Like Paying Someone Else to Go For a Run After You’ve Eaten the Cake
|
It might sound good, paying others to reduce emissions or absorb carbon to compensate for your own emissions. But, sadly, it’s not enough. It doesn’t really work.
It’s possible to spend a lot of money doing something that feels like climate action, only to realise that you’re not entirely sure what just happened.
|
|
Don’t get us wrong. Planting trees, increasing renewable energy, cleaning water supplies, empowering poor communities, these are all good things. But they don’t do what they say on the tin. They don’t actually cancel out the emissions to which they are linked.
Carbon Equations
Here's an example of carbon offsets. A spreadsheet says you’ve emitted X tonnes of CO2, so you buy X tonnes of credits and declare yourself carbon neutral. Sorted? Not quite.
|
Even the best-intentioned schemes have been dogged by questions: Are the emissions really avoided? Is the forest protected? And, perhaps most pressingly, why does it all feel so abstract?
A growing number of researchers and climate experts are voicing concerns about offset markets. These include the false promise of carbon neutrality, the murky economics of traded carbon, and the tendency for real environmental work to be outsourced to a system no one quite understands.
|
It’s not that planting trees to reduce carbon is flawed. Quite the opposite. The issue is how we frame it, and what we expect it to mean. The word “offset” can suggest a kind of equilibrium. Emissions go up here, something goes down over there, and the books are balanced. But climate change doesn’t really work like that.
If the carbon tap is still on, if we’re still emitting, it’s hard to claim the problem is solved simply because something restorative is happening elsewhere.
You Can't Brush Carbon Under the Carpet
There’s another problem, one of focus. Carbon offsets, for some people, may seem like an easy solution, but they’re not, and we don’t want to shift or lose the focus on restoration, reforestation, and the meaning of net zero.
|
Lim Li Ching, a senior researcher at the Third World Network, said: “For us, the central issue is that it really is a dangerous distraction, because we’re not actually focusing on the real causes of biodiversity loss.” She was one of more than over 270 academics and organisations to publish a statement arguing that biodiversity credits and offsets pose significant risks to the environment and communities, and may, furthermore, result in land grabs and human rights abuses.
|
|
Our Take: Contribution, Not Compensation
At JUST ONE Tree, we plant trees, restore marine ecosystems and support local communities. And yes, that work sequesters carbon – around 308kg per tree, based on scientific models and data from our project sites.
We don’t sell that impact as a credit. We don’t package it up. And we don’t suggest it cancels anything out. We see it as a contribution, not compensation. And that’s the difference. Because doing something real - like restoring degraded land, growing biodiversity, and supporting women-led planting cooperatives – isn’t a loophole. It’s a step. Not a get-out clause, but a get-started one.
Yes, the tree sequesters carbon. But it also provides habitat, food, and income. It’s not pretending to undo a flight or erase a footprint. It’s helping to restore what’s been lost and lay foundations for a different kind of future.
If offsetting is the trading floor, JUST ONE Tree is the farmers’ market. You know who’s growing the trees. You know where they’re planted. You know it’s not being sold on to someone else.
If you’re looking for a way to engage that restores ecosystems and rebuilds connection, we’d love to talk to you about it.
