise in real development projects in the leastdeveloped countries, especially in Africa,” as in suchregions, it is far less likely that the projects would havegone ahead without carbon financing.

LeakageIf implementation of a project causes higher emissionselsewhere, these are referred to as leakage. It’s aparticular danger when conserving an area of forest

which may already be under pressure, since thatcould simply result in the forest destruction happeningnearby – for example, by people gathering firewood. Itcan also be a risk where investment in renewablesmight lead to polluting power (for example, dieselgenerators) simply being shifted elsewhere.Safeguard Ensure that there is adequate protectionfor any neighbouring forest; or if the project involvestree planting, make sure that this doesn’t displaceagricultural land. Establish careful baselines for allrelevant activity in the region of the project concerned.

Permanence

Usually referring to forest projects. If you buy creditsnow which assume the trees are still going to be there,soaking up carbon, in 30 years time, you’re risking allthe accumulated CO2 being released should the forestbe inadvertently destroyed or felled.Safeguard As well as trying to make sure there islong term land tenure, to minimise the threat of nastysurprises, responsible providers sometimes use avirtual ‘buffer zone’: holding back a proportion ofcredits in case of unforeseen circumstances such as these.

Elephant traps (and how to avoid them)

Three key tests for any credible offset scheme

…But would they havebeen there anyway?


Pho

to © sharply don

e / iStock

Pho

to © Nikad

a / iStock

45331_GF:Layout 1 30/10/10 15:10 Page 15

Glowing prospects

Rajendra Chitragi is a fruit merchant in thecoastal town of Kumta, in the southernIndian state of Karnataka. With noconnection to the grid, he used to rely onkerosene lanterns to keep his shop openthrough the evening. But the dim light,smoke and risk of fire weren’t much of adraw for customers, and he got fed up with

the ongoing fuel and maintenance costs. Then he heard about Orb Solar, a

Bangalore-based company that aims to makesolar energy affordable and accessible, bycombining installation and post-sale supportwith help securing low-interest loans.Compared with kerosene, photovoltaics offer acleaner, safer and more reliable source of light.

And the electricity generated can be usedto power other appliances, too, with long-term

cost savings. Orb Solar calculates that – byexchanging a 2.5kwh diesel generator for a PVarray with a capacity of 1KW – a company cansave 470,000 rupees (US$10,000) over tenyears.

Today, the panels on Chitragi’s shop roofpower a number of low-energy 11W lampsand an 18W electric fan. And he claims themove has already boosted his business. “Solarlights attract people at night time,” he says,“especially during power cuts.”

It’s just one example of how a reliablesource of light and heat can mark thebeginning of greater transformation across acommunity. It can give local entrepreneurs thechance to expand their businesses, resulting inan influx of new jobs and skills. Or it can helpto improve public services. Take the GandhiHospital in Udupi. It recently invested in twosolar thermal systems, providing a 24-hoursupply of hot water for the first time. “Now wecan offer our patients a better service at alower cost”, says Dr Harishchandra, theManaging Director.

As India’s largely coal-powered gridstruggles to meet demand for electricity,there’s growing enthusiasm for alternativesources. The success of Orb Solar istestimony to this, with forty branches inKarnataka alone, and further franchises acrossIndia.

Offsets in actionFrom Cambodian kitchens to Argentinian sugarmills, offset projects are cutting emissions andspurring development.


Pho

to © Adeel H

alim

45331_GF:Layout 1 30/10/10 15:10 Page 16

Spinning tales

The Nahar Spinning Mill started out in 1980 inLudhiana – the industrial hub of Punjab whichsome affectionately dub the “Manchester ofIndia”. Back then it was a small affair, with just800 spindles producing worsted yarn andhosiery. Today, the 335,000 spindles of theNahar Group supply t-shirts and othergarments to major international high streetbrands, such as GAP and Quicksilver.

