UKH

Evening folks, the wife and I have been considering how to make less impact upon the earth and feel the next step for us as we progress is to look at carbon offsetting/carbon capture or the like. I assume there are some like minded people on UKC who feel that it's worthwhile (eg not a hoax/not so desperate we might as well fiddle as the Earth burns) and who have considered this. If so where did you start? What companies/charities did you use and why? Which calculator did you use to calculate you carbon output?

Thanks for the suggestions/input.

Hi NorthernGoat,

I've used the GoldStandard .org platform for personal carbon offsetting. Each project is verified independently, and aims to achieve multiple sustainable development goals as well as just carbon benefits. They are usually for international projects, so potentially more carbon 'bang for your buck'. 

The WWF carbon footprint calculator is a pretty easy to use place to start, but there are loads out there with varying levels of detail. Off the top of my head, I think the UK average carbon footprint is something like 10-12 tons (varies by source).

I'll throw in the standard disclaimer that offsetting isn't everyone's cup of tea, and at work we always suggest it's the last step after reducing emissions wherever possible. 

Hope that helps, 

Cloughy

Carbon off setting is just those that can afford to pollute easing their mind by paying. 

I'm jetting off on a weekend break abroad but that's okay because I paid for a couple of trees to be planted. 

I carbon offset when I'm out running sometimes. Often the urge to poo, will become critical and I do it in a hole in the ground. When you consider the carbon used in water treatment plants (if they dont just divert it to the river), it's a real win for the environment. But you try telling that to a golfer.

As has been alluded to here, carbon offsetting is beset with issues, but let's skip over those as it's not what you actually asked for. I use mossy.earth, who appear to a) actual rewild areas that wouldn't be otherwise rewilded, b) aren't just planting trees for paper and wood plantations and c) seem pretty accountable. I also have a referral code (UYENGEZZK)

Or to mitigate the impossible-to-avoid pollution that comes with living in a western society. Sometimes the bus is diesel. Sometime the train is diesel. The food I buy is rarely net zero carbon. But I do agree, your argument is far to often a way people use it.

This is very true and makes me doubt offsetting schemes. Where money is available, there will be exploitation.

Send money, feel better.

Thanks to those with actual suggestions. Going through a rough carbon calculator puts my average at half of the UK average so I'm fairly sure it's not so I can short haul flight to the Alps and just assuage my guilt, it's out of a desire to do better. 

I'm aware of the difficulties/problems with carbon offsetting, but also aware of the difficulties/problems of not trying to limit my impact. 

That would be you I saw squatting at the 13th the other day.  Please can I have my ball back, and sorry for any discomfort caused by my hole in one. 

We all (off grid monks excluded) have to live with some level of personal hypocrisy/conflict (I'm not better than anyone in this regard). 

I've given to Trees for Life and The Rainforest Trust for a few years (reminds me, must restart my membership after sabbatical hiatus) and I do this with a hope that it has on overall positive impact but I try to continue to reduce my own footprint where I can. It's not easy, and flying to drier, warmer places is always tempting, and it's tempting to assuage my guilt by saying "but I work in renewables". My footprint also isn't great, around 6T/year by my last calculation. We're trying to work down toward 4T, and ultimately 2T.

I'm saying this more in support of what you're doing than criticism, and to say to everyone else - offset away! but don't use it as an excuse for not doing what you can to reduce your own impact. I don't use "offsetting" companies, I prefer to fund entities that have multiple good impacts: plant native tress in the UK: Great for the environment, great for nature, great for humans.

Rainforest trust - well....what more needs said!

Whereas, my gut feeling* for some "offsetting" companies is that they'll aim for the lowest cost CO2 reduction, AKA plantation forestry.

*this is not based on research, just a slightly cynical feeling from snippets I've heard, so happy to be corrected on any "good" offsetting companies.

Two other great option areas are the charities dealing with peatland and salt marsh degradation: not only are the healthy areas bigger carbon sinks than trees, the degradation process releases stored carbon.

Supporting charities that are actively fighting deforestation seems way more sensible to me in moral and impact terms than just using tree planting carbon offset companies.

Good luck have any effect at all. 

https://traveltomorrow.com/10-celebrities-with-the-highest-private-jet-carb...

E

So many of the carbon offset schemes either turn out to be plain scams, or well intended but completely miss their target that sinking money into these schemes may not achieve the benefit you believe you are funding.

Even if a scheme is well received well intended it's no guarantee.

