Erasemyfootprint: Carbon offsetting code is 'too restrictive'

Erasemyfootprint.com are UK based carbon offset providers for businesses and households. They invest in forestry and renewable energy projects such as small scale hydro power from reopening old water mills and biogas generation from farm waste.

Erasemyfootprint welcome a proposed code of practice for carbon offsetting but feel that the current proposals are too restrictive. Many very good projects are unable to qualify for certification due to factors such as small scale or being based in a country signed up to Kyoto.

They believe that UK based offsetting projects have many advantages.

Accessibility – offset buyers can see for themselves their projects in progress

Verification – The UK has the most developed carbon economy in the world and as such projects based here will be more robustly monitored and verified as additional.

Consumer confidence – Consumers wishing to purchase offset products need to have confidence in the projects they invest in. UK projects give greater confidence than projects abroad that have been approved by an intergovernmental quango.

Environmental benefit – Many offsetting projects have wider benefits than just saving or storing CO2. Forestry projects provide local amenities and wildlife habitat. Renewable energy projects reduce the need for conventional power stations. These benefits if paid for by UK consumers should be enjoyed by UK consumers.

Establishing new technologies – Projects such as biogas generation will be financially viable on their own in the UK but need to be demonstrated as such to encourage wider investment.

The fact that the UK has an obligation under Kyoto to reduce emissions should not be taken to mean that emission reduction projects in the UK which erasemyfootprint or other offset providers invest in would have happened anyway and therefore are not valid as genuine offsetting projects. This is what DEFRA refer to as ‘double counting’.

It would appear that if the proposed code of practice is adopted then projects that would help the UK reduce emissions here would be ineligible for the standard mark. Identical emissions reductions in developing countries which, if funded from the UK would count against our Kyoto target, would get approval.

The code of practice in its present form is attempting to use the clean development mechanism for a purpose it was not intended. It is lazy regulation by an environment minister in a hurry.

For further information on the services erasemyfootprint can offer go to www.erasemyfootprint.com or email info@erasemyfootprint.com