Webdiary - Founded and Inspired by Margo Kingston

This contribution has been submitted to Webdiary by a student in the Online Journalism unit for the Masters in Media Practice and Masters in Publishing courses at The University of Sydney as part of the unit's assessment. The topics covered in the pieces awaiting publication are interesting – and diverse. We hope that Webdiarists will enjoy reading them, as well as giving these aspiring journalists plenty of constructive commentary.

Environmental solution or just a lot of hot air?
by Carmen Li

In this age of environmental awareness and carbon footprint-counting, we are inundated with green alternatives and pressured into offsetting emissions, but are these initiatives really making a difference to climate change or are they just another money making ploy?

Last year the Australian Competition and Consumer Commissioner John Martin described the carbon neutral push as the "latest and trendiest" form of green marketing, warning businesses to ensure they are not misleading their customers.

According to these providers, consumer monies go to projects that "offset" emission and improve the environment in projects in renewable energy; trees and forestry projects; energy efficiency; methane flaring; and waste diversion.

Projects may include planting trees, burning landfill gas and the developing waste composting facilities, but how effective are these projects in curbing the issue of climate change?

Martin noted that a "largely unregulated carbon-cutting business has sprung up selling 'offsets' which pay projects everywhere that neutralise an equal amount of emissions – planting trees or fertilising ocean".

It is difficult to perceive how these offset programs can be beneficial (immediate or long-term) the environment without a solid measures to demonstrate carbon neutrality.

This week Australian consumer organisation Choice, non-profit environment advocates the Total Environment Centre and UTS's Institute for Sustainable Futures released a list of rankings of Australian carbon offset providers.

More than 50 organisations were invited to complete the Carbon Offset Watch survey, which ranked providers according to their responses, but only 20 providers met the criteria and were given a rank, of which five were 'outstanding', 12 deemed good and three satisfactory.

Carbon Watch said that one provider responded to the survey initially but withdrew, another three did not provide sufficient project information for assessment and 30 others refused to participate, which leaves consumers to question the program's integrity.

Providers that gained an outstanding rating had projects that that change or prevent the underlying activities that cause greenhouse gases, such as energy efficiency, renewable energy and diverting waste from landfill, the ratings say.

These programs make it easy for consumers to "go green" at the click of a button and allows large companies to palm off their responsibility of being a sustainable organisation by way of "offsetting" emissions.

The notion of carbon trading and offsetting can be described as paying someone to take away their environmental responsibility and may give rise to a mindset in people that as long as they are able to pay for it they can pollute, and governments and a carbon offset organisation would solve the climate change problem.

However, whatever potential effectiveness these projects may have on the environment is undermined by the veracity of some, as demonstrated and implied by the Carbon Watch survey.

Clearly carbon trading and offsetting and may not be a viable long-term answer to climate change if it cannot convince or prove to the public that it can be a solution or even part of the solution. Nor will the problem be resolved with a culture of problem delegation.