Niall Christie takes a deep dive into greenwashing, and asks whether charities are unwittingly getting caught up in schemes which allow big business planet polluters to cover up their dirty deeds

A  pandemic has come and (not yet) gone, crises continue in all corners of the world. Yet, the emerging, all-encompassing fear of the climate emergency is one which activists, campaigners and society as a whole has continued to put at the forefront of its thinking.

The hosting of the UN’s Cop26 conference in Glasgow at the tail end of 2021 marked a significant shift in the thinking of many people across Scotland and the UK, with the realities of addressing the single biggest threat to humanity dumped on our own doorstep.

That conference, as well as the work of generations of climate activists, has outlined that the responsibility for tackling such an immense problem should be with those most at fault for the state of the planet. Big business and decision-makers in parliament are beginning to face increased scrutiny about their role in the ecological timebomb waiting to explode across the globe.

But, as they always do, those with power will continue in their attempts to avoid scrutiny and bat away criticism – instead with a focus put on the small steps they may be taking in lieu of systemic overhauls that would make a tangible difference to the state of our planet, as well as the people who live on it.

Proposed solutions are plentiful, but most continue to face opposition. An end to oil and gas extraction will never be voted through by decision-makers while there is still money to be made.

Instead, those who work to save the planet from this increasingly likely doom are made to oppose piecemeal solutions, which some say fail to address the root problems driving the climate emergency.

Charities – particularly those in Scotland – have always been at the forefront of driving social change. But as some schemes fade into accepted practice, could some charities be allowing themselves to be used as a part of government-approved greenwashing schemes?

Scotland’s bountiful forests make it a key target for corporate and business interests looking to “offset” their carbon footprint.

A number of Scottish charities provide land for trees to be planted on – either privately or via the government-sponsored Woodland Carbon Code.

But some environmental groups have consistently argued against carbon offsetting, warning of the disproportionate areas of land needed, the effect this has on land prices in rural Scotland, and saying that it doesn’t change the behaviours of some of the country’s worst polluters, and in fact allows them to greenwash their activities.

Registered charities in Scotland both sell and buy carbon credits to try and offset their own carbon footprints, as well as other groups from across civic Scotland.

Should charities – now more environmentally conscious than ever – continue to take part in this practice?

Carbon offsetting, in this case the purchasing of carbon credits, is a way of paying for others to reduce emissions or absorb CO2 to compensate for your own emissions.

Nearly 800 projects across Scotland are currently listed as taking part in woodland or peatland regeneration schemes, though some remain under development and are yet to buy or sell any credits through the schemes.

In total, 27 projects covering 1781.43 hectares of Scotland – an area larger than Stirling – are run by or have some charity involvement in their development.

The organisations behind some of these include the Woodland Trust – which is the developer for 15 of these projects – as well as the National Trust for Scotland (NTS).

A spokesperson for the NTS said: “NTS has made a commitment to be carbon negative by 2031.

“In order to meet that target we will prioritise reducing and eliminating our emissions – but given we have a large, complex estate, including historic buildings and off-grid properties sometimes in very sensitive landscapes, it may not be possible to eliminate all emissions. We will need to offset what we can’t eliminate.

“As a landowner we have the potential to increase the carbon capture on our land through peatland restoration and woodland expansion. The Woodland and Peatland Codes provide a rigorous, third party authenticated process – which if followed results in the creation of carbon credits. It is worth noting that credits are only issued through additional activity.

“The trust currently has no plans to sell any credits or buy them from anyone else.

“Offsetting is a legitimate short-term mechanism but not a long-term solution to climate change.

“It is better that organisations follow the highest standards of scrutiny and validation of offsetting projects – which the current Peatland and Woodland Codes offer.”

Local groups, such as the Ballindalloch Trust in Speyside, the Comrie Development Trust in Perthshire, and the Borders Forest Trust have declared sites as being under development, meaning no carbon credits have yet been sold. However, reports published by the Woodland Carbon Codes estimate that tens of thousands of carbon credits could be made available by these three projects.

A spokesman for Comrie Development Trust said: “Comrie Development Trust is not currently taking part in any carbon credit trading. Furthermore, we do not intend to in the future until, as a board of trustees, we fully understand the social, economic and environmental implications of trading carbon linked to our land holdings.”

