Finite Carbon, the largest carbon offset company in the United States, has invested in many alleged sustainability projects that serve corporate interests while delivering few or near-zero meaningful environmental outcomes, based on recent offset ratings analysis, The Guardian reported.
The findings once again raise a critical debate about the validity of some carbon offset programs and whether their emphasis on short-term savings inhibits real progress.
What's happening?
The everyday activities of many corporations (particularly those producing dirty energy with coal, oil, or gas) contaminate our air, land, and water, leading to record-high pollution and a slate of frightening potential effects.
"Air pollution corrupts not only the health of individuals, but also the health of society," Massachusetts Institute of Technology assistant professor Jackson Lu explained.
Not exactly a spotless image for the energy sector, which is responsible for at least 75% of worldwide heat-trapping gas emissions. That's where Finite Carbon comes in. Its majority stakeholder, BP, is the global oil and gas behemoth primarily responsible for 2010's catastrophic Deepwater Horizon spill.
Businesses pay Finite Carbon to develop offset projects so that they can earn "carbon credits" through policies such as California's Cap-and-Trade Program.
"It sounded too good to be true," said Julia Hostler, a Hoopa Valley Tribe member, per The Guardian. (In 2012, the tribe contemplated but did not move forward with one such project with Finite Carbon that would have paid it for continuing to manage forestland as it had already been doing.)
Hostler's skepticism is warranted. As recent data revealed, a number of Finite Carbon's forest conservation projects (nearly 80% of assessed carbon credits) targeted the protection of forests that are not — and never were — under any particular threat, The Guardian noted.
Why are carbon offsets problematic?
The rapidly growing carbon offset industry has been controversial, claiming companies that release hazardous pollution in large quantities can balance out their harmful impact by financing environmental restoration elsewhere.
This equilibrium approach, Vox explained in 2020, is often strongest for sectors "that currently have no cleaner alternative, like air travel."
But other industries may eschew available alternatives in favor of carbon credits, which bandage concerns but don't directly confront them.
The system "is a joke if large energy companies just buy existing forestland, then claim they are carbon neutral," one Reddit user opined on r/forestry. "You didn't create anything, you just changed who owns it."
At worst, offset systems are vulnerable to manipulation, though some companies are combating that through a commitment to transparent and frequent reporting and third-party verification..
"The potential for mischief, for gaming … is just overwhelming," climate scientist Mark Trexler told The Guardian. That means a corporation could earn a climate-conscious reputation — without actually doing anything to genuinely help the environment.
What can businesses do about it?
Instead of diverting resources to peripheral offsets, companies may consider their most central practices and priorities — ensuring alignment with an optimistic future, not an apologist past.
By investigating the effectiveness of their climate campaigns and investing in cutting-edge (yet cost-saving) solutions, businesses can build authentic consumer trust, strengthen industry standing, and affirm a contribution toward a healthier, happier world.
Join our free newsletter for good news and useful tips, and don't miss this cool list of easy ways to help yourself while helping the planet.
Cool Picks