As for carbon capture, whilst it may have a role one day, at the moment, the energy they use would be better spent on our current demands.

What is a guarantee, is fixing things. If not doing so already, when you need a new item, buy second hand and repair. Pretty much all my furniture is second hand. Not only does this have negligible impact on CO2 emissions, it saves you money and I can get better quality stuff than i could afford new.

What could be worthwhile is investing in renewable start-ups. Not a carbon offset as such, but some of these companies will be successful and they will be critical. And if you bet on the winning horse, not only will you make a return, but the positive impact will far outweigh any other scheme.

Bet on a loosing start-up, well at least that option was explored as much as your additional finances allowed.

So I think one think I didn't understand from my original post is that carbon offset can be used to describe a multiplicity of things some more positive and others more negative. I'd been looking at charities which are reforesting (not just planting of monocultural trees), and working to providing small scale hydropower and energy efficient stoves. Through reputable looking groups - goldstandard, UNCCC etc.

Alisdair/Offwidth - thanks for the suggestions, I'll look into those as other options. We already give to local wildlife/tree based charities, but peatland/salt marsh sounds like an interesting option. 

Montyjohn - yep, our furniture is recycled, marketplace is the only thing I use facebook for. Clothes are charity shopped or Vinted (although I fear this encourages people to buy in sales then try to sell on). I'd not considered the renewable start-up and wouldn't know where to begin with that! My wife works in testing and validating (mainly) offshore renewables, so it might be a fun bit of side research for her.

Enty - thanks for the good wishes. 

https://thefutureforestcompany.com/ are UK based and restoring old plantation forest with naive species. I think they have a few other arms as well in other bits.

I use Wren.co (not the kitchen company) as a platform, but set it up a few years ago and haven't updated since. I over-estimated a bit then to buffer a bit.

Of course reduction is the main thing, but I figure paying a bit a moth to plant trees properly or provide better stoves to those less fortunate than me is A Good Thing I can support as I have the means to do so.

Re planting trees for carbon offsetting. Small trees are often planted close together but surely as the woodland matures they will all end up spindly, or some will fail to compete and eventually just a few large trees survive, or some will be culled to the same effect. So cynically if say 20 offsetting trees are planted close together only one might end up carbon offsetting. Does this happen?

Some more info (with links to charity partners):

https://www.ceh.ac.uk/news-and-media/news/unlocking-billion-pound-investmen...

https://www.iucn-uk-peatlandprogramme.org/

I forgot to mention sea grass restoration before:

https://www.mcsuk.org/ocean-emergency/marine-protected-areas/recovery-proje...

https://www.wwf.org.uk/what-we-do/planting-hope-how-seagrass-can-tackle-cli...

Unfortunately I dont believe in it.

Its not that I dont think we need to make less impact but its that whenever you turn it into a market then someone will decide the letter of the law allows for profit and causes damage to whatever the spirit of the law was aimed at.

Matt Levine on bloomberg has some interesting takes on finance and he wrote this week.

"I used to write a lot about crypto...Climate investing isn’t really like that, but it’s a little like that. Sometimes, reading stories about green-investing stuff, I get the feeling that I am listening to dorm-room conversations about capitalism, people rediscovering finance from first principles. “Trees are good for the climate, what if we paid people not to cut them down?” “Great idea, I wonder if there will be unintended consequences.”

He is writing as a former member of the finance sector to those still involved/curious about it/likes to have an idea of what the general thinking in that area is (I am in the latter and I do recommend signing up to his daily(ish) columns via email) and I think it gives a good insight into what happens when you create a investment market.

Even free market believers should, hopefully, accept that an artificial market is problematic and when one is created an inevitable outcome is someone will game it.

Supporting charities might work but dont expect anything other than to break even at best and maybe lose money.

There are some complete charmers playing the carbon offset game nowadays again covered in Levine's articles where buying forests which were never planned for felling somehow counts as a win.

Or you could read Private Eye and see what Drax is up to.

Sorry if this is all really depressing but sadly the people do seem to be targeting this as the next profit opportunity.

Some rephrasing might have been needed here to avoid inappropriate language.

I think your negativity about restoration and protection charites is misplaced and for individual donations it obviously bypasses any carbon markets. The restoration and rainforest protect charties only do what they can afford, with volunteer help, and what they do manage often makes a big difference.

