Carbon Offsetting: Is BizAv Right to be Cautious?

Some carbon offsetting programs, particularly those which have not been verified by any of the major international agencies, have been found to be poor and even counter-productive in terms of reducing atmospheric carbon.

This has led to various carbon-offsetting programs being accused of merely providing vehicles which allow companies to salve their consciences by claiming they are environmentally aware, when in reality they continue to push more carbon-based and other GHGs into the atmosphere every day.

The widely held reputation of carbon offsetting as being largely an unregulated, little-monitored vehicle for greenwashing took a further heavy blow in January when The Guardian newspaper published a potentially damaging news story citing three separate scientific studies which had concluded that Washington, D.C.-based Verra, the largest international carbon offset verification agency, was substantially miscalculating and misstating the carbon- reduction amounts from the largest single project it monitored.

Another allegation made by the article was that, as a result of being exposed to continuing deforestation, some Verra-verified projects were actually adding to the amount of carbon entering the atmosphere, not reducing it.

While Verra strongly refuted the article’s allegations and accused each of the three scientific studies of using faulty methodology, the matter remains unresolved for now – at least until all the scientific papers generated by the three studies are published, peer-reviewed and are subject to any formally written scientific refutations which might follow.

More generally, however, Maureen Gautier, Sustainability and Future Workforce Manager for the European Business Aviation Association (EBAA), says that because of the persistent reputation for greenwashing that some areas of the carbon offsetting market have attracted, some of the association’s member operators are shying away from using the technique to enhance their sustainability performances.

“We have seen [that] more and more [members] have actually removed offsetting programs because of their reputation and believe SAF is the way forward,” Gautier says.

“Some operators are already purchasing 100% SAF,” from which they generate carbon credits and investment funds by putting the purchased SAF into a book-and-claim system, says Gautier.

Today many of EBAA’s members are using 50% or 30% SAF for their flight operations and invest the rest of the carbon-reduction funds they have generated in offsetting projects or in SAF-production mechanisms, she says.

Some Resistance to Carbon Offsetting Remains

A subset of EBAA members remains reluctant to participate in carbon offsetting programs because they reckon “offsetting projects don’t apply to aviation”, says Gautier. These members point out that most offsetting programs aren’t developing workforces in the European region or in their home countries and believe such programs have no impact on the aviation industry.

EBAA points out that “climate change is worldwide, and we won’t be able to reach net zero without using a combined set of measures,” as highlighted by the Waypoint 2050 report.

“Offsetting is vital in order to reach net zero, because we’re always emitting,” Gautier says. “We don’t know if offsetting will be around till 2050 because it’s a temporary measure until hydrogen or electric propulsion takes over, but we’re certainly pushing using it for the next ten to 15 years.”

That said, EBAA cautions that “offsetting should be the last [of the sustainability-enhancing] actions” which its member operators should employ when reducing their carbon emissions, because it offers the lowest real carbon- reduction benefit. Members “should reduce their emissions otherwise first – it should not be business as usual”, she says.

EBAA advises its members that, when considering participating in any carbon-offsetting program, it is important they research the program fully to satisfy themselves that the GHGs the program is claiming to reduce “are being kept out of the air indefinitely”.

It is also important for members to be sure there is no “leakage” within or between individual offsetting projects – i.e., that GHG reductions in one project don’t lead to GHG emissions increasing in another, or that reforestation in one project isn’t leading to deforestation in another, she says. “We also need cooperation between different projects.” 

Importantly, when member Business Aircraft operators and owners approach EBAA seeking information on carbon offsetting – usually starting with general questions – EBAA advises them “it is very important, first, to know exactly how much carbon you are emitting, as a first step,” says Gautier.

It is also important for members to understand how any offsetting program provider or broker they are using to provide them with carbon credits is calculating those members’ emissions, and the effect the calculations and the methodology have on their overall carbon emissions performance.

EBAA also reminds members inquiring about carbon offsetting that they emit carbon-based GHGs from every aspect of their operations, not just from their flight operations, according to Gautier.

They generate emissions from their every use of electricity which isn’t generated from renewable sources such as solar power, wave power or wind power – and from their every use of natural gas.

Those emissions must ultimately be reduced to zero, too, in order for any business aircraft owner or operator to achieve net zero in terms of its carbon emissions.