Carbon neutrality is a term that really flummoxes me these days. With much concerns over climate change issues, anything to do with environment becomes a hot topic. While the hype and hoopla that surrounds such green is much welcome, but at times there is the danger of going overboard and losing relevance. Carbon neutrality is one such thing.
Let me just list what really is carbon neutrality. In our mundane modern day existence, we as individuals are responsible for lot of direct and indirect carbon (to be more precise CO2) emissions in the atmosphere. Right from the toothpaste that we use (after all its manufacturing and transportation must have cost much energy), to the food we consume (oranges from Nagpur, apples from Shimla, mangoes from Raigad, Kellogs from the US, chocolates from Switzerland, tea from Assam, rice from Orissa, etc.) and other similar things are what constitute indirect emissions. Now, coming to the direct ones, namely, our commuting, the electricity that we consume directly namely the air conditioners, the PCs, even the food that we consume, for instance meat and non-vegetarian stuff is considered to have a high carbon footprint.
Essentially, the difference between direct and indirect boils down to one simple things, things that can be changed by individual choices (direct) and things that be influenced in a round about way (indirect). The first step towards leading a more eco-friendly life is to first measure these emissions; the sum of all is referred to as a carbon footprint. Expressed in CO2 tonnes, for instance my personal carbon footprint is 4.85 tonnes per year (courtesy: http://calculator.carbonfootprint.com/calculator.aspx).
(Digressing a bit, according the same calculator:
* The average footprint for people in India is 1.20 tonnes
* The average for the industrial nations is about 11 tonnes
* The average worldwide carbon footprint is about 4 tonnes
* The worldwide target to combat climate change is 2 tonne)
Now, when you extrapolate the same system on a corporate entity and that becomes the carbon footprint for the company; so a manufacturing company will have a much larger footprint vis-à-vis a non-polluting firm like an IT company.
Technically, you can undo quite a major bit of damage that is caused through the means of eco-friendly practices and lifestyle. For instance, an individual and even a company can cut down on the direct emissions by ways of making right choices, for instance, using a bicycle rather than a car, or buying energy efficient equipment. And the indirect emissions can be ‘offset’ by means of undertaking some holistic steps, like planting a tree, etc.
To be carbon neutral, or having a zero carbon footprint, refers to achieving net zero carbon emissions by balancing a measured amount of carbon released with an equivalent amount sequestered or offset. (Wikipedia).
It is sincerely this offset that really bothers me. It all started with the Kyoto Protocol, wherein CERs were touted as a mechanism to reduce the evil of climate change. The idea was simple, rich nations would take a pledge to cut their emissions, and one of the means would be to fund eco-friendly projects in developing countries.
Over the years, there has a huge industry has emerged around the whole ‘offsetting’ business. Especially in countries like US and other European nations, scores and scores of companies offer these ‘offsetting’ options, namely plant trees, adopt an acre of rain forest, etc. By using these offsets a lot many companies are either touting a ‘carbon neutral’ tag these days.
In fact, being carbon neutral is perceived as good corporate social responsibility practice and scores of companies and even countries have declared their roadmap to going carbon neutral like, Dell, Google, HSBC, ING Group, Pepsi, Tesco, etc. Several countries like Denmark, Costa Rica, Norway, Australia, New Zealand, etc. have also announced city-centric or governance-centric carbon neutral approach.
But in this mad rush for being neutral, one important tenet is being ignored, namely “First reduce what you can, then offset the remainder”. This is where a lot of companies and corporates are floundering, by buying CERs or planting trees, they are washing their hands on the whole issue.
I personally know of a vendor of computing equipment, that promises to plant a tree for every PC bought from them. This practice according to the company, not only helps the customer in its carbon offset goals but the vendor itself uses it as a badge to show how neutral it is. I really liked the way Carbon Trade Watch has described the whole offsets phenomenon as “modern day indulgences, sold to an increasingly carbon-conscious public to absolve their climate sins.”
This article was itself prompted by a story that I came across today on Times of India that spoke about the emergence of ‘Green Hosting’. According to the story, some website hosting companies in the US are now ready to plant a tree for every website hosted, thereby making it carbon neutral.
The story quotes a CEO, some Munesh Singh from a Noida-based company, saying that, “Our contributions have helped towards the purchase of one hectare of land in Noida. Our staff is taking responsibility to grow trees on this land. This is a long-term project and will take twenty years before the forest becomes well-grown. The whole project is expected to sequester some 200 tonnes of carbon dioxide while making a real contribution to wildlife conservation.”
Now, the big question is, what the hell was Mr. Singh waiting for, till now? Buying a hectare of land and making it a forest? The whole story (http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Pune/Websites_log_on_to_green_hosting/articleshow/3825245.cms) in many ways makes mockery of the whole concept of carbon neutrality.
In India, I personally know of a BPO company, WNS that has declared its intention to go carbon neutral. But it is not using ‘shortcuts’ to do so. They have appointed a specialist and are working on a host of mechanisms to cut the carbon emissions, both direct and indirect. This indeed is the way to go forward.
Internationally, Google is another company that goes about the town on the whole green thing. But at one of the conferences it was pointed out by certain journalists, that the founders of the company, Sergie Brin and Larry Page’s opulent lifestyle (namely using private jets for travel) was not in line with the way the company asked its employee to adopt a eco-friendly lifestyle. I am sure, both Brin and Page can easily purchase CERs of the various carbon exchanges to offset their lifestyles, but is that right approach?
As we in India, talk about the environment and climate change, it is very important not to mistake the bush for the trees. It is imperative that in spite of all the hype and hoopla, we don’t get lost and remained focused on the goals. Plant trees by all means, but not because of your carbon goals but because you ought to. So, I won’t be paying some company, to offset my 4.85 tonnes of annual CO2, instead I will be more conscious of switching of this comp when I leave for home and probably walk it down instead of hailing a cab.
Paraphrasing the above tenet: First reduce, then reduce and subsequently go on reducing. Offsetting can come later, much much later.
Shashwat DC
