Yayzy seem to be trying to start something like this with an environmental debit card with no mag strip, for example, so may start to encourage other places to do something similar I guess.
1 Like
Interesting company - could go a step further and just not offer a physical card so no plastic (biodegradable, recycled or not) is needed lol
1 Like
You see, being the core focus of Monzo or not, isnāt important. Itās an optional extra, a way to make it easy. Iāve done it myself, but itās hard. People mean well, but are often lazy. This makes it easier.
Consumer behaviour is changing, awareness is growing. In a few years time itās not going to be about banks that are ethical or environmental, itās going to start becoming the norm for companies to offer this. Not a side policy that isnāt paid attention to.
Ultimately we only have one planet and we have to play our part in looking after it for the next generation. Letās make it just that bit easier to do so 
3 Likes
Got to be honest. Iām not particularly interested in doing it but can totally see benefits to those that do.
I wonder if itās something Monzo have thought about.
1 Like
Problem I come across with Carbon Offsetting is whatās outlined in this Guardian article;
Some points include;
- Some types of offsetting arenāt super beneficial - e.g. tree planting - can lead to monocultures.
- Also as someone mentioned above, some types can end up being a commercial enterprise that ends up not giving carbon back.
- Not everyone can agree on what Carbon value activities have. (and therefore cost to offset varies)
- As most of the organisations doing carbon offsetting are non-profits, you need to be sure where you donate to is somewhat effective and your donation makes it to the end cause.
Either way will be interesting to see how this topic develops - not sure itās something I want in my banking app - but I do think thereās a prime market for it in the present climate.
3 Likes
Turns out people have been grappling with this and got a lot further, see
And also Seratio Bank initiative and their white paper:
https://github.com/seratio/whitepaper/blob/master/Seratio%20DLT%20Open%20Bank%20(18%20August%202019)%20[13-12].pdf
Warning, itās a bit technical and thereās a lot of it. And itās not clear how far things have progressed.
But then itās a pretty ambitious undertaking.
Please can we end this ridiculous idea that offsetting is ever going to be a solution. Thereās MASSIVE amounts of writing in the scientific literature for years and years and year supporting this. Itās completely counterproductive to even think about offsetting.
Speak to anyone doing remotely serious research on this and I think youāll be laughed out of the room for even considering promotion of offsetting. Itās exactly what the RWE and BPs of the world want us to be talking about.
See for example:
You do realise that carbon āoffsettingā, even with the most rigorously certified schemes, is not a viable solution for the planet let alone your conscience?
Itās part of the problem and not the solution. Itās great for making you feel like youāre making a difference, not so much for the climate emergency.
Yes, flying less make a huge difference but itās not the only option. We also have available to us many other effective ways to reduce your impact - eating less meat (especially beef), having fewer children, going car-free, etc.
Offsetting is not one of them.
1 Like
That Guardian article is over 12 years old. Any developments since then?
Carbon offsetting is an odd concept. You are paying someone to offset your carbon footprint. Just not having it (or working to reduce it) to start with makes so much more sense. Got to fly? Then cut back somewhere else.
Paying someone to do it for you shows just how privileged and entitled we think we are. It is nothing but paying money to satisfy your own conscience.
My latest posting isnāt about offsetting btw.
The entire concept is fundamentally broken beyond repair. Tackling the climate emergency is done by keeping fossil fuels in the ground, not by paying someone else to take on the burden in a completely unverifiable way.
There canāt be any developments!
Itās somewhat similar to claims that technology is the answer to the climate emergency. It plays a huge part but itās again fundamentally missing the point. The solution is simple and one weāve known for decades (just very very hard to systemically bring about). Itās reduction first and foremost.
You just described carbon offsetting.
Thatās not going to happen, theyāre needed for everything including running hospitals for example. Emissions will always be a part of life by the simple fact of existing.
Iām not sure why people are talking about and linking to things suggesting offsetting is the solution. Itās not the solution, itās a method that can help in particular areas in combination with other methods. No matter what you do your technically implementing some form of offsetting as everything you do will produce emissions and youāll compensate by reducing emissions elsewhere to balance it out.
1 Like
The sooner people realise it involves really difficult and uncomfortable choices not just sending some cash to a third world country is the sooner we have a chance of realistically dealing with the problem we have created.
1 Like
My point was comparing to offsetting. I didnāt suggest zero emissions. Just that a reduction not an offset is the only viable solution.
No. This is what I fundamentally disagree with and what people who are much more knowledgeable than me also say over and over.
I wouldnāt be surprised is the net benefit is negative in fact.
We both know you have taken my comment out of the context it was meant in.
I dunno what to say. You described exactly what carbon offsetting is. Reducing emissions elsewhere to cover emissions you canāt reduce. That is carbon offsetting
A carbon offset is a reduction in emissions of carbon dioxide or other greenhouse gases made in order to compensate for emissions made elsewhere
You talked about paying someone to offset carbon but thatās not what the basis of carbon offsetting is. Yes you could do that, and the effectiveness of that is probably questionable. But that doesnāt change what carbon offsetting is, and that carbon offsetting is what is used by basically everyone who uses alternatives to reduce carbon.
1 Like
You would still need to offset the emissions you canāt get rid of surely?
No. Why?
If that made sense why not over offset?
To say offsetting has no value is not correct. Offsetting is effectively reducing your non-localised co2 levels. As mentioned above, itās not the solution because ideally you would aim to generate as little co2 as possible in your lifestyle, but non-localised co2 reduction is still important.
If you have an electric car, you will be reducing your co2 on a local level, but if you get all your power from a coal power station the non-local co2 production will still be high. You need to focus on both.
Keeping fossil fuels in the ground is not a realistic solution at the moment. It would kill off billions due to the lack of energy in the system needed to transport and feed our species.
A lot of the solutions for offsetting could certainly be better. But offsetting is from a societal level, a vote towards a better environment, an intention directed towards the purpose of co2 reduction.
If enough people do it, then it socialises the problem and that vote slowly becomes a movement. As more people are interested in it, other companies (or charities) start serving the space better because thereās money to be made and the solutions become more effective.
If you can offset (or reduce your non-localised co2) by paying to buy a wind turbine, invest in co2 scrubbing, carbon sequestration, choose to buy from companies who look out for their co2, opt to subsidise renewables in poorer countries, does that not help? Of course it does!
As someone who offsets my co2, does it satisfy my conscious? No. For me an effective approach is focusing on both my localised and non-localised co2 production. I still own a diesel car - which Iām hoping to change in the next couple of years - I donāt generate energy with solar, I still eat meat.
But what I do know, is that the small movements of an individual compound within their networks and can cause seismic shifts.
With Monzo, I directly signed up 10-15+ users. They too signed up their friends and so on. Maybe Iām indirectly responsible for 100s of users signed up to Monzo, who knows? But the individual has power. We can make a difference.
2 Likes