The area I know best is Moors For the Future's work on Kinder Scout, as supported by the BMC: erosion of peat was leaving a wasteland releasing huge carbon stores and damaging water quality in the rivers taking the run-off. The plateau has totally transformed and is now, area for area, a better carbon capture than woodland; and the environment and watercourses have benefited massively to boot. The positive narrative from this also helps encourage people to take climate change more seriously.

If people are careful about how they travel (especially when they fly), and charity offset (by donation or volunteering) as well, it's a very good individual contribution that is very easy to do.

In the end catastrophic climate change will only be averted by massive worldwide governments' cooperation and much less use of hydrocarbon fuels... a difficult job even if done with good intentions. Exposure of the twaddle pedalled at COP by OPEC is important. As part of that, your post calling out bogus carbon market issues is also important, but it must not distract from good things that can be done.

Carbon capture seems both expensive and impossible to provide a solution on it's own but even the hard boiled assessments recognise it will almost certainly be a small part of any solution.

No we don't, there is zero hypocrisy or conflict in my life. I do what I can / want to do and I don't worry about what I can't do or what I chose to do. It's only hypocritical if you call for others to do but don't do yourself. 

All good but I don't have any earthly clue why good works on Kinder allow one to fly about the world, for example, having salved one's conscience.

It's supported by the BMC and therefore must be good...

Unfortunately offsetting is only going to clear your conscience, but will have zero impact on net zero or 1.5 degrees etc.. it's inevitable and the most COP produced was 'working towards' various goals. 

Best you can do is look after your own interests, live where aspects of climate change won't threaten you so much, wind, rain, drought, food costs etc. Become a prepper. 

Trouble is in the UK that we're not allowed to buy the necessary weaponry to repel those who haven't prepped. A conundrum.

I'm just pointing out better ways of offsetting (or just helping out) . Anyone is free to a self declared climate saint, never using anything with a hydrocarbon base, setting a pure example to the majority of the flawed.

No, but grow your own food where you can, prepare for power cuts on stormy days, flood prevention etc.. measures which are beneficial anyway. 

If the UK offset its annual carbon emissions it would only cost about 2.5billion pounds a year - perhaps pushing the international budget back up by this amount, and committing it to carbon mitigation in the developing world would have some beneficial effects in the global push?

I totally agree, everyone do what they can. But I don't think offsetting has a place.

That's small beer isn't it for the scale of investment required?

'If' doing a lot of work, labour have already said they won't reverse any North Sea oil licences recently granted. Would that 2.5bn include offsetting all the emissions we've effectively offshored by doing very little uk based manufacturing? 

Even if we did, there's little to suggest any major nation would follow our lead at all. We aren't the big player we think we are. India, China etc.. are the future, the usa is just hanging in there for as long as it can economically. Fracking arguably bought it a little more time. 

Of course - but we should be pushing our overseas aid budget back up to 0.7% of GDP, and it makes total sense to use any headroom in the budget to target green initiatives. 
 

obviously sound point about items manufactured overseas.

Yes, but spent in the developing world likely to have bigger impacts than the same amount spent in the U.K. 

I think overseas aid is small fry when china effectively buys whole countries with its belt and bridges project. But we can but try. I think we're stuffed too many tory and ukip lies told to the vulnerable voters mean they don't grasp the value of overseas aid etc..

So glad you are already not taking short haul flights. Which is a first step long before you get to offsetting.

I can see we will have to respectfully disagree (again)...  at least you care.

Improved geopolitics in an increasingly complicted and dangerous looking near future or some unlikely tech 'deus ex machina' seem to be the only things that could save us from catastrophic impacts.

The vast majority of flights are taken in multiple annual amounts by a tiny minority of people, most of whom clearly don't give a shit. I see good quality offsets as part of getting people to think, helping boost mass political pressure from ordinary people; alongside helping important and often overdue environmental improvements and the small carbon budget positive is a bonus.

Urealistic and impractical environmental 'hairshirt' advice seems actually counterproductive to me in our currently weaponised politics of culture. In contrast, I think a large majority of the UK public would favour charities fighting deforestation and improving local ecologies, in turn increasing awareness and political support for climate  action.

Offset all you want...in the meantime Rishi Sunak and his pals will jetset around the planet, holidaying on their floating palaces, making fools of us all....

Surely overseas aid should benefit the population in areas that need aid.

Do green initiatives deliver in this respect?

Can do, solar energy sources, more efficient cooking appliances etc etc.

Thid is where political divisions are dangerous.

Claiming that it is "Rishi Sunak and his pals" pretends that we can do nothing.

