CO2 compensation: compensation payments really make sense!

I suffer from Smygflyga. While this is not a disease, it describes my feeling of unwell: the fact that I get on a plane even though I feel ashamed of flying. The term is Swedish, just like Greta, and although it is nice in Sweden and I could even get there by train, so there is nothing wrong with it, it will soon be a three-month trip through America.

Feelings of guilt and offsetting emissions

My anticipation grows every day, as does my feeling of guilt. Around 2.2 tons of CO2, that's my share of the emissions that the plane I'm about to sit in shoots into the air – just the outward flight to San Francisco. Like every other person, I should emit 2.7 tons of CO2 per year so that we can achieve the Paris climate agreement. One flight, and zack, my annual CO2 budget is full.

And then I see the number that should clear my conscience: 96 euros. It would cost that much to compensate for the flight, that is, to get the amount of CO2 that I cause elsewhere through climate protection projects. These can be those that avoid emissions anywhere in the world – for example by switching fossil fuels to solar energy. Or those that bind greenhouse gases from the atmosphere, as is the case with afforestation projects. Sounds a bit like the Middle Ages, when people bought themselves out of purgatory with shitty expensive letters. Only our source of fire is the planet we live on – and what I believe in is the man-made climate crisis.

But is it really enough to plant a few trees somewhere in the world to get on a plane with a clear conscience? "If carried out correctly, afforestation can be a sensible measure to compensate for emissions," says Michael Köhl, Professor of World Forestry at the University of Hamburg. After all, trees can bind the carbon from the CO2 in their wood through photosynthesis. "However, trees do not grow forever. At some point in the future they either die, rot and release the previously bound CO2 back into the atmosphere. Or the trees are felled and the wood is used." So it is crucial that the planted trees survive and grow long enough to absorb the emissions: "Very reluctantly, a single beech tree takes around 110 years to remove the amount of CO2 from your flight from the atmosphere."

Preserve and protect forests

Really now? It's a long time. For this very reason, fast-growing tree species are often chosen for compensation projects: in the tropics and subtropics, eucalyptus or acacia plantations, in this country plantations made of poplar or willow. What sounds logical on the one hand, it saves time, limps on the other hand: "Eucalyptus, for example, uses a lot of water due to its rapid growth and can lower the water table," says Köhl. "Fast-growing tree species also produce wood, which can often only be used as firewood and not as a building material." And what happens when you burn? Right: CO2.

"The use of these fast-growing woods therefore only makes a comparatively small contribution to climate protection," said the expert. In addition, one cannot compare the monocultures that arise on such plantations with near-natural economic forests: diversity is significantly more modest, which means that biodiversity is declining not only in the trees themselves, but also in the animals living there. The forest becomes more susceptible to pests and drought. And then CO2 storage is over again. Hmmm.

What cheers me up again: Without our forests, our total national emissions would be 14 percent higher, according to the forest scientist, and refer to the Ministry of Food and Agriculture. Preserving and protecting forests should therefore be at the top of the to-do list. But not their exploitation as a compensation industry, that's my first learning. Because as nice as the trees support us in literally washing our atmosphere out of CO2 – they simply need their time. And, as we have all known and felt for a long time, this is pressing.

Impenetrable climate neutrality

Anita Engels, who I visit at the University of Hamburg, also perceives. She is a professor of sociology and is currently collecting data on compensation projects in developing countries. What she observes: "The issue of environmental protection has taken on a different level of seriousness – not only broad groups in society, but also commercial companies are starting to rethink their strategies."

Because not only we consumers can compensate flights, car and train journeys – companies are now also concerned about their ecological balance. From factories that have trees planted for their climate-friendly chocolate, to companies that pretend their balance sheet with compensation payments and advertise it. One might think that this is not a bad trend. Ulrich Petschow, economist at the non-profit institute for ecological economic research, points out, however: "The proportion of companies that initiate fundamental change with sustainable management is limited." Buying climate neutrality through compensation can "only be a first step. The business models themselves must be put to the test". What he means by this is that companies cannot label themselves green simply because they make compensation payments in the global south. And without asking yourself how your own company can save emissions: for example in the transport chain, in production, on business trips.

