CO2 Offsetting—A Critique

The climate crisis is becoming increasingly tangible. June 2023 was the world’s warmest June on record. July 6, 2023 is considered to be the world’s hottest day on record, after the records of the previous days lasted only one day each. And Europe and other parts of the world are currently (2023) experiencing a strong heat wave.

Not all of these phenomena are directly attributable to climate change, but it has made them much more likely and more frequent.

It is therefore not surprising that many people are trying to make a contribution to at least prevent the worst effects of the climate crisis. More and more people are going vegetarian or vegan, or at least reducing their meat consumption. Many now prefer to travel by train rather than by plane.

But another option that continues to grow in popularity is simply offsetting or compensating for your own CO2 emissions. Two of the leading providers, the non-profit organizations myclimate Germany and atmosfair, are back on track for significant growth after a Covid-related decline in 2020.

At the same time, the critics of carbon offsetting are increasingly questioning whether the certificates actually lead to the promised savings. KLM is even facing a greenwashing lawsuit. At Effektiv Spenden are also very critical of carbon offsets for the following reasons.

Not ambitious!

Regardless of whether you want to offset just one flight or all the CO2 emissions you contributed to in the short term, the claim seems limited. The focus is on compensating for the damage done in the past. The emissions that created the basis for our current prosperity over the past centuries are generally not taken into account. As a result, compensation payments usually only result in our being somewhat less culpable in the end.

The charge that this is a modern form of selling indulgences cannot be completely dismissed. For example, when a flight is taken only because the associated CO2 emissions can be offset by a donation.

A focus on offsetting, however well-intentioned, can therefore become a barrier to more ambitious behavior.

We want more. We believe that each of us can make a much bigger contribution than the eight tons of CO2 that we in Germany are responsible for on average every year.

Not cost effective!

The best-known initiatives for offsetting carbon charge more than 20 euros for every ton of carbon to be offset - so if you donate 20 euros, one ton of carbon will be offset. The main focus is on (only seemingly) safe projects that are intuitively appealing to the general public. It is very unlikely that this is even close to being the most effective way of reducing emissions.

Independent evaluations of climate action organizations show: If research is promoted or political framework conditions are improved, this is many times more cost-effective than measures such as those advertised as part of carbon offsetting. Due to the potentially large leverage effect, this is the case even if not all projects achieve their goals.

To invest in planting trees may sound more attractive than campaigning for progressive legislation to limit methane emissions from European oil and gas plants. But if the latter can achieve 15-30 times more for climate action with each euro, then the cool-sounding cost-benefit analysis becomes a moral imperative. Climate change is simply too far advanced for us to be able to afford to rely solely on measures that are good for the climate and leave us with a good gut feeling.

Our alternative

We have deliberately opted for a different approach and are of the opinion that donations in the area of climate action should be made entirely to the most effective organizations. The focus should be on initiatives that have not only been independently audited, but have also been certified as outstandingly cost-effective compared to other initiatives.

This includes the Clean Air Task Force, which, for example, is committed to the avoidance of the extremely climate-damaging gas methane. A second recommendation is the Carbon180-organization, which focuses on supporting natural and technology-based measures to remove CO2 from the atmosphere - an area that continues to be relatively neglected in public discourse but to which the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) attaches enormous importance. Or the Future Cleantech Architects, which are driving forward the decarbonization of particularly difficult industrial processes in the cement and steel industries or in aviation. These and other particularly promising initiatives can also be bundled via our Giving Fund: Mitigating Climate Change.

How much should I donate?

We have dealt extensively with the question how much to donate here. There is no one-size-fits-all answer to this, but as in the areas of fighting poverty or animal welfare we do not believe that it makes sense to focus on the damage you have caused when it comes to climate action. In addition to your financial means, the question of how important the fight against the climate crisis is to you and what you are prepared to do about it should be much more important. Most people can only save a few tons per year by changing their own lifestyle, which is of course welcome, but with effective and generous donations they can potentially save thousands.

Especially if you are interested in donating a larger sum, possibly also as a company, we are happy to provide individual advice and can also put you in touch with the recommended organizations or other experts if necessary.

About the author

Sebastian Schwiecker

Co-Managing Director

Book a meeting

I am the founder and managing director of Effektiv Spenden. If you have any questions or feedback about this article, you can send me an email or reach me at 0176/23570281. You’re also welcome to book a free donation consultation with me.