In reality it is our friend's, neighbours and family, we all know someone who takes multiple flights every year.

I was recommended this organisation for offsets by a friend who has worked in similar projects:

https://cotap.org/

Even if you think the offsetting thing is an almost pointless drop in the ocean in itself, it can, at least, be thought of as a worthwhile charitable donation benefitting people in need.

Ah..so I should be offsetting on my neighbours' behalf?

https://www.oxfam.org/en/press-releases/richest-1-emit-much-planet-heating-...

Chances are you’re much closer to the threshold of the richest 1% in the world (if not over the threshold) than you are to the bottom 2/3, so your high horse looks a little rickety from here. It can be measured in different ways, but you’re talking about potentially as little as an income of ~£26k per person in a household. 

Edit for source: https://frompoverty.oxfam.org.uk/inequality-and-the-rise-of-the-global-1-gr...

The richest 1% will not just be Rishi's pals and I suspect that you would not need to look far outside that 1% to find an awful lot of the higher earning members of the UK population.

We can all blame it on China or those that we perceive as being wealthier than ourselves but that does not excuse our own actions

Technically those frequent fliers had 35,000 miles per year or more. Over 6 trips of the distance from LAX to LHR. That's a fairly big average.

I'm not sure what high horse you are referring to? Please don't judge me or my lifestyle when you know nothing about them.

My cynicism about carbon offset doesn't come from a desire to blame others or do nothing but the fact that an awful lot of offset schemes are neither effective or at worse damaging.

I don't personally believe that we have any way out of this self-inflicted mess than to massively reduce carbon emissions.

And whilst I accept that pretty much everyone living in the higher latitudes contributes disproportionately to carbon pollution I find it hypocritical to pretend buying offsets salves your conscience when flying unnecessarily, buying stuff you don't need or driving an oversized SUV with a Carbon Neutral sticker on the rear windscreen

I haven't passed any judgement on your lifestyle, just questioned your finger pointing.

Woodland carbon storage is about much more than just trees - a well developed forest floor needs all these small/dead trees which play a role in the microbiome and first floor ecology - which is the true representation of a healthy woodland. 

It's a complex picture but there is a lot of ground between that top 1% and the bottom two thirds.

I suspect that most of us are in that middle ground and are going to need to make some big sacrifices.

The notion that offsetting for those that can afford it is a viable option must surely be flawed if we take equality and fairness into account. Any actions that can be taken to increase carbon sequestration should be taken on behalf of all rather snapped up to salve the conscience of those of us that cab afford them.

can I suggest you separate these concerns - there is consumption that emits carbon and draws upon raw materials that pollute.  And there is environmental action that migitgates the damage done to ecosystems and the climate. 

obviously its great to contribute to mitigation, and there are charities and schemes to which you can , if you see fit contribute. How much mitigation you achieve is really very difficult to quantify but undoubtedly some good will result.

On the other hand there is consumption. No amount of mitigation will give you absolution for your consumption. Its like believing that confession gains forgiveness and acces to heaven. Does anyone really believe that?

Unfortunately we live in a world that works on fossil fuels so all we can really acheive is minimisation of the damage. So I advise, if you are financially secure, to pay as much as you can into mitigation and resilience charities. But don't use that as an absolution to any failure to minimise your consumption. For instance, you could take a bus to the alps. it would take a bit longer, be cheaper and emit far less carbon. 

Surely this is good offsetting (in planting terms)? Makes most efficient use of the land, creates timber which is about the best way of sequestering carbon we have at present, and reduces the demand for logging established forest and all the negative aspects of that. Yes, we all know plantations are ecologically rubbish, but as carbon offsetting they're great.

There you have the unpalatable problem for the ecologically minded, my buddy owns a forest here in Germany and it is a continous battle with the various groups about why and how it is managed. 

Most European woodland produces poor lumber products and the majority of these only keep the carbon locked in for under ten years anyway, it's cladding and pallets, nobody actually wants slow-growing broad-leaf timber in reality. The only market for beech in our area is for a large company who make kitchen worktops and we know how long they are kept.

In his audit the clear winner (for CO2) is plant and clear-fell conifers for biomass energy, an eco-system it might not be for the flora and flora but that is another matter.

Classic example of "set the wrong targets, get the wrong results".

Planet and nature should be the first consideration, human existence second. CO2 is predominantly a "human habitability" issue - the flora an fauna, while massively affected, will recover and find a new balance.