Spinning isn’t the only industry in Punjab.The mills sit among the northern plains wherebasmati rice, famed across the world for itsfine aroma, is cultivated. Now, withinternational markets creating opportunities foreconomic growth, the demand for a clean andreliable source of energy is linking the twoancient industries.

The abundance of husk waste produced bythe rice milling process is being used by thespinning mill to meet its energy requirements.Previously, the Nahar Mill’s operations reliedheavily on a sporadic and unreliable supply ofenergy from the grid (mostly from coal power)and on fuel oil. But a new 5MW rice husk-firedboiler produces steam to generate electricity,meeting all the mill’s demand. Unlike fossil fuelcombustion, the carbon released in this processdoesn’t add to the total atmospheric content,as an equivalent amount will be taken up again.

The new boiler is expected to avoid22,267 tonnes of CO2 emissions per year. It’s aflagship project that, with further support fromcarbon finance schemes, could be replicatedin mills across the region.

And carbon savings aren’t the only positiveoutcome. Local farmers profit from the sale of

waste biomass, even as the mill makessavings by generating electricity on-site – asopposed to forking out more for oil as the pricesoars. And Nahar Mill is putting the savingstowards a more resilient local community, byfunding new medical services, materials forschools and flood defences.

Offsets in actionKing charcoal

Lavishing carbon finance on simple improvedcook stoves may seem something of anextravagance – especially if they only save 0.4tonnes a year each. But with over one millionsold in Cambodia alone in the last five years,that’s getting on for half a million tonnes.Which is scale, by any reckoning.

The vast majority of Cambodiansdepend on charcoal for cooking – not greatnews in a nation so badly hit by forest loss. ButGERES, a French NGO with extensiveexperience in the region, has worked with localdesigners to come up with a new model ofstove which uses far less fuel – and emits farless smoke… The result? Less pressure on thecountry’s forests, and less respiratory diseasefor its households. Retailing at just $5 or so,the locally made stove has proved highly

popular with residents in Phnom Penh, thecapital.

In a project validated by theVoluntary Carbon Standard, ClimateCare hassold over 400,000 tonnes worth of emissionsreductions made possible by the new stove.

Most families in towns and citiesacross Ghana, too, cook their meals oncharcoal, using a metal grate or shallow‘coal-pot’. Much of the heat escapes, whichmeans more fuel is needed. This has seriousconsequences in a country with one of thehighest rates of deforestation in Africa.

The Ghana Stoves project isintroducing the Gyapa, an insulated andefficient cook stove, to families in Ghana. Itcooks food more quickly, requires less fuel,and gives off less smoke – saving time, moneyand health. And, thanks to carbon finance, itcan be sold at an affordable price.


Pho

to © Adeel H

alim

Pho

to © Adeel H

alim

45331_GF:Layout 1 30/10/10 15:10 Page 17

White heat

In the Russian town of Onega by the WhiteSea, an old coal-fired power station has beenreplaced with an efficient wood-fired biomassplant that will provide warm water and heatingfor 12,000 residents. With temperaturesregularly falling below -35oC in winter, finding areliable way to warm up is no optional extra.

The coal-fired boiler had been attached toa hydrolysis plant, but this went bust a fewyears ago, leaving the administration to searchfor alternatives. What they found was a clean,renewable and reliable source of fuel, availablein the form of waste biomass from the Onegasawmill. It cost €7.5 million to build a new plant– but the carbon emissions avoided byreplacing coal with waste biomass havealready generated €5 million through offsetschemes.

And there are wider benefits for thecommunity. Employees at the plant no longerhave to put up with the dust, noise and fumesof the coal combustion process, and localfarmers are using the ash (a by-product) asfertiliser.

Carbon and cane

The sweetness of sugarcane is in the juice.Less sweet is bagasse – the fibrous residue leftbehind when the stalks are crushed. But itcontains a significant amount of energy, whichcan be harnessed to drive the sugarmanufacturing process.

