HOT TOPICS

CARBON CONUNDRUM

Carbon offsetting, like ethical consumerism, has become terribly chic and very middle class but, asks CIWEM Executive Director, Nick Reeves, does it really work?

Carbon offsetting is de rigueur just now. The chattering classes are going green and are feeling suitably smug. And just to show that I'm not out of tune with current thinking I've decided to make my articles for this and other publications carbon neutral. For each one I write, I'm going to plant something in my garden - not trees, because I'd soon run out of space, but maybe a dwarf conifer or a Cotoneaster horizontalis, or something similar that's compact in habit. Although small they will still soak up a bit of carbon dioxide. 

Also, I'm thinking of paying someone in a developing country to change their behaviour in some way that's kinder to the planet - that way I don't have to change mine. In doing this I'll offset the power that drives my computer and my television, the paper on which my articles are printed and, more importantly, some of my guilt. And, hopefully, people will like me a bit more, because it will be carbon neutral and that's really ever-so fashionable right now.

Or will it? I'm not so sure. It's a bit of a puzzle this offsetting business, a mess in fact. There are no common standards or seals of approval, or any indication that there will be any, any time soon. No one can even agree on how to calculate the carbon footprint of a single flight. On the face of it the whole thing seems to be a bit of a sham with little credibility. What's more the public don't really get it, sensing that it's a convenient way for the better off to carry on as usual while off-loading their guilt.

I mean, you don't know that I wasn't going to plant my dwarf conifer or Cotoneaster anyway, as part of the shrub growing nursery that I run to supplement my salary. What a stroke of luck that by doing what I was going to do anyway I can call myself carbon neutral, and everyone will like and respect me more than they do already.

And what about my poor friend in the developing world? Is his new behaviour really as green as we've been told it is?  I think I'd better fly out there to check him out. Carbon offsetting, like ethical consumerism, is not just a conundrum but - unregulated - fast becoming a blight on the planet.

And, if ethical shopping was simply about swapping planet-damaging goods for less damaging ones I'd be all for it. But two parallel markets are now emerging - one for unethical products and one for ethical products. Growth in the latter is doing little to hinder the former. In fact they're both thriving, which is barmy because I am now awash with eco-junk. I have a lifetimes' supply of ballpoint pens and pencils made from recycled paper and miniature solar chargers for gadgets I do not own. Go to any environmental event or conference and you'll have these and other bits of nonsense thrust upon you with your delegate pack. The only thing of use is the stress ball I was given recently, made from something recycled - I forget what.  And if I receive any more eco-junk I'll soon need another stress ball. In the name of environmental consciousness, and in our desire to be green, we have simply created new opportunities for surplus capital.

Ethical shopping - like carbon offsetting - is in danger of becoming yet another indicator of social status, chutzpah and personal wealth. I know people who have bought and installed solar panels and wind turbines before they have insulated their lofts. I also know people who catch and store rainwater yet continue to buy bottled mineral water. This odd behaviour can be explained because these are the sorts of folk who love gadgets but, more importantly, like to show everyone around them how conscientious and how rich they are.

The middle classes re-brand their lives, congratulate themselves on going green, and carry on buying and flying as much as before. It is easy to picture a situation in which the whole world buys green products religiously while carbon emissions continue to soar.  Where's the sense in that?  

As some will argue, it is true that most people find aspirational green living more attractive than dour puritanism. But it can also be alienating. I know  young farmers and growers desperate to start a farm or nursery of their own but have been excluded by what they call 'horsiculture': small parcels of land that are being converted to pony paddocks and hobby farms. In places like Berkshire, Hampshire and Surrey agricultural land is now fetching £30,000 per acre as 'City-types' use big bonuses to buy organic-lifestyles. When the new owners dress up as milkmaids and lecture the excluded locals on how to make cheese and butter, they run the risk of turning environmentalism into an elitist whim, attracting nothing but abuse.    

But, challenge the new green consumerism and you're in danger of being branded a party-pooper, the curmudgeon at the dinner dance. Against the shiny new world of organic aspirations you are forced to raise the rather drab and equitable restraints that won't make the headlines or the colour supplements, and won't excite the rock stars: carbon rationing, contraction and convergence, tougher regulations to prevent building on flood plains and to encourage rainwater-harvesting.

But these measures, and the long hard battle to bring them about, are required to prevent the catastrophic floods of the kind we saw in July 2007 - rather than merely playing at being green. Only when these measures have been introduced does green consumerism become a substitute for current spending, rather than a supplement to it. They are harder to sell, not least because they cannot be bought through mail order catalogues or online. Hard choices will have to be made, and the economic elite and its spending habits must be challenged rather than flattered. The multi-millionaires who have embraced the green agenda might suddenly find other causes to champion.