As airlines - and travelers - reckon with the environmental impact of air travel, carbon offsetting has become a popular practice in the aviation industry.
Numerous airlines allow passengers to voluntarily donate to environmental organizations in an effort to alleviate the effects associated with carbon emissions from flights.
As the offsetting movement has grown, however, so, too, have questions about the efficacy of the endeavor.
Although some experts say offsetting has not only led to change but also motivated travelers to be more eco-conscious, the other side argues that airlines need to first pursue different emission-reducing options to make a genuine impact.
First, some history
The practice of offsetting carbon emissions dates back to the Kyoto Protocol in 1997 when countries identified emissions reduction targets, which included flexibility in meeting those reductions through offsetting.
In travel, the practice took shape in 2002 when green trip planner Responsible Travel initiated a program for customers to purchase carbon offsets.
Responsible Travel shuttered its offsetting efforts seven years later, citing “deep set problems with offsetting schemes.” (The company's CEO, Justin Francis, elaborates on why he doesn't support offsetting schemes in an In The Big Chair interview here.)
In 2009, British Airways became the first airline to have an offset product accredited by the United Kingdom’s Quality Assurance Scheme for Carbon Offsetting.
Subscribe to our newsletter below
That same year, the International Air Transport Association (IATA) introduced a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) where participating organizations must provide passengers with offsetting opportunities; since the launch of the MoU, 30 members have signed on and launched offsetting programs.
In 2016, the United Nations' International Civil Aviation Organization adopted the Carbon Offsetting and Reduction Scheme for International Aviation (CORSIA), which named offsets as one of the solutions to reduce emissions.
Offsetting became mainstream in part to the growth of “flight shaming” passengers - a term that was coined by Swedish singer Stafan in 2017 when he vowed to give up flying due to carbon emissions.
This resurgence in environmental awareness resulted in more consumers willing to pay carbon offsets for air travel.
In 2019, EasyJet announced that it would be the first airline to operate net zero carbon flights.
A few months later, JetBlue declared that it would be the first airline to be carbon neutral on all domestic flights. British Airways also pledged to offset all carbon emissions on its domestic flights as well.
Promoting carbon offsets
Since 2007, passengers on Lufthansa (and subsidiary Swiss) have been able to offset emissions through Swiss carbon offset foundation myclimate.
In November 2019, Lufthansa introduced a new feature where passengers can access Compensaid, its sustainability platform, directly from the booking page.
Steffen Milchsack, head of stakeholder relations for Lufthansa Group, says that passengers can offset carbon emissions directly from booking, where it is “prominently advertised.”
“There they can offset their emissions in two ways: an investment in myclimate carbon offset projects or the purchase of sustainable, alternative kerosene (so-called sustainable aviation fuel),” says Milchsack.
“This kerosene is produced from oils/fats from food production (used cooking oil) and saves about 80% of CO2 emissions.”
“The big shift in 2020 is that offsetting is going from ancillary to becoming mainstream and a key part of the travel experience.”
Sophia Mendelsohn - JetBlue
JetBlue currently promotes its offsetting program in an email rather than in the booking flow because of its new carbon-neutral domestic flight policy.
Says Sophia Mendelsohn, head of sustainability and environmental social governance at JetBlue: “What we really have seen is a change in customer expectations around how an airline manages its pollution associated with climate change, as well as expectation shifts with the crew members who work for the airline, the communities we serve in and with our shareholders, our owners, whose money we are the stewards of.”
JetBlue’s offsetting program is part of a financial exchange where customers can donate to support carbon reduction projects. Since the launch of program in 2008, JetBlue has already offset more than 2.6 billion pounds of carbon emissions.
Recent events, such as the wildfires in Australia and flooding in Jakarta, have influenced what the public demands from companies in terms of climate change.
“I think people are seeing a climate crisis play out in real time through their lives,” says Mondelsohn. “It’s the constant confirmation from the scientific community that this is hurting people's health and the economy.”
Mendelsohn adds: “The big shift in 2020 is that offsetting is going from ancillary to becoming mainstream and a key part of the travel experience.”
So, are offsets effective?
Despite the surge in popularity, some environmentalists remain skeptical about the effectiveness of offsetting.
In 2019, the International Council on Clean Transportation reported that after years of relying on offsetting, carbon emissions from air travel might be increasing more than 1.5 times faster than the UN estimate.
Niklas Hagelberg, coordinator of the UN Environment’s subprogram on climate change, says that current emissions are just under 56 gigatons per year.
“To maintain a fighting chance of limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius on average, we have to reduce those emissions by 55% (about 30 gigatons),” says Hagelberg. “We have existing, feasible and economical technologies that could reduce emissions up to 41 gigatons.”
According to Hagelberg, the aviation sector should explore emission-reducing solutions such as flight planning, aircraft upgrades and alternative fuels.
But should offsetting be considered one of those solutions in air travel to effectively mitigate carbon emissions?
“At this point in time, it's still an option, but only after [airlines] have exhausted their emission reduction possibilities,” says Hagelberg. “The offset should be considered the last mile of getting closer to carbon neutrality.”
Hagelberg cites numerous issues with offsetting initiatives, including “additionality, leakage and non-permanence.”
“There have been cases and examples where offsets have not delivered what was promised, so it wasn't permanent,” says Hagelberg.
For example, an initiative that offsets carbon emissions from air travel by planting trees is not a permanent fix because the tress could get destroyed by a forest fire.
In a recent interview with PhocusWire, Responsible travel co-founder Justin Francis echoed a similar sentiment by calling carbon offsets a “fig leaf” that are “often used to justify more carbon pollution.”
Mondelsohn contends that “there is still a huge amount of change and good being done from offsetting, which is voluntarily and effectively putting a price on carbon.
“We are a capitalist-driven economy, and within that framework, putting a price on things is a pretty good way to motivate people.”
Outcome
What would happen if the 55% global emissions reduction target is not achieved?
“It's actually quite hard to predict,” says Hagelberg, “because we have no experience where humans have been part of a warm world.”
“The offset should be considered the last mile of getting closer to carbon neutrality.”
Niklas Hagelberg - United Nations
According to Hagelberg, we are on a current trajectory of average global warming of 3.2 degrees to 3.7 degrees, and even the difference between 1.5 degrees and 2 degrees is “dramatic.”
“At 1.5 degrees, only about 75% of coral reefs are dead, but at 2 degrees, literally pretty much everything is gone,” says Hagelberg. “We won't have coral reefs at that temperature.”
For passengers considering an offset, Hagelberg suggests examining the governing mechanisms used by the airline.
Hagelberg says that offset schemes built with the UN’s Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) are likely to be more scrutinized and very robust. (At a high level, JetBlue’s offsetting program follows this mechanism.)
In 2016, a study from the European Commission reported that 85% of offset activities under CDM have a low likelihood of ensuring environmental integrity.
Additionally, Hagelberg warns about some offset governing mechanisms in the private market.
“The consumer should at least make sure that there's a third-party audit and verification of that emissions reduction,” says Hagelberg. “The third-party verification and auditing should take care of the permanent leakage, additionality and prevent any double accounting.”
Until new solutions arrive, offsetting is seen as a bridge to future emissions-reducing technologies.
“Brands are no longer sitting back and saying the technology doesn't exist,” says Mondelsohn. “They're taking a much more active role in creating the technology and finding solutions like offsetting while that technology becomes more and more mainstreamed.”