Sugar mills have been using wastebiomass in this way for hundreds of years. TakeLa Providencia, a mill in the province ofTucumán, Argentina, where 60% of thecountry’s sugar is produced. It was built in1882, when new trading opportunities broughtby the railway sparked a golden age for theindustry, and is today the country’s third mostimportant mill, producing 13,000 tonnes a year.

Its manufacturing process has alwaysrelied on a mixture of bagasse, natural gas andfuel oil to generate steam. But an inefficientbiomass boiler meant that not all the bagassewas used, and that meant a higher proportionof fossil fuels in the mix.

In 2005, a new high pressure biomassboiler was installed at the mill, funded througha ClimateCare carbon finance scheme. It has

significantly increased the amount of wastebagasse that can be used in the sugarproduction process, reducing dependence onfossil fuels and avoiding an estimated 50,000tonnes of CO2 emissions per year.

It’s part of a wider initiative by parentcompany Arcor Group to increase theefficiency and reduce the environmental impactof sugar production. It’s replacing traditionalburning methods with mechanisation, whicheliminates the need to wash the cane beforeprocessing – cutting down on bothatmospheric pollution and water use.By-products of the production process arealso being put to good use, with cane mudcachaza collected to replenish depleted soiland repair eroded land, molasses sold to yeastmanufacturers, and excess bagasse sent on topaper mills.

Private investment in such measures islimited, with much of the funding forinfrastructure tied to petrochemical companies.But with further funding from carbon financeschemes, projects such as this could bereplicated in all 19 sugar mills across Argentinaand elsewhere.


Pho

to © Ecosecurities

Pho

to © Justin Locke/National G

eograp

hic Society/Corbi

Pho

to © Vladimirovic / iStock

45331_GF:Layout 1 30/10/10 15:11 Page 18

Fixing a drink

Want to offset your cuppa? Even with the bestof intentions, tracing the footprint of every beanand tea leaf is no piece of cake. But last yearCafédirect made a start, calculating the carbonemissions of its entire supply chain – includingover 40 producers, in 14 different countries.Now, as part of a three-year strategy to shrinkthe print, it’s offsetting 5,000 tonnes of CO2 oversix years, through the CEPICAFE reforestationproject, which is undergoing validation by theCarbon Fix forestry offset standard.It’s a collaboration involving nine caserios

(villages) in the Sierra Piura, northern Peru, anda number of local and international NGOs.Together, they are developing a long-termforest management programme to enable thesustainable extraction of precious resources,including timber, firewood and shade-growncoffee. Reforestation will address some chronicproblems in the area, such as soil depletionand erosion. In addition, 10% of the incomefrom the carbon credit sales will fund climatechange adaptation strategies with coffeefarmers.


Warm winds

The district of Bahce nestles in the Nurmountain range on southern Turkey’sMediterranean coast. Agriculture is a big partof the economy, employing around half theworkforce, but a combination of widespreadsoil erosion on the hillsides and poorinfrastructure keeps the region’s productivity incheck. Neighbouring trade centres Adana andOsmaniye attract much of the local industry,leaving Bahce struggling with low employmentand literacy rates.It’s hardly surprising, then, that proposals

to build Turkey’s largest wind farm in the area

met with enthusiasm from the residents. Theproject offered local people immediate jobs inthe construction phase, as well as long-termopportunities in operation and maintenance,and the chance to skill up in a new sector. Italso promised new roads and a local, reliablesource of electricity, in a region where theneglect of basic infrastructure had longhindered growth.The contrast to the knee-jerk opposition

which any wind farm proposal triggers inBritain could not be greater. Early in theplanning process, a community engagementproject found that the heads of the two villagesnearest to the proposed site had never heard

of renewable energy – although one had seenwind turbines on TV. Now they shareGokcedag Mountain with the 54 turbines ofthe Zorlu Wind Farm. The farm is connected tothe national grid via a 9km transmission line,and contributes around 512GWh of electricitya year. It’s expected to save an average of288,262 tonnes of CO2 equivalent annually, byreducing the pressure on coal-fired plants.Before Zorlu, large-scale hydro was the

only significant source of renewable energy inTurkey. But rapid growth in demand for poweris drawing new investment in clean technology,and – with high wind speeds year-in, year-out– this may not be the largest farm for long.