Further sites being developed include three owned by Scotland’s Rural College (SRUC) which are listed as being under development, as well as two owned by an overseas charity.

Ripa Gar Stiftung, or Ripa Gar Foundation, is a charity registered in Switzerland which owns around 480 hectares of land in Scotland, and which has already sold over 4,000 carbon credits to large companies.

These include some credits assigned to the multinational, universal bank Barclays, and represent just three per cent of the overall number of carbon credits that could be sold by Ripa Gar Stiftung.

“Protecting and restoring nature is vital for its own sake and can help mop up emissions that are impossible to cut, but the concept of carbon offsetting is a scam that is inextricably linked to greenwashing,” Friends of the Earth Scotland’s head of campaigns, Mary Church, said.

“Offsetting enables polluters to disguise their inaction on the climate emergency, with schemes all too often based on flawed maths that misrepresents the different emissions lifecycles of natural carbon sinks like forests and peatlands compared to fossil fuels.

“It is deeply alarming to see the emerging trend of large swathes of land in Scotland being designated or sold off for carbon offsetting. These ineffective schemes will do nothing for the people on the sharp end of climate breakdown, nor will this shift in land ownership benefit communities in Scotland.

“As the reality of the climate crisis hits we are increasingly seeing big polluters and governments talking up speculative technology and carbon offsetting plans to con us into believing they can achieve their vague net zero targets without changing from business as usual. The reality is that the only way to avoid climate catastrophe is to rapidly phase out fossil fuels as part of a just transition to a renewable energy economy.

“Climate pollution must be stopped at source and there is literally no time to waste on the illusion that markets for carbon and dodgy accounting tricks will help.

“The Scottish Government was right to rule out the use of international carbon credits as part of Scotland’s efforts to meet our own climate targets but it must take an objective look at its role in enabling investors to gobble up land here for the same purpose.”

Other groups remain split on the merits of carbon credits and offsetting, claiming this is something that must be monitored in the coming years.

WWF’s position is that organisations should develop and implement plans to cut their greenhouse gas emissions by as much as possible. The group told TFN that organisations should only consider purchasing carbon credits for the emissions which are considered the very hardest to abate.

Jo Pike, chief executive of the Scottish Wildlife Trust, told TFN that “this is a complex area, where there are both opportunities and risks”.

She added: “It’s really important to understand that there are a lot of factors that could make the difference between doing good and causing harm here. At the simplest level, we need to remember that the nature crisis and the climate crisis are inextricably linked.

“At the same time, it is absolutely critical that we accelerate and scale up efforts to reduce emissions. The UK’s Climate Change Committee is clear that no-one should be thinking about carbon credits without making significant and sustained efforts to reduce emissions and we fully support this. And no-one should be trying to offset emissions that should ultimately be reduced to zero. However, where emissions cannot realistically be reduced to zero, well-designed, scientifically-based and transparent carbon credit schemes have the potential to be part of the solution.

“Even this is too simplistic a statement to be taken in isolation, as there are all sorts of considerations that are fundamental to whether carbon credits will do good or do harm.

“Ultimately, this is an area that we need to monitor carefully to ensure that the right outcomes are being delivered without serious unintended consequences.”

While some charities purely sell their carbon credits through the government scheme, others use private means of selling carbon offsetting to large companies.

Trees for Life is a charity based at Findhorn Bay in Moray. As well as selling through the UK’s Woodland Carbon Code scheme, Trees for Life offers “corporate partnerships” which allow companies to plant “groves” across Scotland.

Its clients include Enterprise Rent-a-Car, the Scottish Event Campus in Glasgow, and international investment managers Bailie Gifford.

These partnerships range in cost from £1,000 plus VAT for smaller, “Silver” partners, to “Gold” level sponsors who are required to pay £2,000 plus VAT, as well as a top “Platinum” tier partnership costing £5,000 plus VAT.

The charity’s website lists various benefits corporations will receive when they sign up to these tiers – which come with annual fundraising targets equal to their initial joining fees – including invitations to private dinners, branding for a corporation’s website, media support for “campaigns”, and discounts on various activities.

