Global Charities Say Using Companies’ Carbon Offsets to Lower Emissions Undermines Climate Targets

More than 80 global charities and climate industry bodies are voicing their opposition to the use of carbon offsets by companies and countries to lower their carbon emissions, saying that implementing those projects only delays climate action.

Charities including Oxfam, Greenpeace and Amnesty International as well as industry bodies and pressure groups like the European Federation for Transport and Environment and NewClimate Institute signed a letter on Tuesday urging companies to stick to scientifically backed methods to lower carbon emissions and in particular for the Science Based Targets Initiative and the Greenhouse Gas Protocol to continue to exclude carbon offsets from their methodologies on how companies can lower emissions.

“Climate targets must focus primarily on reduction of greenhouse gas emissions within companies’ and countries’ own boundaries, including the phasing out of fossil fuel production, transport, sale and use,” the letter said.

“An urgent scale-up of financial support from both public and private actors is needed for this. But allowing companies and countries to meet climate commitments with carbon credits is likely to slow down global emission reductions while failing to provide anything like the scale of funds needed in the Global South, and reducing pressure to develop large-scale mechanisms such as ‘polluter pays’ fees on emission-intensive sectors,” it added.

Scrutiny of carbon offsets has grown in recent months after the SBTi, a nonprofit organisation that helps companies set targets for lowering emissions, said in April it was considering allowing carbon offsets to be part of the tool kit companies could use to reduce their impacts on the environment. That decision had been in opposition to its longstanding policy of excluding offsets, resulting in backlash from within the organisation itself as well as partner companies like Hennes & Mauritz , better known as H&M.

However, companies in industries from technology to mining argue that offsets are key to reducing private-sector emissions and moving to net zero. Microsoft for example has spent hundreds of millions on carbon offset projects, arguing that without doing so the company wouldn’t be able to move to net zero, especially over its indirect emissions.

“It is about creating a market for high-quality high-integrity durable carbon-removal assets,” said Melanie Nakagawa, Microsoft’s chief sustainability officer in a recent interview . “Think about sequestering carbon into the soils using enhanced rock weathering or rocks that are absorbing carbon that is being turned into concrete. Or Mombak, which is a large forestry project in Brazil. These are the ways that we think about applying it.”

In May, the U.S. government also gave its backing for the voluntary carbon market , saying that “high-integrity” voluntary carbon markets can play a role in reaching net-zero emissions globally.

The letter added that offsetting “at best, doesn’t reduce the concentration of GHGs in the atmosphere, it simply moves emission reductions from one place to another.” The charities also argued that allowing offsets to grow means that high-emitting activities are able to carry on.

To add to this, the charities and industry bodies said that there are only so many high-quality projects that can be used to reduce emissions, meaning that demand is likely to outstrip supply. They also questioned offsets’ effectiveness, saying that their use could just lead to deforestation in other areas or lead to social and environmental harm.

“The science clearly shows that offsets fail to deliver additional emissions reductions and are an unreliable tool for fighting the climate crisis,” the groups added.

A spokesperson for SBTi said that the organisation is still in the research phase of its policy revision. “The Corporate Net-Zero Standard hasn’t been changed, and it cannot and will not change until the Standard Operating Procedure for the revision of the Corporate Net-Zero Standard has been completed,” the spokesperson said.

Microsoft didn’t respond to a request for comment.

Early end-of-financial-year promotions and mid-year sales events attracted consumers to the shops in May, with Australian retail turnover rising 0.6 percent, according to seasonally adjusted figures from the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS). This compares to a 0.1 percent rise in April and a 0.4 percent fall in March.

Robert Ewing, ABS head of business statistics, said consumers were “watchful” and motivated by discounts amid today’s high cost of living.

“Many retailers started end-of-financial–year sales early, offering larger discounts than usual and noted that shoppers remain price-sensitive in response to persistent cost-of-living pressures,” Mr Ewing said. “Retail businesses continue to rely on discounting and sales events to stimulate discretionary spending, following restrained spending in recent months.”

However, May’s boost belies “stagnant” underlying demand trends. Mr Ewing notes retail trading in trend terms is up by 1.5 percent over the year to May, which is very low. Gareth Aird, Head of Australian Economics at CBA, points out that population growth in 2023 was 2.5 percent, so on a per-capita basis a 1.5 percent lift in spending is exceptionally weak.

Mr Aird said shoppers are “savvy, cautious and price sensitive” and “more tactical than usual when determining when to spend on discretionary items”. Non-food retail was stronger than food retail in May, with the highest rise being a 1.6 percent lift in clothing, footwear, and personal accessories spending. Household goods spending lifted 1.1 percent.

Deloitte Access Economics partner, David Rumbens, says frugality is “back in vogue” with persistently rising prices for essentials like rent, insurance and utilities forcing consumers to cut back on discretionary purchases. An expected reduction in population growth as immigration reduces over the next year may also keep retail spending weak.

Deloitte’s latest retail forecasts point to a rocky road ahead, particularly if unemployment rises. Mr Rumbens said the 3.75 percent lift in minimum and award wages give consumers more spending power but will put pressure on business costs. He points out retail and hospitality insolvencies are increasing in today’s economy.

However, tax cuts and eventual interest rate cuts should lead to more retail spending in the second half of 2024 and in 2025. Deloitte forecasts no growth for retail spending overall in 2024 but a 2.5 percent uplift in 2025. “Household goods turnover should pick up more with better economic conditions and with an uplift in national building activity, supported by the Government’s ambitious housing targets,” Mr Rumbens said.

Global Charities Say Using Companies’ Carbon Offsets to Lower Emissions Undermines Climate Targets

Greenpeace, Amnesty International and Oxfam are among over 80 charities arguing that using carbon offsets delays climate action

Discounts prove irresistible to shoppers motivated by cost of living pressures