Sociologist Anita Engels also has a big but. Because many companies want to put the sustainability stamp on them as quickly as possible and hastily support any compensation projects in developing countries. What is missing: studies, long-term observations and guidelines on the basis of which the projects (e.g. afforestation, energy-efficient stoves, construction of solar systems) are assessed and selected. In addition, many companies do not have to make transparent where their money ends up. As long as there are no set regulations, climate neutrality remains unclear and gets a bland aftertaste – even if the company does everything right.

The easier a behavior is made for me, the more likely it will be

Phew, a lot of input, I know. And then there is the other side of the coin – or, to put it another way, the globe: "The higher the demand for compensation from us, the greater the pressure for Western investors to create a corresponding offer in developing countries", says Engels. The quickest way to do this is in countries "where a corrupt government can quickly implement projects". The victims are often the local people: their country is expropriated, women are often disadvantaged and cultural traditions are no longer respected.

So it is not only important that I support any projects, but also how they are structured – my second learning.

A lot of arguments to weigh. The sociologist advises me to inquire about the aspects that are important to me in the projects from the compensation providers – even if that means a lot more effort because I don't check the box for the airline with which I fly, but have to deal with it in detail.

What I like to do, because I'm morally on the right side. Psychologically, however, it would be easier if compensation payments were already included in the price, so as a customer I don't have to actively choose it. "The easier it is for me to behave, the more likely it will be," explains Dr. Laura Loy, environmental psychologist at the University of Landau. From their point of view, however, what speaks against compensating is the so-called rebound effect. "Because we calm our conscience, we may choose to fly more often than we would have done without the possibility of compensation." The bottom line is that it generates even more CO2. What a mindfuck!

Feeling of shame as a trigger for compensation

Admittedly, in my case it is exactly one thing that gives me the impetus to compensate: my sense of shame. "We have a guilty conscience to fly because we think of the emissions that cause harm, and because we think others judge us for it," said Loy of the uncomfortable feeling. But is shame the right motive to change behavior? "Positive emotions tend to motivate us to act," says Loy. In other words: "We need a nice idea of ​​a sustainable future in which we want to live. We need to know which obstacles are currently in the way of this vision. And what we can do to make it a reality. It works particularly well that if we do not see ourselves as lone warriors, but as part of a movement that together pursues the goal of a sustainable society. " And this is how I come to learning number three: I need a vision and people who share it with me. Ergo: choose the right parties, raise my voice with others, support and share petitions. That doesn't change the 2.2 tons of CO2 that my flight shoots into the atmosphere, but my attitude: that I don't want to fly out of shame anymore, but will change my mind the next time out of conviction.

Insights that lead me to my conclusion and fourth learning: Compensations only make sense if I always try to do my best – and payments are only the last resort to limit damage.

Because, and all experts agree on this: Compensating is still better than doing nothing. And, of course, the best thing is to really avoid avoidable emissions.

And where do I best compensate?

1. ATMOSFAIR has done very well at Stiftung Warentest in all categories, i.e. quality of compensation, transparency and control. A ton of CO2 costs 23 euros here. atmosfair.de

2. CLIMATE COLLECTION in terms of transparency, is in a good range. For this, the projects and the topic of control do very well. Prices per ton of CO2: 23 euros. klima-kollekte.de

3. PRIMAKLIMA gets off very well in all three categories, but is slightly worse than Atmosfair in terms of compensation quality. But prices per ton of CO2: only 15 euros. primaklima.org

4. MYCLIMATE Overall performs well – both in terms of transparency, control and the quality of compensation. Prices per tonne of CO2: 22 euros. myclimate.org

Source: Finanztest, 03/18

Who writes here:

Luisa Gand

Current challenge:

Make cheese yourself from yeast flakes, cashews and psyllium husks. And get used to the fact that it tastes good, but somehow different …

Green life hack:

Throwing clothes exchange parties with friends: is like shopping without money, is really fun and saves resources. Yay!

@ lu.natique

Would you like to read more about the topic and exchange ideas with other women? Then check out the "Science and Environmental Protection Forum" BRIGITTE community past!

Get the BRIGITTE as a subscription – with many advantages. Here you can order them directly.