A Carbon-Neutral University?

The side of the box of cornflakes that I have for breakfast proclaims 'CarbonNeutral Company' and the entire side is taken up explaning what that means - that CO2 emissions created in the processing and transport of my cornflakes have been offset in environmental projects in the developing world. Hurray, my cornflakes aren't contributing to climate change.

Or are they? The last few weeks have seen a burst of headlines about the idea of carbon neutrality, from Tony Blair saying that 'it's a bit impractical, really' to cut down on air travel (and then subsequently saying that he'll offset the emissions from his Christmas holiday in Florida) to the House of Commons Environment Audit Committee announcing hearings on the carbon offset market (you can submit your responses until next Monday) and DEFRA launching a scheme to set 'gold standards' for carbon offset schemes.

In the same way that my cornflakes manufacturer can become a CarbonNeutral Company (and that billing is just particular to the firm - the CarbonNeutral Company - through which the offsets are made), UWA could become a CarbonNeutral University by paying for forestation or energy projects somewhere else in the world that will 'soak up' or cut a corresponding amount of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.

In my view, however, the carbon offset market is fraught with uncertainty which leaves me undecided on whether a CarbonNeutral University would be a desirable thing. The New Internationalist dedicated its July 2006 issue to examining the value of offsets, titled CO2nned? which raised concerns over biodiversity, indigenous rights, and well, the fact that you can go to four different offsetting companies and get quoted four different prices to offset a given plane journey.

Another concern, particularly relevant to how we communicate climate change, is the message that offsets make it 'OK to fly to Barcelona three times a year as long as I plant a few trees in Kenya." To be perfectly honest, when I first heard of offsetting about two years ago I thought to myself 'this is great, now I can travel guilt-free'. Even if the impact of offsetting is what its proponents (i.e. the companies offering offsets) claim to be, it completely de-urgent-izes the need for individuals and governments to cut carbon emissions and find ways to live differently. A carbon-neutral university could, incredibly, still be one where computers are on 24/356, buildings leak energy and landfills most of its waste. We can't buy our way out of climate change and continue to live in the same way that is disproportionate to what the planet can support. I'm not even sure whether to call carbon offsets a second-best option because I'm not convinced that there is a guaranteed net positive outcome from offset schemes.

I'm looking forward to the completion of the EAC findings in a few months time, mainly for what it will say about the regulation of the offset market. I might offset in the future, but only if I can be sure that the project isn't actually doing any harm, and that I've done everything that I possibly can to minimize my own emissions. The offset will be a token gesture of solidarity with a distant community who will feel the brunt of climatic change, and there'll be no illusion that I can make the carbon burden from whatever activity I'm involved in just go away.