Stay up to date with notifications from The Independent

Notifications can be managed in browser preferences.

Analysis

Carbon offsetting does not mean we can fly guilt-free

Generation easyJet has to keep its feet on the ground and Harry and Meghan should use their privileged position to lead the way, writes Phoebe Weston

Tuesday 20 August 2019 19:06 BST
Comments
The Duke and Duchess of Sussex recently took four private jet flights
The Duke and Duchess of Sussex recently took four private jet flights (EPA)

Could Prince Harry and Meghan Markle be all bark and no bite when it comes to the environment?

The couple are believed to have taken four private jet journeys in 11 days. At the same time they say they want to protect the environment, with Harry saying “every choice, every footprint, every action makes a difference”. They’ve even decided to have just two children “for environmental reasons”.

The media slated them for their excessive flying and celebrity supporters jumped to the couple’s defence.

However, as Sarah Arnold pointed out in a piece for The Independent, if we all followed the lead of our royal superiors and took climate change with a pinch of salt, the world would be doomed.

Elton John said he had paid to carbon offset their flight to his French home – but this practice does not afford us guilt-free travel.

The unpalatable reality is that we have to cut down on flying.

Generation easyJet seems willing to eat less meat and use less plastic, but forgoing holidays abroad seems to be a stretch too far. UK airports are set to increase overall capacity by 59 per cent by 2050. This is more than double the increase accounted for by the Committee on Climate Change, the official advisory body, on reaching net zero carbon by 2050.

Dr Phil Williamson from the University of East Anglia said: “Carbon offsetting is a way of damage limitation. If jet-setting royals can lessen their footprint on the planet, that is to be encouraged not criticised. But direct reduction of greenhouse gas release from all sources, not just aviation, is urgently required.”

Offsetting schemes calculate an individual’s carbon contribution to an activity and then allocates their donation to projects that suck up CO2 – such as reforestation and energy schemes.

One problem is that offsetting schemes don’t absorb the carbon they claim to. For example, tree planting relies on saplings being protected and looked after for many decades – and future politicians or developers could always decide to send the bulldozers in.

The UN’s Clean Development Mechanism is one of the biggest schemes for offsetting carbon, but according to the Institute for Applied Ecology, 85 per cent of projects had a “low likelihood” of sequestering the amount of carbon promised.

Offsetting needs to become much more efficient if we want to continue to fly, farm and rely on heavy industries, according to Professor Piers Forster from the University of Leeds.

“Although many offsetting schemes do worthy things, such as develop clean energy, they do not necessarily reduce emissions,” he explained.

Extinction Rebellion protesters lie in road in attempt to block Fleet Street in London

“So rather than give up on them, a well thought through offset scheme can help provide the necessary investment to develop robust carbon capture and storage at scale,” he said.

But only 1 per cent of people who fly offset their emissions, according to the International Air Transport Association. We will need to increase our flight offsetting but at the same time – and more importantly – we need to reduce the source of emissions.

For this to happen, Generation easyJet has to keep its feet on the ground – and Harry and Meghan should use their privileged position to lead the way.

Join our commenting forum

Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies

Comments

Thank you for registering

Please refresh the page or navigate to another page on the site to be automatically logged inPlease refresh your browser to be logged in