I left Blighty’s leaden skies in cold rain yesterday morning and by evening was sat watching the sun go down over Rethymno, as it has for 4,500 years.

I flew away on a whim, booked a few weeks ago on the spur of a moment, sandwiched between days of rain and a forecast of more to come.

We all know that flying’s bad but faced with few options we either commit to never doing it, only doing it occasionally or we bury our heads in the sand thinking that little old me won’t make much of a difference. There’s rail travel too of course but it’s not much use if you need to see family and friends on the other side of the world. It’s expensive too, especially in Blighty, while flying is way too cheap. It’s the wrong way round.

So what about carbon offsetting? It’s got a bad reputation and rightly so because much of it doesn’t really work. Many offsetting initiatives never actually happen. Forests aren’t planted or have delayed impact, or projects are poorly verified and monitored.

There are concerns too that carbon offsetting might be seen simply as a license to emit, with people justifying their emissions by purchasing offsets, rather than actively reducing their carbon footprints.

Research and surveys consistently show that only a small percentage of air travelers choose to offset their emissions. Estimates typically range from 1% to 10% of flyers globally. Many passengers are simply unaware of the option to offset their emissions, which isn’t always displayed prominently during booking processes. It should be.

As awareness of climate change continues to grow, with increasing pressure on the aviation industry to reduce its carbon footprint, there is potential for higher participation, although this will likely require more education and transparency, and I reckon regulation. How can it be illegal in the UK to drop litter, for which you can be fined up to £2.5k, but to get off scott-free for pumping carbon into the atmosphere?

Given that a considerable number of flyers appear unwilling to accept responsibility for the part that they play, why not make them? If ever there were a tax crying out to be levied, it’s one that attempts to mitigate the damage done to the climate as we jet off to ever sunnier climes. Offsetting shouldn’t be optional.

For all the trips I’ve made to get to and away from the places about which I’ve written on this blog I’ve offset my carbon emissions. You have to be careful, as noted above, because there are cowboys in the business, but there are effective options that have demonstrable and timely impact.

First off, you can visit websites that will calculate the emissions for which you alone are responsible, sat in your aeroplane seat. You simply add your starting and end points and it tots it all up.

Yes, we should all be limiting our emissions, as many do by not eating meat, cycling and rarely using a car, but in amongst the murk of the carbon offsetting market there are organisations that do it well. I use the Gold Standard, widely regarded as one of the most reputable organizations in the carbon offset market. Thanks to my friend, Carole, for the original tip off. Established by the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) and other NGOs, it has strict criteria for project approval, focusing on high environmental and social benefits e.g.:

Rigorous Standards: certified projects must meet rigorous criteria, ensuring that they deliver measurable benefits beyond carbon reduction, such as social and economic improvements.

Third-Party Verification: all projects are independently verified by third parties, which adds a layer of credibility and ensures transparency.

Focus on Co-Benefits: Gold Standard focus on projects that provide additional benefits, such as biodiversity, conservation, improved health and socio-economic development, which are aligned with the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).

It’s not perfect but the emissions associated with my flights have been matched exactly with projects that have immediate impact, such as replacing carbon intensive cooking methods in rural Peru with alternatives that cancel out the muck that I’ve generated. That particular one cost me $25.00 USD and there are many others from which to choose.

I’m not a frequent flyer in the grand scheme of things and aviation contributes 2-3% of global CO2 emissions anyway but, if we do fly, we should all offset. There’s no excuse not to. Yes, there’s good reason to be skeptical because there are so many bad actors in the field but, as the old adage goes, one bad apple doesn’t make the whole bunch bad.

Naysayers can come back at me in the comments below. (Oh – they’re not working – I’ll try to fix it). I know it’s not perfect but it’s better than doing nothing, as might well have been the case for many on my flight. Climate change is real but addressing its challenges is nuanced. Steering clear of the cowboys is always the best approach, whether looking for a plumber or ways to offset the carbon we emit, but the same principles apply. It’s not all bad and it’s not all good but there’s somewhere in between, which has to be better than nowhere at all. And it shouldn’t really be optional.

There’s other stuff we can do too. Here’s a shout out for Exeter Food Action, a charity of which I’m a trustee. In 2023 we ‘rescued’ 118 tonnes of food that might otherwise have gone to waste. Instead it found its way onto the tables of thousands of people living with food insecurity. Coincidentally, that’s the weight of three Boeing 737-800 planes!

If you’re feeling generous you can donate here.

If you’re about to fly, try not to, but here’s the Gold Standard website if you do.

As mentioned above, the comments feature wasn’t working for a while but it is now (19.09.24).