Getting to Zero: Removal vs. avoidance
At the most basic level, carbon offset methods can be split into two groups: Methods that are avoiding emissions in the future, and methods that remove CO₂ from the atmosphere.
--
The most common form of avoidance is renewable energy, such as wind and solar, as well as energy-saving activities such as providing clean cookstoves or boilers.
The general idea is that if you buy energy-efficient cook stoves for people in developing countries, they will use these instead of burning wood. This results in a net reduction in the amount of CO₂ being emitted in the future.
Similarly, renewable energy offsets assume that the energy generated from renewable sources would otherwise have been generated from sources with higher CO2 emissions like coal, oil, and gas. The difference is then counted as an offset.
The problem with avoidance is that no GHGs are actually removed from the atmosphere. As shown on the graph, there is no negative emission taking place, but rather an absence of emissions in a future year. As a result, it is not advisable to use avoidance for any type of compensating emissions, especially if you intend to communicate your efforts to the public.
Furthermore, most renewable energy offsets, particularly wind and solar, struggle with “additionally”. You can read more about that here.
The alternative to avoidance is carbon removal. The advantage here is that instead of avoiding future emissions, we are actively taking out GHGs from the atmosphere. This makes it more appropriate to talk about compensation, as there is a greater equivalence between emitting GHGs and removing them.
As shown in the graph on the right, this results in a negative emission. By actually removing emissions, a company can more credibly make the statement that they are Net-Zero.
With this knowledge at hand, we can dig into different types of Carbon Removal and how to understand them. Read more here.
