We currently face several interlinked environmental crises, including climate change, habitat destruction and biodiversity loss. However, many governments seem unwilling to take strong and immediate action to address these threats, preferring to promote neoliberal approaches to allow consumers and the general public to make environmentally friendly choices. This is despite neoliberal approaches being much less likely to be successful than government leadership, taxation, subsidies, and legislation in addressing environmental issues. In this study, we examine public perception of environmental threats and solutions to these threats in a survey mainly completed in the UK. Climate change is seen as the biggest issue, likely due to recent activist campaigns and subsequent media attention on the issue. Neoliberal attitudes, such as green consumer choices to environmental concerns, do still dominate in a series of possible presented solutions, and they score more highly than lifestyle changes, such as changing diet. However, when questioned specifically about plastic pollution, government intervention to ban all unnecessary plastic scored very strongly, indicating a shift from a consumer-driven response. Furthermore, most participants think they are at best only partly “doing their bit” to protect the environment. The results demonstrate that the public is aware that not enough is happening to protect the environment and provide evidence that there is willingness for stronger government intervention to address environmental issues; however, there is potential resistance to major lifestyle changes.

Carbon offsetting is currently a major tool in managing carbon emissions and informing sustainability plans of organisations in the drive to net-zero. This study aims to identify the offsetting potential of existing conservation schemes, and whether carbon offsetting credits could provide finance these conservation activities. The results from Dorset, in the UK, indicate that many existing conservation schemes in woodlands, heathlands, and grasslands cannot only enhance biodiversity but also capture significant amounts of carbon, and while habitats differ by region and country, the general results should be applicable elsewhere. We show that the cost per additional tonne of carbon sequestered as a result of conservation activities varies considerably between different conservation projects. On average, across the conservation projects we studied, the cost of this offsetting is GBP 80 per tonne CO₂e sequestered and ranging between GBP 120 and GBP 0, depending on the project and whether existing biodiversity grants would be available. However, this figure was based on adapting and refining the existing conservation projects and did not involve expensive factors, such as purchase of land, which make the prices potentially unrealistic, especially in a Global North context. While the costs identified are higher than many offsetting schemes at present, it could present a useful option for those wishing to localise their offsetting. The concept is highly scalable and could remove significant amounts of carbon dioxide. Combining the approach with biodiversity credits or other credit schemes could make the higher costs more attractive to potential buyers.

Carbon offsetting is currently a major tool in managing carbon emissions and the drive to Net-Zero. This study aims to identify the offsetting potential of existing conservation schemes, and whether carbon offsetting credits could potentially finance the continued management of the conservation activities. The results from Dorset, in the UK indicate that many existing conservation schemes in woodland, heathland and grasslands can not only enhance biodiversity but also capture significant amounts of carbon. We show that the cost per additional tonne of carbon sequestered as a result of conservation activities varies considerably between different conservation projects. On average, the cost of this offsetting is £80 per tonne CO2e sequestered and ranging between £120 and £0 depending on the project and whether existing biodiversity grants would be available. However, this figure was based on adapting and refining existing conservation projects, and did not involve expensive factors such as purchase of land, which make the prices potentially unrealistic. While the costs identified are higher than many offsetting schemes at present, it could present a useful option for those wishing to localise their offsetting, and could be combined with biodiversity credits or other credit schemes to make the higher costs more attractive.