An offset pioneer's perspective

Tejas Ewing interviews Mike Mason, Climate Care

Following many years in the engineering and business world Mike completed a master's degree with the Environmental Change Institute at Oxford University and went on to start Climate Care the following year. Mike is also the founder of Biojoule, a company developing new biomass technologies.

Mike Mason founded Climate Care in 1997, making it one of the longest–running voluntary carbon offset providers in the world. Now nearing his tenth anniversary of leading the organisation, Mason has still not tired of defending carbon offsetting. And he continues to face challenges to the very principle of what he does. “I will not apologise for carbon offsets, because from a logical standpoint they simply make sense.” To him, even after an individual or organisation has invested in reducing their carbon footprint, “there are a number of things you can’t do, won’t do or shouldn’t do to save carbon. If offsetting is cheaper and more effective than these options, why is it a problem?”

For example, he points out that installing solar panels on the roof of his offices would cost approximately £12,000 and would save about 0.8 tonnes of CO2 a year. “If you spend £12,000 in Africa promoting efficient cook stoves you save over 400 times as much carbon, and help improve the income and health of over a thousand people. ” But is such offsetting just a distraction? Wouldn’t installing solar panels make the problem more relevant to the emitter? “Climate Change is the problem, and there are a number of solutions to that problem. I believe that all solutions should be given a chance, so why eliminate one in favour of the other – why not do both?”

“I like to use the analogy that humanity is in a sinking boat, with water pouring through a huge hole in its side. We have to fix the hole – the role of politicians and scientists. But we also have to bail the boat to buy time for this to happen. Carbon offsets are the boat–bailing. Let’s embrace them as a crucial transition tool”. In their work with Land Rover, Climate care was faced with that very situation. “At the heart of it you had people who realised that global warming was a problem that needed responsible action, and there was a personal commitment from board level to do something about it.”

Indeed, asks Mason, what are the options for companies like Land Rover under pressure to cut their carbon emissions? You could tell them to stop selling their products, but “That’s not a valid business decision, and in today’s market, some other company would just fill the gap.” You could do nothing and wait until you are forced by legislation and consumer pressure to change your product, but that is to avoid your moral responsibility. You could develop new products with lower emissions, but this can take many years in sectors such as motor manufacture. So, Mike asks, why not do both: invest in solutions for the longer–term, and include bought emissions reductions with the product right now. “While we wait for a robust legislative response to climate change, there is no other legitimate alternative but to use all available options – and offsetting is one of those options.”

However, for offsets to work well as part of an overall climate change strategy, Mason admits that a great deal of work needs to be done. “We have, as an industry, been caught out by the explosion of interest in what we do. Two years ago, we were struggling to find customers. This year we have had ten–fold growth. As a result, there is a valid criticism that the industry has not had systems in place to provide assurances to the public.” Mike maintains that it is the public facing side that has suffered, when compared to the corporate facing side of the industry. There are fewer issues of controversy and credibility among corporate clients today, because the ones that choose to offset “have incredibly high standards – they know what they want and will be sure to get it.” They ask for all Project Design Documents, they insist on independent audits where necessary and they are choosy about project locations, because they want to protect against risk. And they insist on advice and help in this process. “In our work with Land Rover, we had significant input towards shaping their view on projects. We led them away from biological sequestration through forestry, towards energy–based carbon reduction projects with more immediate and measurable benefits.”

But for the industry as a whole to be viewed with respect, public perception needs to change. “The United Nations Clean Development Mechanism has established a good baseline of what a valid rule–set should look like. I see a burst of collaborative energy where the voluntary offset industry will coalesce around a set of rules that look very much like the CDM.” If the industry builds consensus around a small number of well–defined standards, such as the Gold Standard, then it will eliminate much of the confusion present today. “The public and our corporate clients are all asking for this to happen! Informed people will continue to make informed decisions, but this will pull in those who are uninformed but interested.” To that end, Mike has proposed the creation of an International Carbon Reduction Association, to provide a forum that Governments can talk to. “Governments around the world are reticent about speaking to individual offset providers – they need to talk to an association of collaborative partners. If we are to compete, we must compete on a level playing field.” He hopes to work towards endorsing standards, endorsing behaviours related to carbon reduction and endorsing a valid place for offsetting in society.

“I think we need to remember that the point of an offset is to stop the world warming too much. The underlying reasoning is a moral one. What are we as a society, going to do with our money? Do we need another watch, or another pair of shoes, or do we want to try to make a difference? Frankly, even if people are doing it just to be cool and show off, I don’t give a stuff. What matters is delivering emissions reductions quickly – and people need to remember that credible offsets are emissions reductions, independently measured and verified through recognised standards.”

So what makes a good offset? “The first consideration must always be the quality of the carbon reduction you are buying. There must be certainty about what you do. But there is also a huge value in projects that have collateral benefits. Many of our corporate customers are asking whether they can spend a little more money to deliver more than just a tangible carbon reduction.” And it is in this corporate activity that Mike sees the future of the industry. “Selling to individuals might be the easiest sell, but it won’t be the most effective for the climate.” To him, the fundamental agent of change at the personal level will come through corporate influence. “After all, the greatest amount of money and effort put into communicating to individuals happens between corporations and their customers.”

And corporations will have to make offsetting palatable to us, or they will be in trouble. “The next great extinction will be in the corporate boardroom. There is not a single large business that has plans for an 80% carbon–constrained world. Imagine that the business world wants to deliver 80% reductions by 2050; well, how many of their emissions are unavoidable? Where current technology will not allow significant reductions, how is a company meant to reduce its emissions by 80%? Offsetting will have to have a major role in a carbon–constrained world. We can argue all we want about what role that will take, and there is no denying that we must have global frameworks to legitimise the scope and scale of offsetting activity – but I like to remind people of a quote by Voltaire: ‘Men argue, nature acts.’”