A review of emissions offsetting services

Abstract

Given the ambition of the University Strategic Plan – Sustainability’s Goal 1 to reduce Scope 1 and 2 emissions to net zero by 2030, the University may need to offset residual Scope 1 and 2 emissions. The aim of this study was therefore to review the voluntary carbon market, asses the positives and negatives of carbon offsetting, review a range of carbon offset providers and outline a pathway for the university to use offsetting in a way that avoids ‘greenwashing’.

A country, business or individual can offset their residual emissions by paying for the removal of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. There are two markets for such carbon credits: the Compliance Carbon Market and the Voluntary Carbon Market (VCM). Through the compliance market, usually implemented as part of an Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS), emissions are either offset or emission permits obtained or surrendered to meet predetermined regulatory requirements. In contrast, there is no legal obligation to purchase credits from the VCM, but purchased credits can go towards an organisation’s net zero targets.

Concerns about carbon offsetting include the misuse of offsets to avoid emissions reductions (greenwashing) and double-counting of credits. Nevertheless, offsetting is seen as a necessary tool for reducing the impact of climate change through carbon removal. It is hoped that with improved legislation and standardisation, carbon offsetting could become a multifaceted tool providing multiple co-benefits in addition to carbon removal.

To do so, credits will need to be verified as complying with ‘accepted’ carbon offset standards before they can be sold via the VCM. While there are currently no mandatory standards, a number of emerging standards provide criteria a carbon offset project must meet to ensure they can be verified. Some also stipulate that buyers must prove they are actively reducing their emissions before they can purchase carbon credits to ensure offsetting is not being used to avoid carbon reduction.

A review of a selection of carbon offset services found a range of suitable UK based standards, which provide examples of high integrity offset providers. A higher education coalition (EAUC Carbon Coalition) for offsetting has also been reviewed, which would reduce the due diligence overhead to the University and should reduce the risk of accidentally investing in unethical or insufficiently accredited offsets. An alternative would be for the University to invest in and manage its own nature- based services portfolio by adding to its estate or by working with local partners to do so.
Even if the University does pursue one of these options, emphasis must be put on reducing emissions first and then considering offsetting. In the future, the university could then use properly validated offsetting to become emissions negative.

More information

Identifiers

ORCID for Ben Anderson: orcid.org/0000-0003-2092-4406

Catalogue record

Export record