Pho

to©

Eco

secu

rities

Pho

to©

Caféd

irect

Plc

45331_GF:Layout 1 2/11/10 13:57 Page 19

Offsets: the businessexperience

Last resort – or most bangs per buck?Everyone agrees that offsets are only one tool available inthe carbon cutting kit.

The question is: at what point is that tool wielded?Most argue that it should only be brought into actionwhen other options have been exhausted.

For Iain Watt, climate expert at Forum for the Future,the guiding mantra is “Avoid – Reduce – Replace. Avoidcreating emissions in the first place, reduce them throughenergy efficiency, and replace high-carbon sources ofenergy with low- or zero-carbon ones. Offsetting may playan important part but it should not be the priority of yourcarbon management strategy.”

Others stress that, once you’ve plucked the‘low-hanging fruit’ in terms of emissions reductions athome, it can be perverse to spend large amounts onratcheting them down just a little further, when the samemoney could achieve vastly greater reductions elsewherein the world – and deliver all sorts of social benefits too.

Edward Hanrahan cites one client (he won’t namenames) who was so fixated on the ‘reduce first, thenoffset’ hierarchy, that they spent a cool £80,000 onhighly sophisticated lighting controls to cut a final 100tonnes of CO2: an achievement that would have cost just£75 via offsets. “If they’d spent their original budget onoffsets, they would be a substantial net contributor to

emissions reduction”. Some companies, he suggests, have taken irrational

decisions in an effort to appease ‘offset sceptics’, whenthey might have achieved more, both for the climate andtheir bottom line, by taking a more cool-headed approachto calculating the maximum potential carbon which couldbe saved per dollar invested – or, in other words, how toachieve the biggest bang for their available bucks.

At the Co-op, Paul Monaghan is keen to stress thatoffsets are only part of the picture. “We are also doing ahost of other things. Virtually all of our three thousandproperties support a green electricity tariff. As part of thiswe've entered into long-term purchase agreements thatguarantee new power generation is created, and havebegun to erect wind farms on our farmland. We've alsopioneered the use of micro-generation, and house theUK's largest applications of solar PV and micro wind.”But he adds: “To say you should only offset once all otheroptions have been exhausted is daft: it’s like saying wasterecycling activities should be discouraged as they incitepeople to duck the higher imperative of wasteminimisation.”

Zelda Bentham of Aviva agrees. “Our view is thatgenuine reductions in carbon emissions to theatmosphere are beneficial – whether they come from acompany’s own operations, a compliance trading schemeor from voluntary (offset) projects that help economicprogress in a more sustainable way.”

Without offsets,“business is missing out on an opportunity tocontribute to a significant reduction in global emissions” saysSally Uren, Deputy Director of Forum for the Future. We profilethe experience of three leading companies, all of whom offset via ClimateCare, and look at some of the key issues affecting offsetting decisions in the future.


45331_GF:Layout 1 30/10/10 15:11 Page 20

Aviva

Last year, UK-based insurance company Avivacalculated its global CO2 emissions at 104,351 tonnes– and paid to offset it in its entirety. It added an extra5% to drive carbon reduction above and beyond itsown footprint. The bill came in at £620,000.

Over 100,000 tonnes may seem a lot – but it’sdown 20,000 against the 2006 baseline, thanks to arange of initiatives to reduce its impact. They includebehaviour change (cutting out unnecessary travelthrough the use of teleconferencing, for example),introducing more efficient ICT systems, and buyingelectricity from renewable energy companies.

