From Beiersdorf to GlaxoSmithKline, the beauty and personal care world is communicating more on how carbon offsetting fits into strategies to shrink that carbon footprint.
In September, GSK Consumer Health (GSKCH) launched its Dr.BEST GreenClean toothbrush, teaming up with green services company ClimatePartner to reduce the brush’s carbon footprint by more than 50% compared with the standard Dr.BEST one. The remainder of the footprint was said to be offset via a community-based ClimatePartner project in Madagascar.
For the bio-based jars used to house Beiersdorf’s Nivea brand Naturally Good face care range, meanwhile, emissions that can’t be avoided, or reduced further during manufacture are climate-neutralised via carbon offsetting through afforestation projects.
Why the kickback?
However, the practice is coming under scrutiny from some environmentalists.
In January, The Guardian journalist George Monbiot, a founding member of the Natural Climate Solutions campaign, launched a scathing attack on offset companies and their clients.
In his article, titled ‘Carbon offsetting is not warding off environmental collapse – it’s accelerating it’, Monbiot, called offsetting “false assurance that persuades us we need not change the way we live”, noting that there is not enough land on Earth to soak up corporate greenhouse gas emissions.
Moreover, much of that land belongs to indigenous and other local people who, in some cases, did not consent. Such processes are called ‘carbon colonialism’, Monbiot explained.
His article triggered several readers to contact The Guardian to further the conversation around carbon offsetting.
One of these was Mukti Kumar Mitchell, Director of Carbon Savvy, which helps individuals and businesses calculate their CO2 footprint with an eye on reduction.The 25-year climate change science veteran believes The Guardian article only looked at one side of the coin, focusing too strongly on afforestation.