Many schemes are accused of selling carbon reductions resulting from projects that were going to happen anyway. This implies that the offset has no value unless the offset finance was essential for realisation. Climate Care and the Carbon Neutral Company are two companies at which this charge has been levelled.

Another highly criticised tactic is reforestation and afforestation, often at temperate latitudes, and sometimes using intensive forestry techniques. These plantations are so dense that they offer little advantage ecologically, and frequently cause significant harm.

Although the prevention of deforestation is a critical goal for Climate change proponents, the most valuable resources being lost are from tropical regions. Temperate woodlands cannot be considered an adequate replacement for topical forests: the ecology they support is not as diverse, and they are seasonal in their growth.

There are a huge range of options and, from a personal perspective, many contradict their intended goals and my personal ethics, so I’ve yet to decide whether offsetting is right for me.

I currently favour the World Land Trust’s ‘Carbon Balanced’ scheme. I’m already a Trust supporter: they provide finance to purchase land without taking ownership and involvement from the local inhabitants.

Critically for the offsetting question, they are directly addressing the problem of protecting valuable existing tropical habitat, rather than trying to replace what’s gone, and they attempt to achieve it in a way that helps to combat poverty.