Header of Edgardo Civallero
Critical notes

Leaving Green Libraries Behind (03 of 10)

The Carbon Illusion: Offsetting Guilt While Fueling Inequity

Home > Critical notes > Leaving Green Libraries Behind (03 of 10)

 

[This post is the continuation of a series that challenges the status quo of "green libraries." While the first piece set the stage with a critical lens, this and the posts to come will dive deeper into different concepts].

 

Introduction

Carbon offsetting has become one of the most popular tools in the Global North's sustainability arsenal. Institutions, corporations, and even individuals can calculate their carbon footprints and "offset" their emissions by funding projects that reduce or prevent emissions elsewhere — usually in the Global South. On the surface, it seems like a simple, effective solution to the climate crisis: you pollute, you pay, and someone else neutralizes your impact.

But is it really that simple?

The reality is far more complicated — and far less sustainable. Just as "green libraries" often use eco-friendly façades to mask deeper environmental issues, carbon offsetting serves as a convenient smokescreen, allowing the Global North to maintain its polluting habits while outsourcing responsibility for the climate crisis. Beneath the polished marketing lies a deeply inequitable system, one that perpetuates global inequalities, distracts from meaningful action, and often causes harm to the very communities it claims to help.

 

How Carbon Offsetting Works

At its core, carbon offsetting is based on the idea of balance. For every ton of carbon dioxide emitted in one part of the world, an equivalent amount is supposedly removed or prevented from entering the atmosphere elsewhere. Offsetting programs achieve this through a variety of projects, e.g. planting trees to absorb CO₂, funding renewable energy initiatives, like wind farms or solar panels, or providing cleaner cookstoves to reduce reliance on wood-burning in developing countries.

These initiatives are marketed as win-win solutions: the Global North can continue its way of life while the Global South benefits from sustainable development projects. It sounds ideal in theory — but in practice, the story is very different.

 

The Hidden Costs of Carbon Offsetting

The biggest flaw in carbon offsetting lies in its assumptions. These programs treat carbon emissions as interchangeable: a ton of CO₂ released by a car in the Global North is supposedly equivalent to a ton of CO₂ prevented by a solar project in the Global South. But this ignores the systemic issues that drive emissions in the first place.

Rather than addressing overconsumption, resource extraction, and fossil fuel dependence in the Global North, offset programs shift the burden of environmental responsibility onto communities in the Global South. This perpetuates the same colonial patterns that have long defined global economic systems: the wealthier nations extract resources, pollute, and consume, while poorer nations are expected to clean up the mess.

And often, the Global South's role in offsetting programs comes at its own expense. Forests are commodified. Land is repurposed for offset projects, displacing communities. Local needs are deprioritized in favor of projects designed to benefit donors in the Global North.

Even if we accept the premise of carbon offsetting, the effectiveness of these programs is deeply flawed. Many offset projects overestimate their impact, lack proper oversight, or fail to deliver the promised results.

Take tree planting, one of the most common offset initiatives. While planting trees can absorb carbon dioxide, it takes decades for those trees to grow large enough to offset significant emissions — and even then, they are vulnerable to logging, wildfires, and deforestation. Moreover, monoculture plantations (where only one type of tree is planted) can harm biodiversity and deplete local water supplies, creating more problems than they solve.

As Cullenward & Wara (2021) argue, carbon offsetting ultimately allows the Global North to maintain unsustainable lifestyles while imposing the burden of environmental sacrifice on marginalized communities. The Global South becomes a dumping ground for the Global North's guilt — without addressing the root causes of the climate crisis.

Additionally, Heil & Wodon (2000) demonstrate how future CO₂ emissions are likely to remain unequal, with industrialized nations continuing to emit at vastly higher rates per capita than developing nations. Despite this disparity, climate policies —such as carbon offsetting— often place the burden of mitigation on the Global South, exacerbating the inequalities in who contributes to, and who pays for, the climate crisis.

 

The Global Inequalities of Carbon Markets

As Bumpus & Liverman (2008) explain, carbon offset programs often take the form of "accumulation by decarbonization." This means that while the Global North continues to profit from polluting industries and high-consumption lifestyles, the Global South is expected to bear the costs of offset projects — whether by providing land for tree planting, labor for renewable energy projects, or resources for biofuels.

These programs commodify nature, turning ecosystems into tradable carbon credits. Instead of addressing the ecological and social damage caused by extraction, they simply create new markets for exploitation.

Ervine (2015) critiques carbon trading as a form of "false environmentalism." By focusing on technical fixes like offsetting, these schemes avoid the difficult, necessary work of reducing emissions at the source. For corporations and governments in the Global North, offsetting becomes a way to buy time — maintaining business as usual while outsourcing the responsibility for climate action.

As Navarro (2022) points out, carbon offsetting often exacerbates global inequalities rather than reducing them. The power structures that underpin these programs allow the Global North to extract resources, pollute, and claim moral superiority while the Global South bears the ecological and social consequences. This perpetuates a system where the wealthiest nations maintain their privilege at the expense of the most vulnerable.

 

Moving Beyond Offsets

Carbon offsetting is not a solution — it's a distraction. By focusing on offsets, the Global North avoids confronting its own responsibility for the climate crisis. Real change will require a fundamental shift in how we think about emissions, consumption, and justice.

Here are a few steps libraries and other institutions can take to move beyond the illusion of offsets:

 

Conclusion

Carbon offsetting programs offer a convenient way to assuage guilt in the Global North, but they fail to address the deeper, systemic changes needed to confront the climate crisis. They perpetuate global inequalities, externalize responsibility, and distract from the urgent need for real action.

Libraries, like other institutions, must reject these superficial solutions and embrace the hard work of systemic change. The climate crisis cannot be solved by outsourcing responsibility — it requires accountability, justice, and a willingness to confront the structures that drive overconsumption and environmental harm.

It's time to move beyond offsets and build a truly sustainable future — one that doesn't come at the expense of the Global South.

 

References

 

About the post

Text: Edgardo Civallero.

Date: 20.12.2024.

Image: "Carbon Offsetts vs. Carbon Credits" In BECIS [Link].