Aviva only buys offsets certified through the rigorousGold Standard or Voluntary Carbon Standard schemes(see p10). Since 2006, approximately half of its spendhas gone towards wind energy projects, avoiding over220,000 tonnes of carbon emissions, with a further100,000 tonnes offset through biomass andhydropower schemes.

The company favours projects in those countrieswhere it has a market presence – which include thegiants of East Asia (China, India, South Korea), andsome ‘developing’ nations (from Romania to Sri Lanka),

Google, which has made a big splash with recentannouncements on investing in renewables (see GF77,p6), also sees offsets as part of its carbon reductionportfolio — despite the fact that it took until May of thisyear for the company to finish buying the credits for theenergy it used back in 2007. Head of Green Energy, BillWeihl, says this is because tracing carbon offsets backto particular projects and verifying that they actuallyreduce emissions — and by how much — is a trickybusiness.

At Forum for the Future, Deputy Director Sally Urenbelieves that “it’s important to look at carbon reductionper dollar invested. You can invest millions in a newmanufacturing process and take 5% off your overallfootprint – or you can invest the same sum in projectsand deliver millions of tonnes of carbon savings.” But shesounds a cautionary note. “The priority is to reduce your

baseline impacts as quickly and effectively as you can.” It’s one echoed by Jonathon Porritt. “Offsets have to

be a major factor,” he acknowledges, but they shouldn’tbe purchased purely because they deliver the biggestreductions per pound or dollar. The basic ‘reduce first’hierarchy is sound, he says, because “offsets alone willnever get us to where we want to be. They must beseen as part of an integrated energy managementstrategy; and the main driver of that (where mostcompanies are concerned) is energy cost and securityof supply.” If you neglect opportunities to cut emissions,then any amount of offset spending risks beingdismissed as “a gesture”, he warns.

History, GeographyIt’s all very well to cut emissions now – but what

as well as some major European countries (France,Italy, Spain).

Supporting the development of clean energy is agood way to improve the prospects of communitiesvulnerable to climate change. But it’s not the only way,Aviva believes. Funds raised through offset schemesalso support projects aimed specifically at the ruralpoor: hence Aviva’s purchase of credits generated byIDEI’s treadle pump scheme (see p4).

It has also purchased a total of 22,000 tonnesfrom CO2Balance, a Kenyan carbon managementcompany that distributes super-efficient cookstoveswhich require 50% less wood than a traditional openfire. Kenya is not a country in which Aviva operates,but one it considers to “suffer more from the effects ofclimate change, both in terms of speed and impact”than most. The project not only reduces the number oftrees felled for fuel, but has created over 200 new jobsin production. It also supports local industry bysourcing all materials used to build the stoves (bricks,cement and cast iron) in Kenya.

Such local, human-scale projects, says ZeldaBentham, Senior Environment Manager at Aviva, “havea resonance with our employees”.


Pho

to © Cam

eron

Davidson/Corbis

45331_GF:Layout 1 30/10/10 15:11 Page 21

about those you’ve created in the past? They’re still outthere in the atmosphere, warming the world. Offsets arearguably the only option in the carbon managementtoolkit that can make amends. Imagine you’ve finallyachieved a completely zero-carbon lifestyle – but thatyour cumulative carbon emissions in the past total, say,250 tonnes. You can only credibly claim to be carbonneutral if you take action now to offset that total.

“Because emissions are cumulative and historic”,argues ClimateCare’s Edward Hanrahan, “it’s not enoughto say ‘Reduce: then Offset’. It should first be ‘Offset’ (totackle your past emissions); then ‘Reduce’ (your presentones as much as possible), then ‘Offset’ (the remainder).”

