Do Avoidance Carbon Credits Matter as Much as Removal Credits?
In the ongoing battle against climate change, carbon offsetting has emerged as a critical tool in our arsenal. Carbon credits, whether through removal or avoidance, play a crucial role in mitigating the harmful effects of greenhouse gas emissions. However, there has been a recent debate over which approach—removal or avoidance—should be prioritized. While some argue in favor of removal, citing its direct impact on lowering atmospheric CO2 levels, we at Guardyan Conservation assert that avoidance matters just as much, if not more, in our quest for environmental sustainability. But first, let's get some definitions established for removal and avoidance offsets.
Removal Offsets - A type of carbon offset that represents the removal or sequestration of carbon dioxide (CO2) from the atmosphere. This removal is typically achieved through activities such as afforestation (planting trees), reforestation (restoring forests), soil carbon sequestration (improving soil health to store more carbon), carbon mineralization or direct air capture technologies. Removal offsets are used to compensate for emissions elsewhere, effectively impacting the carbon footprint of an individual, organization, or event.
Avoidance Offsets – A type of carbon offset that represents the prevention or avoidance of greenhouse gas emissions that would have otherwise occurred. There are multiple aspects of avoidance offsets such reducing the amount of GHG being emitted as well as preventing the GHG emissions all together. This is typically achieved through projects that reduce emissions by implementing cleaner technologies, early retirement of oil and gas reserves, improving energy efficiency, different feeds for livestock or changing practices to reduce carbon-intensive activities. Avoidance offsets are used to compensate for emissions that are avoided, effectively reducing the overall carbon footprint of an individual, organization, or event.
Now that we have the basics, let's dive into it. An “Carbon offsets aren’t helping the planet — four ways to fix them” by Boyd et al. posits that carbon offsets should primarily focus on removing greenhouse gases, such as carbon dioxide, from the atmosphere. “Foresters, for example, are paid to not chop down trees. These offsets do little to lower CO2 levels in the air and should be replaced with those that facilitate proper removal” (Boyd et al, 2023). The article suggest that avoided emissions, while beneficial in curbing future emissions, do little to address the existing CO2 levels in the air. The Guardyan Team has some thoughts on this.
In an article, “Don’t dismiss carbon credits that aim to avoid future emissions” by Mitchard et al., a fantastic reference was used to support why this is inaccurate. When we envision the Earth's atmosphere as a rapidly filling bathtub, both reducing the tap's flow (avoidance) and pulling the plug out (removal) are essential strategies to prevent overflow. Avoiding emissions that would have occurred under normal operation scenarios is similar to reducing the inflow into the bathtub. This proactive approach effectively reduces the accumulation of atmospheric CO2, contributing significantly to overall emissions reduction efforts.
At Guardyan Conservation, we advocate for a holistic approach to carbon credit solutions—one that recognizes the complementary roles of both removal and avoidance strategies. By diversifying your portfolio with avoidance offsets rather than just removal, it will maximize your environmental impact, help with risk management, maximize financial returns and create long term sustainability. By embracing a comprehensive framework, we can maximize our impact in combating climate change while ensuring the integrity and efficacy of carbon offsetting initiatives.
Citations
Boyd, P. W., Bach, L., Holden, R., & Turney, C. (2023). Carbon offsets aren’t helping the planet — four ways to fix them. Nature, 620(7976), 947–949. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-023-02649-8
Mitchard, E., Ellis, P., Cook Patton, S., & Adjei, R. F. (2024). Don’t dismiss carbon credits that aim to avoid future emissions. Nature, 628(8006), 36–36. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-024-00972-2