Aiming for "maximum C02 sequestration, at the lowest cost" achieves one thing at the expense of others. Aiming for "maximum biodiversity, maximum nature protection and, maybe, slightly lower C02 sequestration" gives many more benefits. I'm not saying that someone owning a forest should have to make these kind of decisions, it should be baked into the incentives and penalties that governments set.

If we really want the maximum CO2 impact for the minimum environmental negative impact (in fact, potentially massive positive impact) we should be going for seaweed farming and seagrass. 

Biomass burning is bonkers. It can only ever be small scale and ties up land that could be put to better use (do the fag packet calcs for how much land we need - or see the now slightly outdated David MacKay Sustainable Energy without the Hot Air. TLR - You'd need more than the total agricultural land area of the UK just growing "energy crops" to even make a small dent on the total energy demand. 

As the grid CO2 comes down with more wind, solar, nuclear etc. the argument for biomass gets weaker and weaker.

A classic example of replying to promote your agenda. The discussion between Toerag and myself was related to the benefits of plantation reforesting, not seaweed farming.

And are humankind, in sufficient numbers anyway, going to get on board with that?

Agenda? Yes, I have an agenda - encouraging people to think from different perspectives. 

I have no involvement or particular affinity with seaweed, or seagrass. I do, however, have an issue with environmentally deleterious monoculture coniferous crop forestry, and I have a huge issue with people thinking biomass burning is a possible way out of this mess. Do the maths, it doesn't work.

I didn't realise you and toerag were having a private conversation - maybe take it offline next time if you don't want people butting in? You may notice he was replying to me in the first place....

No, probably not. And they'll suffer for it.

To expand a bit on my previous comment - what I mean is that we should focus on planet and environment first, humankind second as the best way of securing a healthy, productive and balanced planet. Focussing this way round will still result in a humankind surviving (in fact, I'd argue it's only way we can get out of this shit). 

If we follow the Musks and Bezos' of this world, throwing all the eggs into the basket of technology and thinking we can continue to massively expand energy consumption by expanding into space and deep oceans to mine rare minerals etc. we're doomed. 

What I suggested by donating to regeneration and protection charities is effectively diy 'offsetting' but it's not usually part of any carbon market. As an example, those who are cash poor but saved up over years for a once in a lifetime trip to see family in Oz can volunteer instead of donating (there are never enough volunteers for things like planting sphagnum moss to help restore degraded moorland).

As others say, the environmental gains are often more important than the carbon gains. Plus sometimes people forget the power of the positive message in changing minds politically: influencing government to change (and thence influence on other governments)... geopolitical change is the biggest issue in reducing CO2.

Seagrass is a non-starter - the places it will grow in are relatively limited due to its need for specific conditions of tide and light. Seaweed farming is different, but it's not exactly proper long-term sequestration.

The Chinese Acadamy of Sciences have shown that in the later growth period of kelp the amount of CO2 emitted exceeds the amount taken in by photosythesis in the early growth phase. It also can't be grown in open ocean as there isn't enough iron, it needs coastal washout nutrients to survive.

All kinda irrelevant when you have a forest in Bavaria!

When you consider that the average Panamax bulk carrier burns around 35 tonnes of heavy fuel a day, and that the impact of disruption in the Red Sea is causing many such vessels to add up to 15-20 days steaming time by avoiding Suez via the Cape... what really is the point of your personal mindfulness? Or even the wider efforts of all of us who sympathise with your view? 
The earth will burn regardless.

Have you got a link for this?

Dave

https://english.cas.cn/newsroom/research_news/life/202312/t20231208_653831....

As the authors say, all that means is:

”This study suggests that mature farmed kelps should be harvested in time to best utilize their carbon sink function and environmental benefits, which has guiding significance for the rational management of seaweed farming.”

Indeed, the time of harvesting has to be accurately controlled and then either the carbon captured upon subsequent use or the seaweed sunk in very deep water, the effect of dumping billions of tons of seaweed in the oceans will probably require some study! Can't see it solving the worlds problems in my lifetime to be honest.

Thanks.

Dave

I don’t think that’s the plan in China - more eating it. I appreciate that will lead to some carbon release!
 

interestingly though (papers linked from that one) in the same region they farm lots of bivalves - and those appear to capture the dissolved CO2 and deposit it as calcium carbonate - co-farming kelp and bivalves may allow mature kelp fields to act as part of a carbon capture system. 
 

Very different proposition from trees as you say!