Your emission is my emissionComplacency is a dangerous thing. A year or so ago,

British politicians were quietly congratulating themselveson achieving impressive cuts in carbon emissions. Until,

that is, studies began to emerge showing that asignificant chunk of carbon pumped out of factories inChina and elsewhere was the result of meeting demandfor consumer goods in the UK. It became all too clearthat if emissions incurred in the production of imports areincluded in the national total, the picture is very different.It’s hardly surprising. Much of what we consume is nowproduced abroad, and this applies particularly tocarbon-intensive manufactured goods. So countries likeChina effectively emit on our behalf. This realisation hasimplications not just for Government, but for anycompany with an international supply chain. Globalisationis making a nonsense of national targets.

Businesses such as Marks & Spencer are starting torealise this, says Iain Watt. “Being neutral in the storesand offices is one thing, (but) now they’re looking at howmuch carbon it takes to get a product on the shelves”,which includes assessing emissions from production and

The Co-operative Group

The Co-op takes “a scientific approach, rather than aphilosophical one”, says Paul Monaghan. Instead ofbuying offsets for image reasons, he says, it does so tobring it closer to achieving its goal of carbon neutrality.

Since 2000, the Co-op has offset over 400,000tonnes of CO2. It raises funds for the scheme bypinpointing a few carbon-intensive things that itscustomers commonly do, such as driving a car, buyinga home, or taking a flight.

As part of its mortgage scheme, the Co-operativeBank anticipates the carbon emissions of a householdfor the lifetime of the mortgage, and offsets one fifth ofthat total. The car insurance scheme works in a similarway, offsetting 20% of exhaust carbon.

The Co-operative Travel offers customers theopportunity to offset the carbon emitted throughaviation fuel. This is part of a wider initiative to reducethe footprint of the Group’s travel outlets by using

electricity from renewable sources, as well as offsettingcore management and funding research intosustainable tourism.

Then, in 2007, the Co-operative InsuranceServices announced that it would “go beyond carbonneutral”, offsetting 110% of all operational emissions,plus the impact of any unavoidable business travel.

The Co-op buys its offset credits throughClimateCare and, like Aviva, supports the treadlepump scheme. It funded the installation of over 61,000treadle pumps in 2008, expected to result in 27,500tonnes of avoided CO2 emissions over a five-yearperiod. And it also backs the Cambodian cookstovesinitiative (see p18).

It only buys voluntary offsets from developingcountries, says Monaghan, because the relative socialbenefits are normally much greater – and there is morecertainty that the projects would not have gone aheadanyway (in other words, not fall at the ‘additionality’hurdle).

Growing opportunities: a reforestation project

in Uganda


Pho

to © Tom

Morton

45331_GF:Layout 1 30/10/10 15:11 Page 22

transportation. And then there are those incurred whenthe consumer puts it in her car and drives home. Such‘secondary’ emissions are thought to be about ten timesthose incurred ‘in house’: so all the effort made toimprove office and store efficiency and buy green energyis dwarfed by comparison.

Some companies are taking this approach a stepfurther, says Watt, extending it to all operations uponwhich the company depends, internal and external: “It’s abroader, more holistic view of the issue, that takes intoaccount the company’s exposure to potential cost riskassociated with carbon emissions”, he says.

For Paul Monaghan, this all strengthens the case foroffsetting. “The thing about the climate is that it doesn'tgive a jot where the carbon originates. Whether it'savoided in the UK, or offset in India, a tonne of reductionis a tonne of reduction is a tonne of reduction.”

Future positive?Whatever offsets’ achievements to date, there’s almost

unlimited potential to achieve more. Their presentcontribution to curbing the vast amount of carbonemitted is just a drop in the ocean. In 2007-8, voluntaryoffsetting prevented around 25 million tonnes of carbondioxide from entering the atmosphere. During the sameperiod, the US alone released around 6 billion tonnes…

Offset totals may be small now, but many observersbelieve we have barely scratched the surface. As carboncosts rise, driven by the UK government’s long termemission reduction goals, says Jonathon Porritt, moreand more companies will be keen to adopt policies thatmove them towards carbon neutrality. “At the momentthe market does not reflect the real price for carbon”, hesays. “The carbon price is so low it is not important tomost companies”, but as the true costs are reflected andcarbon prices rise, carbon offset volumes will inevitably,continue to grow.

