Why ZeroMission the term "climate compensation" with " carbon offsetting"
The shift away from the term “carbon offsetting” is partly due to upcoming EU regulations governing what companies are allowed to claim under green labeling. But over the years, the term “climate compensation” has also taken on negative connotations, as it is sometimes associated with “buying one’s way out” of actually addressing one’s climate impact.
The term “climate compensation” has also never been a perfect translation of the English “carbon offsetting.” carbon offsetting a better term in that context as well.
Criticism of climate compensation has grown over the years as reviews have questioned the actual impact of several large climate projects—especially those lacking a social focus, and which typically cost just a few dollars per carbon credit.
At ZeroMission, we are now talking about our customers financing various types of climate projects—initiatives that provide added value for the climate, while also placing biodiversity and the socioeconomic situation of smallholder farmers at the center.
The shift in terminology reflects a broader strategic shift: carbon credits are not a free pass, but rather part of a package where calculating and reducing one’s own emissions always comes first.
We primarily work with carbon credits certified under Plan Vivo, which is based on a robust buffer system. In tree-planting projects, for example, more trees are planted than are sold as credits, creating a buffer stock to address unforeseen events such as forest fires or drought.
Contact us for an informal meeting on how to calculate, reduce or take responsibility for your emissions through the purchase of carbon credits.
Sign up for our newsletter.