Buying Low, Flying High: Carbon Offsets and Partial Compliance

Abstract

Many companies offer their customers voluntary carbon 'offset' certificates to compensate for greenhouse gas emissions. Voluntary offset certificates are cheap because the demand for them is low, allowing consumers to compensate for their emissions without significant sacrifices. Regarding the distribution of emission reduction responsibilities I argue that excess emissions are permissible if they are offset properly. However, if individuals buy offsets only because they are cheap, they fail to be robustly motivated to choose a permissible course of action. This suspected lack of robust motivation raises both pragmatic questions about the functioning of offsetting schemes and moral questions about the worth of such unstable motives. The analysis provided here also has wider implications for the normative analysis of partial compliance and 'many hands' problems, especially for those cases where compliance levels and costs interact. AbstractMany companies offer their customers voluntary carbon 'offset' certificates to compensate for greenhouse gas emissions. Voluntary offset certificates are cheap because the demand for them is low, allowing consumers to compensate for their emissions without significant sacrifices. Regarding the distribution of emission reduction responsibilities I argue that excess emissions are permissible if they are offset properly. However, if individuals buy offsets only because they are cheap, they fail to be robustly motivated to choose a permissible course of action. This suspected lack of robust motivation raises both pragmatic questions about the functioning of offsetting schemes and moral questions about the worth of such unstable motives. The analysis provided here also has wider implications for the normative analysis of partial compliance and 'many hands' problems, especially for those cases where compliance levels and costs interact.

The ethics of carbon offsetting

“…What moral assumptions underlie the claim that by purchasing carbon offsets, individuals and organizations can—notwithstanding the aforementioned concerns about scientific legitimacy and carbon accounting—discharge their moral duty to abate their greenhouse gas emissions? Whilst much has been written on the ethical principles underlying arguments for and against carbon trading in so‐called ‘cap and trade’ schemes, almost no research has yet been undertaken directly on the related but distinct principled questions raised by arguments for and against carbon offsetting (two notable exceptions are Broome23 and Spiekermann24). The case for offsetting seems to draw on a consequentialist ethic; that is, the claim assumes that acts should be judged only by their consequences.…”

“…It seems entirely arbitrary to tie the offset to the emission and judge the consequences of the option to emit and offset as if it were one, inseparable, act. Indeed, some have thought that consequentialism could even require that individuals and organizations spend much of their wealth on funding ‘offsetting’ projects (without also causing emissions that are thereby offset), because the gains of doing so are likely to be so much greater than the costs 24,30. In response to this line of argument, Broome has argued that, if we have a generalized consequentialist duty to make the world better, then that duty could be more efficiently discharged in other ways, for example by donating to medical charities working in the developing world (Ref 23, p. 91).…”

Voluntary Individual Carbon Trading

“…In 2015 this had almost tripled to 435 corporations with internal prices ranging from US$1 to US$357 per tCO 2 e. Companies making such public declarations seem stimulated by the existence of government schemes with 94% located in countries where mandatory pricing (ETS or tax) is in place or proposed (World Bank and Ecofys 2016). Appearing 'green' may therefore be a strategic manoeuvre to pre-empt GHG emission legislation that is expected to be more stringent and costly (Spash 2010;Spiekermann 2014).…”

“…Meanwhile offset providers are driven by making money and that means finding the cheapest low quality offsets and overstating project emissions reductions, which as has been explained is easily done. Spiekermann (2014) doubts the motivation behind participating in carbon offsetting and argues that there are strong signs that buying offsets is mainly to clear ones conscience. He argues that many of the participants of voluntary schemes would be unwilling to pay higher prices to justify their unsustainable consumption practises.…”

“…She discovered that her carbon footprint was about 24 tonnes of CO 2 , which was a great relief to her because the amount necessary to pay for carbon neutrality was minor compared to even trivial other expenditures that she commonly undertook. Spiekermann (2014) regards such offsetting as undermining the duty one has to reduce carbon emissions. He questions the "robustness of motivation" behind voluntary carbon offsetting, which would disappear if prices rose, and speculates that such a price rise should occur as offsetting successfully increases demand while reducing carbon emissions.…”