High admin charges of carbon offset schemes
Written by Karen BryanEasjey has criticised the admin fees of between 25 – 30% charged by some carbon offset schemes. Easjyet plans to buy credits in United Nation backed schemes and sell these back to passenger.
Photo by lostajy’s
I feel slightly uneasy about carbon offset schemes. I think that they are only part of the solution. I think it’s better to fly less for leisure. Perhaps I am shooting myself in the foot, as a travel business owner. I just don’t feel it’s right to say, just go on flying as much as you like and it won’t cause any problems as long as you always do your carbon offsets. What do you think?
The scepticism about rouge used carbon salesmen is appropriate. However, it is clear that quality carbon offsets can be beneficial to the planet particularly if the offsets are for greenhouse emissions that have no optional greenhouse reduction strategy. A case in point is air travel. If you do travel by air then it is appropriate to offset the emissions. For this reason Uncook carbon offset have been designed as a quality product with highly additional projects administered through the respected Greenhouse Gas Abatement Scheme. See http://www.uncook.com for more information.
I think that you hit the nail on the head by saying “quality” carbon offsets. I would define that by saying a sensible admin charge and carefully selected projects with maximum benefit. There has been talk of a kitemark scheme which would set standards.
[...] There’s also some mistrust of carbon offset schemes due to the lack of common standards and high admin charges. Or if it simply people paying lip service to concerns about the environment because it’s the [...]
There is distrust of carbon offset schemes because of lack of common standard as well as high admin charges.