“We simply are not going to hit our targets (withoutsecuring cuts elsewhere)”, he argues. And that means“offsets must be a major factor” in tackling emissions.

Jaguar Land Rover

Jaguar Land Rover offsets 100% of the CO2 emissionsproduced through its manufacturing assemblyprocesses, and via a scheme launched in 2007, offersLand Rover customers the opportunity to offset theemissions of their first 45,000 miles – an optionintegrated at point of sale. Jaguar customers can alsochoose to offset emissions via the Jaguar website.

“We’re in a position to invest in projects that wouldnot otherwise get off the ground”, says Fran Leedham,Head of Environment and Sustainability, recognising thesheer weight of investment potential yielded by thegroup. “But it’s not a standalone thing”, she asserts.“It’s part of an integrated approach to carbonreduction.”

Jaguar Land Rover is investing £800 million inresearch and development to improve the efficiency ofits cars and manufacturing processes. But, with anaverage lead time of five years from the design of a carto its production, carbon offsetting enables the group

to make an immediate difference. Jaguar Land Roverexpects to offset around 3 million tonnesof carbon dioxide by 2012.

“The scale of the offset scheme is very significant”,says Chief Executive at Forum for the Future. “It’s not apermanent part of their carbon strategy”, she clarifies.“It’s a way for them to do their bit while the technologycatches up.”

Jaguar Land Rover’s offset scheme supportsemissions reductions projects in 14 different countriesspanning Africa, Asia, Eastern Europe and SouthAmerica.

The portfolio includes the development ofrenewable energy sources, such as a wind farm inChina and a series of small scale hydro plants inTajikistan. These two initiatives combined are expectedto avoid 150,000 tonnes of carbon emissions a year.The offset scheme also supports energy efficiencyinitiatives, such as low carbon lighting and cookstoves,as well as the promotion of new technologies that offerto reduce emissions in communities and industry alike.


Pho

to©

Kyl

ieB

ism

an

45784_GF:Layout 1 14/11/10 20:32 Page 23

Offset Positive is a Green Futures Special Edition,produced in association with ClimateCare.

ClimateCare: www.jpmorganclimatecare.com

Editor: Martin Wright

Contributors: Jeremy Bowden, Anna Simpson,Thalia Vounaki, Martin Wright

Production: Katie Shaw

Design: Declan Buckley

Printed on Sylvan Silk paper, made from 100%de-inked waste and FSC certified sources, by Beaconpress, using their pureprint® environmental print technology and vegetablebased inks.

Published November 2010 © Green FuturesRegistered charity no. 1040519 Company no. 2959712 VAT reg. no. 677 7475 70

Green Futures is the leading internationalmagazine on environmental solutions and sustainable futures. Founded by JonathonPorritt, it is published by Forum for theFuture, which works with leaders frombusiness and the public sector to create agreen, fair and prosperous world.

www.greenfutures.org.uk www.forumforthefuture.org

Subscribe to Green FuturesKeep up to date with the latest news anddebate on how to make the shift tosustainability in print and online, bysubscribing to Green Futures:www.greenfutures.org.uk/subscriptions or contact our subscriptions team direct: Tel: +44 1223 564334Order Offset Positive onlineTo order more copies of Offset Positive, or todownload a PDF version, visit: www.greenfutures.org.uk/offsetpositive

We’d love your feedback on Offset Positive.Please email our editorial team at:[email protected]

Pho

to © Oneclearvision/iStock

45331_GF:Layout 1 30/10/10 15:12 Page 24

Documents

45331 GF:Layout 1 2/11/10 13:52 Page 1 a greenfutures ... · 11.02.2010 · Offset Positive Buying change: the case for carbon offsets a greenfutures special publication 45331_GF:Layout