Trees for Life says on its website that partners “are fundamental to our ability to rewild the Scottish Highlands”.

Richard Bunting, spokesperson for Trees for Life, said: “Greenwashing by companies claiming to offset their carbon footprints while failing to decarbonise is a real problem, as is large companies buying up land for planting the wrong trees in the wrong places, which can damage habitats or productive farmland. These schemes often don’t benefit communities, and can push up land values in rural areas beyond local people’s reach.

“At our Dundreggan rewilding estate in Glenmoriston, we’re pioneering a different approach through our community carbon share initiative. This is exploring how nature restoration can soak up carbon dioxide while boosting biodiversity and helping local communities to thrive, combined with action to decarbonise and leave fossil fuels in the ground.

“It’s a community-focused and ecologically led approach which involves only selling UK Woodland Carbon Code-accredited ‘carbon units’ to organisations working to reduce their emissions as much as possible, but which want to offset unavoidable emissions as they do so. We want this to be a blueprint for other landowners so these multiple wins for nature, climate and people can be rolled out more widely.”

But this “blueprint” for landowners has garnered some criticism, as the inequity of land costs for some of the poorest in Scotland continues to exacerbate rural poverty.

North East Labour MSP Mercedes Villalba said: “In Scotland, we need a workers’ and consumers’ led approach to reducing emission, rather than greenwashing by the extremely wealthy.

“Clearly big business is strategically promoting ecological arguments for projects that will do little to tackle climate change, but which will deliver massive profits for the super-rich.

“Far too much so-called carbon capture is a ruse used by big polluters to continue to burn carbon elsewhere.

“The Scottish Government must address this issue. If we are to tackle climate change we need to capture carbon already in the atmosphere while drastically reducing new emissions.

“This can only be achieved through public ownership of the energy sector, with genuine workers’ control and that of service users.”

Further to those developing and selling Scotland’s land to offset carbon emissions, a number of groups have purchased carbon credits and participated in the scheme that way.

The Scottish Chamber Orchestra bought carbon credits from Trees for Life, while the Edinburgh Anaesthetics Research and Education Fund (EAREF) has also purchased carbon credits.

Other groups from outside civic society, ranging from the University of Strathclyde to the Labour Party, and the publishers of large newspapers, have also bought carbon credits through the government-approved scheme.

A spokesperson for the University of Strathclyde said: “The university has committed to reducing its carbon emissions by 80% by 2030 and achieving net zero by 2040 or earlier.

“We participated in the EAUC’s pilot pathfinder scheme during Cop26. Nonetheless, we recognise the limitations of off-setting schemes, particularly around their provenance, longevity and assurance processes. We remain fully committed to delivering deep decarbonisation across our estate and operations as a priority before considering any off-setting schemes.”

However, the scheme is also used by questionable companies – with online investigative journalism site, The Ferret, reporting last year that weapons manufacturers, multinational banks and oil and gas companies were among those taking part in the scheme.

This raises questions over whether charities who buy and sell carbon credits are giving cover to those who continue to exacerbate the climate emergency.

Scottish Greens MSP Mark Ruskell said: “Under the right conditions, carbon offsetting schemes may have a role to play in building a greener future. But they cannot be used as a smokescreen for big emitters who want to avoid responsibility for their actions.

“In Scotland, these schemes have been linked to inflated land prices in rural and island areas and encouraged the planting of fast-growing but biodiversity-poor monocrop forests.

“Our goal can’t be to transfer or offset emissions, it must be to meaningfully reduce them. We need companies and governments to take the climate action that is so necessary. That means making real and fundamental changes, not tinkering at the edges or trying to commodify the right to pollute.”

Scottish Environment Link is the forum for Scotland’s voluntary environment community. The group has over 40 member bodies representing a “broad spectrum of environmental interests with the common goal of contributing to a more environmentally sustainable society”.

Deborah Long, Link’s chief officer, said: “In the face of the climate and nature crises, it is essential that we change the way we use our land in ways that capture carbon and increase our biodiversity.

“There is a massive gap between finance needed to do this work and the public funding available. The clear expectation from government is that private finance will be needed to fill this gap. If private finance has a role, then it must genuinely deliver ecological benefits and avoid greenwashing for polluting businesses – as things stand, the mechanisms to achieve this are woefully underdeveloped.

