Green Certificates & Carbon Offset Credits
Green Certificates & Carbon Offset Credits — Greenwash, Greenwish, or true Sustainability efforts?
When we read or talk about actions that companies are taking to counter the effects of the climate crisis, there is almost no way around terms like ‘green certificates’, ‘carbon offsets, ‘RECs’, ‘net zero’, ‘carbon neutrality’ and many more. However, there is already so much confusion around the meaning behind these terms, with new ones being added on a regular basis to — in theory, account for nuanced differences — when in all actuality, they are already and overwhelmingly being used interchangeably. Nowadays, many of them have become mere buzzwords that hold too much and almost no significant meaning at all.
It is this dichotomy that seems to be present in many aspects surrounding the climate crisis. While there is genuine and warranted interest in expanding the verbiage to allow for the use of correct language and to convey the correct meaning, it looks as though this has created the opportunity for some to hide behind the vastness of terms and for others to simply become overwhelmed by it.
(Distr)action-driven?
Two examples of sustainability measures frequently taken by companies are the purchasing of green certificates (e.g. renewable energy credits: RECs) and the offsetting of carbon emissions. There are countless articles and papers discussing their differences and even more discussing which measure is more beneficial. Spoiler alert: 1) They are similar but different. (Or different but similar. Whichever you prefer.) 2) And it is hard to tell because they are so different.
But what do they have a common? Mainly: the criticism surrounding them. Just like there are ‘good’ and ‘bad’ RECs, there are ‘good’ and ‘bad’ carbon offsets. To offer you two simple, albeit clumsy, examples:
Example 1: A ‘bad’ REC puts money into the pockets of the operator of a renewable energy farm. This operator has no intention of developing new and more sustainable renewable energy sources.
Example 2: A ‘bad’ carbon offset program puts money into the pockets of a landowner who, in turn, pledges to not chop down the trees on their land. The landowner had no intention of (ever) chopping down the trees anyway.
Green certificates and carbon offsets are in a way like a meatless Monday at a butchery or a car-free day in a city with heavy traffic: The effectiveness of these measures heavily depends on the execution. Additionally, most of the efforts’ benefits are lost when they are merely regarded as hall passes for past and future misconduct rather than short-term solutions to bridge the time until greater measures can be taken.
It is important to note that companies are legally required to take these (or similar) measures. It is certainly no secret that many will use these required measures to market themselves as action-driven leaders in their efforts to achieve sustainability and combat the climate crisis. On the surface, there may be no harm in this practice. However, the past has proven that heavy marketing of very little action is often nothing more than the active distraction from overwhelming inaction. You may have heard of this practice as ‘Greenwashing’.
But what about… Of course, there are players that are hoping to change their respective industries. They are equipped with good intentions and innovative ideas. Inaction is not even part of their vocabulary. Yet, they still can become part of the problem. How? Well, in 2019 Duncan Austin coined a new term called ‘Greenwishing’. In his paper ‘Greenwish: The Wishful Thinking Undermining the Ambition of Sustainable Business’, he writes:
Greenwish: a sort of greenwash gone meta, fuelled mainly by good intentions but characterized by a tendency to let a thin layer of sustainable advances distract attention from the unsustainability of most of the economy.
So there really is no winning, huh? We have come to know that there is no fix-for-all available to the climate crisis. While ‘small steps every day’ may look good on a motivational poster, it is far from effective in the grand scheme of combatting the climate crisis. While it would be wrong to generally call for less debate around the semantics, we need to shift our gaze to actions rather than words. It is simply not significant if a company is attempting to maliciously greenwash away the climate crisis or to greenwish it away in a state of blissful ignorance. The business-as-usual approach just does not cut it when the goal is not to ‘be more sustainable’ but reach sustainability before it is too late.
At the end of the day: Maybe the question is not whether or not green certificates like RECs or carbon offsets are sustainable, maybe the real question should be if all parties involved hold up their end of the bargain. Scientists have been and continue to be vocal about the targets that have to be met within specific timeframes. It is up to policy-makers to create and clearly communicate frameworks that require innovation and no longer hold space for outdated business practices. All the while, companies need to practice holding themselves — and others — accountable and rid themselves of unnecessary vanity in the process. Those who are vain want to stick out from the crowd. But crises are not overcome through individual acts but collective and collaborative efforts.
