Climate change is here. It’s no longer something we hypothesise about happening in the future. Floods are worsening, heatwaves are rising, and extreme weather seems like it’s set to become part of our new normal. As we adjust to this changing climate we are left wondering what we can do to make greener choices and protect the environment from further damage.

Passing on responsibility

In this article, we are largely going to explore carbon offsetting platforms as an example. They serve a brilliantly noble goal, but by offering individuals the opportunity to offset their personal carbon footprint we are passing the responsibility for sustainable behaviour on to the end consumer. This is all too similar to the tactics of big oil companies discussed in a Guardian op-ed succinctly titled ‘the big polluters’ masterstroke was to blame the climate crisis on you and me’. By focusing on carbon offsetting we are avoiding tackling the root of the issue: releasing the carbon to begin with.

‘Airlines and oil companies love talking about carbon offsetting. But to be serious about tackling climate change, they need to stop carbon emissions from getting into the atmosphere in the first place.’

That is not to say that individual choices have no impact on the climate at all, simply that worrying about our own impact means we’re spending less time examining the issues in the wider system around us. In fact, feeling like we are free from blame for climate change because we offset our own individual footprint may make us complacent in the face of the larger issue.

These schemes also present massive logistical challenges that aren’t immediately visible in their promise to consumers. Planting the trees is just step one, after that they will need to be protected for many years in order to fulfil their carbon-capturing promise. On a slightly larger scale than individual issues, offsetting schemes allow organisations to pay less attention to their consumption. For example, they may continue flying to conferences regularly and just tick the box to carbon offset their flights as opposed to considering whether in-person attendance was required in the first place.

‘Offsetting allows companies like BP and Shell as well as airlines to continue with their unsustainable behaviour while shifting their responsibility for the climate onto the consumer.’ Individual impact reduction is a tiny drop in the ocean, to see true change we need to challenge the industries and companies who are contributing by the bucketload. Carbon offsetting should not be the responsibility of the consumer, it should be something that is factored into the responsibilities and costs of major companies and airlines.

Greenwashing

Greenwashing is an often strategic move to portray a product or service as more environmentally sound than it actually is. This is usually done to cash in on the growing demand for eco-friendly products.

‘The term ‘greenwashing’ is a play on the term whitewashing and refers to unsubstantiated or overstated claims about the sustainability or eco-friendly nature of a product – such as boasting ‘50% more recycled materials’ on a product that is now made of 3% recycled plastics as opposed to 2%.’

Though claims like the example above are technically true, they are carefully phrased to mislead consumers into thinking they are more environmentally friendly than they are. This misleading phrasing serves multiple purposes. Firstly, it presents an eco-friendly front to the public that may mean the company is less scrutinised for its environmental practices – this may be the reasoning behind the move for larger companies. Secondly, it provides an opportunity to attract environmentally conscious consumers and investors:

‘Because so much funding — both private and public — is flowing into sustainability initiatives, there is bound to be greenwashing as founders co-opt the term to get in on the action.’ 

Heathrow airport is one of the big names to have got wrapped up in greenwashing accusations. Following their plans for further airport expansion, they came under understandable scrutiny by environmental campaigners. This led to them partnering with a carbon offsetting company that makes it possible for individual consumers to opt to offset their ticket with an additional fee. By introducing this scheme, Heathrow were able to say they were doing their bit for the environment and continue with business as usual.

Schemes such as this have noble goals, but they have been criticised for being a way to simply dodge responsibility and pass it on to future generations:

‘Synthetic fuels — fuels that can be used with internal combustion engines but have a carbon-neutral manufacturing process — are another example. The aeronautics and oil industry uses them as an excuse to not change anything about the business model of air travel, shifting responsibility further in the future.’ 

Is it bad to choose the middle ground?

Even that subheading feels like a controversial question. The world of positive environmental action often feels incredibly black and white, casting people as either big polluters or eco-warriors. The reality is far more greyscale.

Actions like those taken by Heathrow airport are not the perfect pinnacle of environmentalism, but they are far better than doing nothing at all. They are arguably making steps in the right direction, despite those steps being small.

This is a debate that crops up time and time again in the world of environmentalism. There is a balance to be struck between praising existing achievements (such as carbon offsetting flights) and encouraging further development of alternatives. If we shut down these environmental initiatives as totally insufficient, we run the risk of turning companies off the idea of improvement altogether.

There is an interesting parallel between this and the zero-waste movement (in which people strive to have no non-recyclable or compostable waste). Some people may be able to achieve zero landfill waste, but it is a very difficult task that is not for everyone. Arguably, it is better to focus on making reductions across the board than having one or two people – or companies – being environmentally perfect:

‘We don’t need a handful of people doing zero waste perfectly. We need millions of people doing it imperfectly.’