There are many schemes you can use to offset carbon, and the one you choose will depend on your goals.

Carbon offsets can be split into two camps: avoidance and sequestration.

Avoidance = prevents greenhouse gases entering the atmosphere.

For example:

• replacing fossil fuels with renewable energy, like stoves or solar panels.
• Preventing areas of rainforest or peatlands being cut down.

Removal (also called sequestration) = removes carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.

For example:

• nature-based, like creating woodlands and planting trees,
• or technology-based, like carbon capture and storage schemes.

Avoidance schemes reduce greenhouse gases being emitted, but don’t address the issue of the already dangerous levels of CO2 in our atmosphere. Plus it’s hard to prove that any avoided emissions wouldn’t have been avoided anyway (this is called additionality).

Removal schemes actively remove carbon from our atmosphere. We think this is a more proactive strategy.

So for this guide, we’ll focus on removal. And we’ll focus specifically on tree planting schemes, because we feel carbon capture and storage is much like developing robotic bees to pollinate. Why reinvent the wheel with carbon capture and storage, when nature already does it perfectly with trees?

It depends on your goal. Carbon has become the poster child for responsible business, and offsets seem like an easy win – you pay a set amount, a box is ticked and the board is happy.

But is that focus on carbon helpful or effective? And does it really have the impact that we need?

We’ve become so focussed on carbon – removing as much as possible for as little cost as possible – that we’re missing the bigger picture. We call it carbon tunnel vision. And it’s why there have been widespread issues with carbon offsetting companies.

It sounds obvious, but the only job an offset scheme has is to maximise the number of carbon units they can sell. The more carbon a site sequesters the more money the company makes, and/or the cheaper they can sell the units.

When you focus only on units of carbon, the question for companies selling them becomes ‘how can we maximise the units of carbon we can sell?’ which leads to them asking ‘what can we strip out to make the most money?’

It creates a race to the bottom and ignores other crucial issues like biodiversity and local communities. And it’s this mindset that leads to the issues that have been plaguing the industry in recent years.

Some do. Although the media in recent years has contributed to a healthy dose of skepticism, these two high-profile investigations in particular:

• In 2023, a nine-month investigation by the Guardian, the German weekly Die Zeit and SourceMaterial, a non-profit investigative journalism organisation. The investigators found that more than 90% of rainforest carbon offsets by Verra, the biggest certifier, were worthless and could make global heating worse.
• A 2024 BBC Panorama documentary ’Big Brands’ Green Claims Uncovered’ found that forest-based carbon offset schemes like Ecologi were using problematic carbon accounting figures, creating human rights risks and leading to dangerous delays in meaningful climate action.

But why is this happening and what’s the alternative?

1. Most schemes focus on tree planting instead of tree growing

People pay to ‘plant trees’, so technically a company has fulfilled its promise once the tree is in the ground.

But this means that survival rates are often poor. A 2022 study of 176 restoration sites in subtropical Asia found that on average 18% of planted saplings died within the first year, and after five years 44% had died. Those survival stats varied hugely across the sites, at some 80% were still alive after five years, and others, 80% had died.

There has to be a shift in focus to growing forests or woodlands, rather than just planting trees on vast plantations so that you can sell them.

2. Carbon removal comes at the expense of biodiversity

Even if the trees do survive, in the race to maximise carbon removal, you end up with huge monoculture plantations – row after row of the exact same species of tree like commercial pine, eucalyptus and teak.

These fast-growing, often non-native species are terrible for both biodiversity and local communities, and are creating a long list of unintended consequences:

• Monoculture and the use of pesticides mean that plantations have lower levels of biodiversity than surrounding native forests. Some have even been called “biological deserts”
• They dry out native ecosystems, acidify soils, crowd out native plants and turbocharge wildfires.
• In the wrong places, planted forests deplete ground water and can cause streams to dry up.
• It makes the trees vulnerable to disease, further reducing the likelihood that they will sequester the carbon they are supposed to.

For us, the trade-off isn’t worth it.

Low carbon isn’t a bad goal, but it’s no good if it also means low biodiversity. Without a wide range of animals, plants and microorganisms, the ecosystems we need for things like air to breathe, water to drink and food to eat cannot, and will not, work.

3. It also comes at the expense of local communities

As monoculture plantations dry up the land, the risk of flooding and wildfires increases. And with it the risk for the communities – human and more than human – that live there.

