Talk of the phrase “Carbon footprint” and an image of the future drifts into the mind.  A world in which palaeontologists of the 51st Century are attempting to determine what happened to the human race of the 21st.

The scientists discover a footprint. A series of giant holes in the ground, a puzzling trace of human existence.  Eventually our researchers realise this is the imprint of humanity’s impact on the world, the footprint of each individual’s life.

All very apocalyptic, and perhaps a little far-fetched? Maybe. But the science is now largely agreed.   This “carbon footprint” – the impact we have on climate change as a result of carbon emissions, caused by energy consumption – must be shrunk or it will be our downfall.

The Stern Report put the level of CO², the greatest single cause of global warming, at 430 parts-per-million, compared to a historic level of 280ppm. Anything above 550ppm and the horsemen of apocalypse start readying their beasts?

So how do we close the stable door before they bolt?  Enter “Carbon Offsetting” – redeeming the amount of CO² generated by an activity through paying a sum to a project, often in the developing world, that removes or prevents the equivalent amount of CO² from being released into the atmosphere.

Anything from pens to t-shirts, to whole buildings can be offset and there are now dozens of companies providing compensating services.  However critics argue offsetting has become a by-word for complacency, representing a tiny proportion of 24 billion tons of CO² produced worldwide each year.

For example, replanting a hectare of rainforest removes 400 tons of CO² per annum, a fuel-efficient stove just 1.5 tons and an efficient light bulb will remove 100kg in its whole lifetime.  The amount of CO² offset in the UK each year by consumers is less than 1 per cent of Britain's annual emissions.

Add to this a perception that it permits the developed world to continue consuming while effectively paying developing nations to not develop, and you have a credibility gap.

There are moves to replace offsetting with individual carbon allowances, which give people an annual “share” of global CO² emissions and allow the trading of surplus energy between people or businesses.  The British government is understood to be in favour.

Yet the search for successful offsetting continues to inspire the growth of the carbon business, now worth £15 billion-a-year.  Projects are becoming more sophisticated in balancing the need to deliver economic growth in developing nations while confronting the challenge of climate change. These include planting trees in Brazil, building bio-gas digesters and wind turbines in India, installing energy-efficient light bulbs in Kazakhstan or buying efficient stoves for villagers in Honduras.

Offsetting is a compelling and realistic element in the climate change challenge.  The reality is that the demand for economic progress will more often than not trump the calls for action on climate change.  Can we in all conscience accept that a baby girl born in Japan can expect to live to 85, while a girl born on the same day in Sierra Leone has a life expectancy of just 36?

Prosperity must be delivered in greener, lower carbon ways.   Carbon profligacy should end through the advent of new technology, the improved used of recycled material, waste reduction, renewable sources of energy global forest replanting and so forth.

But without offsetting, the process will be too slow and those futuristic researchers will be considering our remains long before we’ve achieved the required results.

For great ideas on how to enhance both reputation and revenue through responsible business practice, contact Re-Everything on 01225 787 502.