The following is a really good response, from the Environmental Transport Agency, to my earlier post regarding carbon offsetting.
“Dear Mr Beynon
I agree with much of what you say in your blog; carbon offsetting is highly flawed – particularly when it involves planting trees.
As you know, we are a not-for-profit organisation that sells breakdown cover and insurance cover in order to finance charitable work.
Far from relying on offsetting as a means of establishing our green credentials, the ETA focuses on promoting sustainable transport and educating drivers on the environmental impact of transport in general.
Our projects includes: ‘The Real Cost of Motoring’ – analysis of the full costs of motoring as can safely be quantified in monetary terms; The ETA Car Buyers’ Guide -an annual survey of the environmental impacts of cars available in British showrooms (It considers factors such as noise, emissions, engine size and power); Green Transport Week, an awareness-raising exercise which is designed to engage as many people as possible in doing their bit to reduce transports effect on the environment; ETA’s Safer Car Campaign; The ETA launched the world’s first national car free day, which has now become a global event; Taxation – we helped persuade the government to increase taxes on gas-guzzlers and reduce them on smaller cars; Noise – we helped set up Britain’s new anti-noise campaign against increased air paths and noisy road traffic; Road danger – discussed with ministers the benefits of reducing speeds on our streets; Speed – we are a founder member of the Slower Speeds Initiative; Planning – promoted environmental issues into the planning process; and finally carbon offsetting.
The offsetting funded by the ETA does not involve tree planting. Our scheme involves replacing the indoor open fires used by people in the developing world in order to cook with far more efficient stoves – these reduce carbon emissions and have the added benefit of being much better for human health. This project would not happen if not for the funding from the offset scheme.
The principle reason we continue to offer the carbon offsetting scheme is not to assuage guilt, but rather raise awareness of the environmental impact of carbon emissions.
Kind regards
Head of Communications
The Environmental Transport Association”
and, after further dialogue:
“I know it sounds like a contradiction because our revenue comes in the main from motorists, but we do all we can to promote the alternatives – our members drive around 6,000 miles per year, which is almost half the national average. We obviously can’t take all the credit for that, but it does make them a good audience for messages about alternatives like cycling.
Although it does not count as a campaign, we developed and sell a cycle insurance product that amongst its benefits includes third party insurance and a breakdown service just for cyclists – by giving cyclists the same level of cover and service that is traditionally enjoyed by motorists we hope to play a small part in the revival of cycling.
Kind regards
Head of Communication”