“But there are also enormous opportunities for communities to benefit from nature restoration – both directly from returns on investment, and more widely through the societal-wide benefits of a healthy and abundant natural environment.

“The emerging approach to private investment must be defined by high ecological standards and should be informed, as far as possible, by local circumstances as well as national targets.

“Scotland needs a just transition in land use that delivers environmental and social objectives together.”

For those that are already participating in the scheme, there is a feeling that this balance between the negative and positive effects of carbon offsetting are now starting to develop.

As outlined above, the Woodland Trust is a significant player in the scheme across Scotland, with multiple sites.

Despite this, a spokesman for the charity told TFN that while “there is no doubt that woodland carbon projects can be a positive mechanism for woodland expansion,” it is clear that “some negative unintended consequences are emerging”.

He added: “Carbon payments for woodland creation should empower communities, not hinder them. We would like to see debate on regulation to keep the system on track as a positive force. Sensible regulation is required to make the system work better. We would support regulation to ensure community access to affordable land, access to affordable housing and empowerment of local communities to shape their own destinies.”

But the group maintained support for the Woodland Carbon Code (WCC) as a “transparent UK Woodland Carbon Registry”.

The spokesman added: “The Woodland Trust supports the WCC as it provides a robust and transparent methodology for carbon sequestration and reassures buyers that carbon credit investments are validated, verified and fully traceable.  

“Woodland Carbon is the Woodland Trust’s own WCC certified scheme to encourage tree planting.

“Woodland Trust Scotland is actively partnering with landowning communities to help them benefit from new carbon markets, including in Eigg, Langholm and Assynt.  

“We scrutinise the companies we sell carbon on to. We only deal with organisations that can demonstrate they are taking steps to reduce their carbon footprint. We will not deal with organisations using the carbon market as a justification to carry on with business as usual.”

A Scottish Government spokesperson said: “We have significantly increased investment in nature restoration in recent years, but the size of the challenge is substantial and the public purse cannot meet it alone. Private investment is therefore part of enabling the pace and scale of action required to restore our natural environment and tackle climate change.

“We are clear this investment is required but also clear it must be responsible. We are determined to ensure that this private investment is socially responsible and provides wider public benefit, including for local communities. We want to work with investors who share our values so that we encourage responsible investment in our natural capital for Scotland.

“Creating new woodlands is vital if we are to tackle climate change. Around half of the applications for new woodlands are for small scale projects run mostly by farmers and crofters. Woodland carbon credits are a positive contribution to helping expand Scotland’s woodlands.”

However, reforesting experts say that with all the positives of the WCC scheme, significant risks remain – particularly around the use of such mechanisms by large-scale polluters.

“In our view carbon credits have both benefits and risks,” a spokesman for Reforesting Scotland told TFN.

“On the positive side, there is enormous potential for increased carbon sequestration through land management.

“Carbon credits have enabled some reforestation and peatland restoration projects that would not otherwise have gone ahead. Where communities and charities control the land, carbon funding can be a source of income for them, enabling them to employ more people and do better management.

“On the negative side, any new land value in Scotland is likely to entrench the existing inequality – already the worst in Europe – in Scotland’s land ownership. This is a systemic problem that applies to forestry, sport shooting, energy generation and farming just as much as it does to carbon credits, so it will only be addressed by systemic land reform, not by tinkering with individual land uses.

“Carbon markets can lead to an overly narrow focus on carbon over other social and environmental objectives.

“Finally, carbon offsetting allows or justifies carbon emissions by the offsetter, which can increase emissions where the carbon price is too low or the offsetting scheme poorly run.

“Carbon markets may be one tool in reducing emissions and reforming land management, but the government should not rely on them alone. Carbon-smart, nature-friendly land management needs to become a basic responsibility of land ownership. It needs to be built into every aspect of land support, regulation and taxation. It also needs to be accompanied by meaningful land reform to ensure that the benefits are not monopolised.”

The UK government, Ballindalloch Trust, SRUC, Ripa Gar Stiftung, Borders Forest Trust, EAREF and Scottish Chamber Orchestra were approached for comment.