DOI: 10.6084/m9.figshare.24324742
title: Comparison of carbon management and emissions of universities that did and did not adopt voluntary carbon offsets

description: The urgent need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, remove carbon from the atmosphere and stabilize natural carbon sinks has led to the development of many carbon management measures, increasingly including voluntary carbon offsets (VCOs). We studied carbon management in universities, institutions with large carbon footprints and considerable influence in climate science and policy fora. However, concerns that VCOs may deter adopters (including universities) from adopting other carbon reduction measures and limit emissions reductions, for example, through moral hazard, have been raised but understudied. We compared the carbon management characteristics (priorities, policies, practices and emissions) of universities that did and did not adopt VCOs. We found adopters measured carbon emissions for longer, and had set targets to reach net zero earlier than had non-adopters. Adopters of VCOs also undertook more carbon management practices in both 2010 and 2020 than non-adopters. We also found that both adopters and non-adopters significantly increased their carbon management practices over the decade studied, but with no difference between groups. Gross CO<sub>2</sub> emissions were reduced significantly over time by adopters of VCOs but not by non-adopters, whereas carbon intensity and percentage annual emissions reductions did not relate to adoption status. Consequently, our study showed no indication of mitigation deterrence due to adoption of VCOs at the universities studied. Rather, greater emissions reductions correlated with earlier net zero target dates, and a higher number of policies and carbon management practices. However, our study was constrained to universities that were affiliated with a national environmental network, so research beyond these organizations, and with individuals, would be useful. The survey was voluntary, exposing the study to potential self-selection bias so the findings may not be generalized beyond the study group. Finally, we found the carbon accounting method currently required of universities for scope 1 and 2 emissions may underestimate emissions reductions, particularly for adopters of VCOs. Augmenting the current location-based accounting method with market-based carbon accounts may overcome this. Adopters of voluntary carbon offsets (VCOs) undertook more carbon management practices than non-adopters. Evidence for mitigation deterrence was therefore not found (e.g. via moral hazard).Both adopters and non-adopters of carbon offsets used mitigation hierarchies found in carbon management literature (measure, reduce then offset). However, clarity on reducing emissions to as low as reasonably practicable is lacking in the literature.Reductions in scope 1 and 2 emissions may be underestimated, especially for adopters of VCOs who adopted more practices not included in current carbon reporting (e.g. purchasing renewable energy). This may be overcome by reporting market-based emissions alongside location-based emissions. Adopters of voluntary carbon offsets (VCOs) undertook more carbon management practices than non-adopters. Evidence for mitigation deterrence was therefore not found (e.g. via moral hazard). Both adopters and non-adopters of carbon offsets used mitigation hierarchies found in carbon management literature (measure, reduce then offset). However, clarity on reducing emissions to as low as reasonably practicable is lacking in the literature. Reductions in scope 1 and 2 emissions may be underestimated, especially for adopters of VCOs who adopted more practices not included in current carbon reporting (e.g. purchasing renewable energy). This may be overcome by reporting market-based emissions alongside location-based emissions.