Offsetting by passengers on flights won’t get us to net zero, says AEF in response to government offsetting consultation
The Department for Transport’s held a consultation “Carbon offsetting in transport: a call for evidence” which closed on 26th September. The consultation outlined a proposal to require all air travel providers and other providers of ticketed travel to give passengers the option to buy a carbon offset for their journey. The Aviation Environment Federation did a response, in which they agree with the CCC’s view that “the UK should not plan to meet is climate change obligations using international offset credits.” They also agree with the EU’s decision to exclude international offsets from its ETS. There are few good quality carbon offsets available, and very few deliver CO2 reductions beyond what would have happened anyway. In the not-too-distant future, when all countries and sectors are cutting their emissions, there will not be many spare credits available. AEF say: “But a key argument against offsetting is that it risks distracting from the need to rein in aviation demand in order to tackle emissions.” People think that having bought a cheap offset for a few ££s means that’s all OK, and they can book another flight. It delays real cuts in aviation emissions, that can only be achieved by the industry not expanding.
.
Tweet
Offsetting won’t get us to net zero, says AEF in response to government consultation
AEF responded to the Department for Transport’s consultation Carbon offsetting in transport: a call for evidence which closed on 26 September 2019. The consultation outlined a proposal to require all air travel providers and other providers of ticketed travel to give passengers the option to buy a carbon offset for their journey. In our response we said:
- We agree with the Committee on Climate Change’s view that the UK should not plan to meet is climate change obligations using international offset credits[1], and with the EU’s decision to exclude international offsets from its Emissions Trading System.
- While voluntary offsetting by individuals may help to finance worthwhile low-carbon projects, good quality offsets can be hard to come by. A European Commission review in 2016 of the Clean Development Mechanism, for example, found that only 7% of the projects that could be eligible for use by EU states in complying with climate obligations had a high likelihood of delivering carbon reductions beyond what would have happened anyway.
- More fundamentally, in a net zero future every country and every sector will need to get emissions to zero – there will be no room for offsetting. UNEP’s position, that carbon offsets be seen only as “a temporary measure leading up to 2030”[2] reflects this.
- Offsetting risks distracting from the need to rein in aviation demand in order to tackle emissions. The cheap cost of offset credits at present could actively undermine an ambition to ensure the public is better informed about the scale of aviation’s environmental impacts, and the sector’s ability to adequately reduce its emissions in line with the UK’s net zero commitment.
The full consultation can be accessed here. Our response to the consultation is available here.
[1] We note that the Government has said that while it has not legislated to exclude international offset credits under the Act, it does not intend to use them.
Link to AEF article
.
The AEF response is long, detailed and authoritative. Worth reading in detail.
Just one section of it is copied below:
Q5. Do you agree that offsetting journeys could play a role in tackling emissions, whilst transport is decarbonised? Can you provide evidence supporting your view?
We agree with the CCC’s view that the UK should not plan to meet is climate change obligations using international offset credits9 , and with the EU’s decision to exclude international offsets from its Emissions Trading System.
There are well-established problems with offsetting that the EU Reporting Guidelines go some way towards addressing, though in practice it can be hard to find good offsets. A European Commission review in 2016 of the Clean Development Mechanism, for example, found that only 7% of the projects that could be eligible for use by EU states in complying with climate obligations had a high likelihood of delivering carbon reductions beyond what would have happened anyway10. But more fundamentally, in a net zero future every country and every sector will need to get emissions to zero – there will be no room for offsetting. UNEP’s position, that carbon offsets be seen only as “a temporary measure leading up to 2030”11 reflects this.
What is needed for aviation is a national policy designed to cut in-sector emissions through a combination of technology incentives, demand management measures and carbon removals. The carbon offsetting proposal set out by DfT appears instead to shift responsibility for tackling emissions on to consumers and give them the option of whether or not to take action on climate change. While voluntary offsetting by individuals may help to finance worthwhile low-carbon projects, it is not an effective policy approach to reduce emissions and is likely, in our view, to distract from the implementation of meaningful measures. Consumer offsetting should not under any circumstances be included in the accounting methodology for UK aviation CO2 emissions. The cheap cost of offset credits at present could, meanwhile, actively undermine an ambition to ensure the public is better informed about the scale of challenge needed to rein in aviation growth in line with the UK’s net zero commitment.
We dispute the implication in the question that air travel is in the process of decarbonisation. While aircraft are gradually becoming more efficient, they are not on pathway to zero carbon. A recent report12 co-commissioned by DfT and CCC found for example that no fully electric aircraft are likely to be in service for commercial routes until after 2055 – too late for achievement of net zero. For this reason we accept the view of the CCC that to the extent that we are flying by 2050, carbon removals – by way of technologies that have yet to be rolled out – will be required to balance aviation’s CO2. The alternative would be the production of synthetic ‘e-kerosene using renewable energy, though CCC regards this as a more costly option. Afforestation is not an appropriate carbon removal for the aviation sector since its potential is limited in geographical scale in the UK and will be required for other sectors. Carbon removals of the kind CCC recommends cannot currently be purchased as carbon offsets however.
For these reasons we don’t support the DfT’s proposal for provision of voluntary offsetting options for air passengers.
Without prejudice to this view, should the Department decide to proceed, we have made some comments on the remaining questions on methodology
…..
9. We note that the Government has said that while it has not legislated to exclude international offset credits under the Act, it does not intend to use them.
10. https://ec.europa.eu/clima/sites/clima/files/ets/docs/clean_dev_mechanism_en.pdf
.
..