Not really, because there are different “scopes” of emissions when declaring offsets:
Scope 1: emissions done directly during normal operations
Scope 2: emissions from the suppliers, transport and resourcing of raw materials etc.
Scope 3: indirect emissions caused by the use of the product and other effects the company is responsible for.
Obviously fossil fuel companies like Shell mostly have Scope 3 emissions. Barely any company that declares offsets even considers Scope 3 emissions though.
So all companies out there that even say they 100% offset, often just mean Scope 1 emissions. That’s basically systemic green washing.
Also a lot of the offsets are nearly useless, so even if Scope 1 and 2 are offset you gotta subtract 90% ineffectiveness from the amount.
Not really, because there are different “scopes” of emissions when declaring offsets:
Scope 1: emissions done directly during normal operations
Scope 2: emissions from the suppliers, transport and resourcing of raw materials etc.
Scope 3: indirect emissions caused by the use of the product and other effects the company is responsible for.
Obviously fossil fuel companies like Shell mostly have Scope 3 emissions. Barely any company that declares offsets even considers Scope 3 emissions though.
So all companies out there that even say they 100% offset, often just mean Scope 1 emissions. That’s basically systemic green washing.
Also a lot of the offsets are nearly useless, so even if Scope 1 and 2 are offset you gotta subtract 90% ineffectiveness from the amount.