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
3 min
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.
Copyright 2020, Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved Worldwide. LEARN MORE
This stylish family home combines a classic palette and finishes with a flexible floorplan
Just 55 minutes from Sydney, make this your creative getaway located in the majestic Hawkesbury region.
Geoffrey Hinton hopes the prize will add credibility to his claims about the dangers of AI technology he pioneered
4 min
The newly minted Nobel laureate Geoffrey Hinton has a message about the artificial-intelligence systems he helped create: get more serious about safety or they could endanger humanity.
“I think we’re at a kind of bifurcation point in history where, in the next few years, we need to figure out if there’s a way to deal with that threat,” Hinton said in an interview Tuesday with a Nobel Prize official that mixed pride in his life’s work with warnings about the growing danger it poses.
The 76-year-old Hinton resigned from Google last year in part so he could talk more about the possibility that AI systems could escape human control and influence elections or power dangerous robots. Along with other experienced AI researchers, he has called on such companies as OpenAI, Meta Platforms and Alphabet -owned Google to devote more resources to the safety of the advanced systems that they are competing against each other to develop as quickly as possible.
Hinton’s Nobel win has provided a new platform for his doomsday warnings at the same time it celebrates his critical role in advancing the technologies fueling them. Hinton has argued that advanced AI systems are capable of understanding their outputs, a controversial view in research circles.
“Hopefully, it will make me more credible when I say these things really do understand what they’re saying,” he said of the prize.
Hinton’s views have pitted him against factions of the AI community that believe dwelling on doomsday scenarios needlessly slows technological progress or distracts from more immediate harms, such as discrimination against minority groups .
“I think that he’s a smart guy, but I think a lot of people have way overhyped the risk of these things, and that’s really convinced a lot of the general public that this is what we should be focusing on, not the more immediate harms of AI,” said Melanie Mitchell, a professor at the Santa Fe Institute, during a panel last year.
Hinton visited Google’s Silicon Valley headquarters Tuesday for an informal celebration, and some of the company’s top AI executives congratulated him on social media.
On Wednesday, other prominent Googlers specialising in AI were also awarded a Nobel Prize. Demis Hassabis, chief executive of Google DeepMind, and John M. Jumper, director at the AI lab, were part of a group of three scientists who won the chemistry prize for their work on predicting the shape of proteins.
Thinking like people
Hinton is sharing the Nobel Prize in physics with John Hopfield of Princeton University for their work since the 1980s on neural networks that process information in ways inspired by the human brain. That work is the basis for many of the AI technologies in use today, from ChatGPT’s humanlike conversations to Google Photos’ ability to recognise who is in every picture you take.
“Their contributions to connect fundamental concepts in physics with concepts in biology, not just AI—these concepts are still with us today,” said Yoshua Bengio , an AI researcher at the University of Montreal.
In 2012, Hinton worked with two of his University of Toronto graduate students, Alex Krizhevsky and Ilya Sutskever, on a neural network called AlexNet programmed to recognise images in photos. Until that point, computer algorithms had often been unable to tell that a picture of a dog was really a dog and not a cat or a car.
AlexNet’s blowout victory at a 2012 contest for image-recognition technology was a pivotal moment in the development of the modern AI boom, as it proved the power of neural nets over other approaches.
That same year, Hinton started a company with Krizhevsky and Sutskever that turned out to be short-lived. Google acquired it in 2013 in an auction against competitors including Baidu and Microsoft, paying $44 million essentially to hire the three men, according to the book “Genius Makers.” Hinton began splitting time between the University of Toronto and Google, where he continued research on neural networks.
Hinton is widely revered as a mentor for the current generation of top AI researchers including Sutskever, who co-founded OpenAI before leaving this spring to start a company called Safe Superintelligence.
Hinton received the 2018 Turing Award, a computer-science prize, for his work on neural networks alongside Bengio and a fellow AI researcher, Yann LeCun . The three are often referred to as the modern “godfathers of AI.”
Warnings of disaster
By 2023, Hinton had become alarmed about the consequences of building more powerful artificial intelligence. He began talking about the possibility that AI systems could escape the control of their creators and cause catastrophic harm to humanity. In doing so, he aligned himself with a vocal movement of people concerned about the existential risks of the technology.
“We’re in a situation that most people can’t even conceive of, which is that these digital intelligences are going to be a lot smarter than us, and if they want to get stuff done, they’re going to want to take control,” Hinton said in an interview last year.
Hinton announced he was leaving Google in spring 2023, saying he wanted to be able to freely discuss the dangers of AI without worrying about consequences for the company. Google had acted “very responsibly,” he said in an X post.
In the subsequent months, Hinton has spent much of his time speaking to policymakers and tech executives, including Elon Musk , about AI risks.
Hinton cosigned a paper last year saying companies doing AI work should allocate at least one-third of their research and development resources to ensuring the safety and ethical use of their systems.
“One thing governments can do is force the big companies to spend a lot more of their resources on safety research, so that for example companies like OpenAI can’t just put safety research on the back burner,” Hinton said in the Nobel interview.
An OpenAI spokeswoman said the company is proud of its safety work.
With Bengio and other researchers, Hinton supported an artificial-intelligence safety bill passed by the California Legislature this summer that would have required developers of large AI systems to take a number of steps to ensure they can’t cause catastrophic damage. Gov. Gavin Newsom recently vetoed the bill , which was opposed by most big tech companies including Google.
Hinton’s increased activism has put him in opposition to other respected researchers who believe his warnings are fantastical because AI is far from having the capability to cause serious harm.
“Their complete lack of understanding of the physical world and lack of planning abilities put them way below cat-level intelligence, never mind human-level,” LeCun wrote in a response to Hinton on X last year.
This stylish family home combines a classic palette and finishes with a flexible floorplan
Just 55 minutes from Sydney, make this your creative getaway located in the majestic Hawkesbury region.