Large tree plantations often have well-recorded negative socioeconomic effects: lower wages, higher food prices, loss of jobs, evictions, restrictions on land use, and pressure on locals to sell land. The BBC Panorama documentary also uncovered evidence of sexual harassment.

4. Many schemes lack accountability

There are plenty of ethical schemes doing brilliant work. As you might expect, they’re not as cheap as the plant-them-quick-sell-them-cheap schemes. Doing this properly isn’t a quick fix.

But because many offset schemes are in the global south, many thousands of miles from the companies using them, it makes it very hard to verify whether they’re actually doing what they are supposed to. The need to maximise carbon removal, and by extension profit, encourages offsetting companies to take shortcuts and cause all the issues we’ve explored so far.

Even if the transparency may appear to be greater, many UK schemes face the same issues like huge swathes of monoculture, poor survival rates and crowding out local communities:

• Brewdog’s dead trees trigger calls for change in grants
• Corporate tree-planting drive in Scotland ‘risks widening rural inequality’
• Revealed: The big firms snapping up Scottish carbon credits

If offsetting is your only goal, even if you find a scheme delivering what it promises, then it’s unlikely to be cost-effective. It’s cheaper to grow forests in the global south than it is in the UK. Most advice will tell you to look for a verified scheme, but we’ve seen above that even verified schemes are not removing the carbon they’re supposed to, and causing a host of other issues in the process.

If you must have verified units

Whether as part of a voluntary net zero certification or a legal requirement, then it’s sensible to look for a gold standard scheme and do thorough research. You can also buy portfolios that take a blended approach, where you can buy verified credits and contribute to nature restoration here in the UK. So you get the best of both options – the badge and the broader impact.

Look for a scheme that prioritises biodiversity

Research shows that restoring natural and native vegetation is much more beneficial, to both local ecosystems and communities.

In the UK we’ve lost a massive 60% of our wildlife in just 40 years, and rank in the bottom 10% for biodiversity worldwide. Planting row after row of monoculture isn’t going to help reverse this.

Prioritising biodiversity means that trees are much more likely to develop into rich woodland ecosystems instead of monoculture deserts. And that brings a host of benefits for local nature and communities, including:

• Reduced soil erosion and nutrient loss
• Lower risk of flooding
• Improved air and water quality
• Shade and shelter for wildlife, crops and livestock
• Green spaces for people to enjoy
• Potential new revenue streams for landowners and communities.

And as a very useful side effect, those woodlands will also go on to absorb carbon for generations to come.

Involving and supporting the local community is vital

Cultural amnesia means we have forgotten our woodland past. But we are a people of the woods and our fates are linked. Our survival and wellbeing depends on the survival of woodlands and trees. And so we need people to remember this connection, and protect and restore our woodlands like their lives depend on it – because they do.

Yet local people are often entirely left out of the equation. If we want to prioritise woodlands and put them back into the heart of our culture and landscapes, that starts with better access and more experiences in nature.

Yes, it might cost more, but it’s also going to have far more impact than planting rows of monoculture that might not survive long enough to even sequester any carbon.

Yes. But we don’t sell verified units.

Although the woodlands we create are suitable for carbon credits, at the moment, it’s not cost-effective. We can’t, and won’t, do it at the scale necessary to compete with other UK-based carbon offsetting schemes, nor compromise on improving biodiversity or supporting local communities.

At the moment, we don’t sell verified units because we won’t compromise on biodiversity or community support to compete on price. Instead, we use Forestry Commission yield rates to quantify carbon absorption potential per tree and use this to balance your carbon emissions

Instead, we use Forestry Commission yield rates to accurately quantify the carbon potential of the woodlands we create. All our data is shared on Restor, where you can see impact reports for each site we plant.

You can still know how much carbon the woodlands you help to create will sequester. You just don’t get an official badge at the end of it.

A bit like B Corp, a company can still operate ethically and sustainably without the B Corp certification. And as we know, even if you have the badge, it doesn’t mean you are doing business ethically and sustainably.

It’s much the same with offsetting companies. Some are doing a highly effective job without the badge. Others have the badge and still aren’t doing a very good job of sequestering carbon and or improving biodiversity that they promised.

But perhaps even more importantly, if you choose to restore woodlands with us, you’re directly contributing to restoring biodiversity. And you can actually visit the sites. You can help to plant and care for them. You will know exactly what your contribution has helped to create. And one day you can walk beneath the branches of those trees you planted.

Very few offsetting schemes can offer that.