In 2005 Jonet became Head of Environment at the South West RDA, which leads the development of a sustainable economy and invests in the region's business potential in partnership with public and private sector organisations. Jonet has over 20 years' experience in the environment industry including the remediation of contaminated land, industrial effluent and waste water treatment. After many years in the private sector she joined the RDA to work on business resource efficiency, climate change and energy. She has led the development of its Environmental Management System, including ISO 14001 registration.

Tell us about what are you working on right now

"Currently I am working on a how we will apply our ambition for a net zero carbon annual investment portfolio to our projects. We are adopting an outcomes-based approach and we now have to develop a clear methodology for carbon accounting. This is new and there isn't a tried and trusted methodology in place, so this is quite challenging. However, it is also exciting as the RDA is pushing the boundary and I believe that we will make a difference.

"I am also working with the Department for Business, Enterprise & Regulatory Reform (BERR) on the feasibility study for Severn Tidal Power. The Severn Estuary has the second highest tidal range in the world and a barrage could potentially generate 5% of the UK's electricity needs and help in the battle against climate change. However, we also need to understand what impact a barrage may have on the environment, society and economy."

What are your proudest 'green' achievements?

"Improving our environmental performance in our corporate facilities and in particular our 'build' projects. We undertake environmental risk assessments for all of our sites and premises and are putting management plans in place to reduce our environmental impact. The RDA is very proactive in sustainable construction and we have some excellent sites that demonstrate renewable energy technologies and sustainable construction techniques."

What are the biggest challenges you face in your role and how do you deal with them?

"Building capacity is a big challenge, people are very busy and environmentally we are raising the bar so we need to raise awareness and increase the competence of our key personnel. The rate of change is very fast and it is important to keep people up to speed with changes. Often, that means we do not have all of the answers. We have a very diverse range of projects therefore I am enlisting the expertise of staff to consider how we will reduce the carbon footprint of the projects that they manage."

What differentiates South West RDA from other RDAs environmentally?

"The RDAs all actively promote sustainable development, but I think that our ambition to lead the region towards a low carbon economy by progressively reducing the carbon footprint of our investments to net zero carbon by 2013 sets us apart."

What is challenging about creating an environmental agenda for an RDA?

"Building capacity, but I am lucky, people in the RDA are very positive about the environment and sustainable development so I am pushing at an open door."

What has been your most successful low carbon initiative and what made it so?

"There are many low carbon initiatives that the RDA can be proud of and you can assess success in so many different ways so I'll give you two; Wave Hub, which will harness wave energy off the coast of North Cornwall and help to promote the South West as a centre for renewable energy and the Envision project which provides mentoring and support to help businesses improve resource efficiency and reduce their carbon footprint while improving their productivity."

When it comes to working with businesses in the region, what are the barriers to change?

"Business in the region is predominantly made up of SMEs who have a lot of pressures on their time. Encouraging them to devote some of their precious time and resources to improve their environmental performance can be a challenge. Currently there is a plethora of different sources of advice available which can be confusing to business, so we are working with Government to simplify the range of support providers to make it easier for business to engage."

Are current UK Government climate change targets to reduce carbon serious enough?

"The science on climate change is still developing and it is now questioned, if a 60% reduction by 2050 is enough, should we in fact be aiming for 80%? Climate change is impacting on all of us and we all have our part to play in reducing carbon emissions. Government has to bold and provide strong leadership."

What low carbon trends do you predict either in your region or in the UK?

"To achieve our 2020 renewable energy targets, we will have to massively increase the amount of installed renewable energy so this is a great opportunity for the sector. The Code for Sustainable Homes and changes in Building Regulations will increase the energy efficiency of 'new builds' and increase the amount of installed microrenewables, but the real challenge is improving the performance of the existing housing stock.

"Business and commerce contributes about a third of the UK's CO2 emissions and with increasing fuel prices and a greater emphasis on CSR, I believe that we will see business take a lead and make significant efforts to reduce their carbon footprint."

What would you advise someone taken on a role similar to yours?

"Be prepared for long days but for none of them to be boring."

Low Carbon Board Report

Carbon Offsets - Some Inconvenient Truths

Among all the efforts to tackle climate change, few have attracted as much criticism as those under the carbon offsetting banner. Their effectiveness has been questioned, especially over the long term, and many commentators argue that offsetting only distracts our attention from the main priority, which is to reduce emissions.

Scrutiny of offsetting schemes has revealed that some fail to deliver the benefits promised, and companies that participate in such schemes risk being accused of failing to take emissions reduction seriously. Some companies claiming to offset emissions undoubtedly are charlatans, but even well-intentioned efforts can go wrong, bringing public criticism down on the heads of those involved.

"There are charlatan companies quite likely to rip out native rainforest, and replace it with a monoculture of Eucalyptus because it grows fast."

The experience of the UK government during its 2005 presidency of the G8 provides a good example. The government promised a "carbon neutral" summit, and delegates to Gleneagles were given certificates suggesting all their carbon emissions would be offset. This claim rested on a plan to fit insulation and solar panels in the shacks of a South African township. Yet, according to reports the project ran into problems, and years later little progress has been made.

No quick fixes from wood

Such experiences, which are far from unique, mean that it is essential for companies to understand what offsetting is, how it can be implemented, and where it should sit within their overall emissions reduction strategy.

Among the most hotly debated offsetting strategies is forestry. The rationale for planting trees rests on so-called "biological sequestration", whereby trees - along with many other plants - absorb atmospheric carbon dioxide as part of their natural growth. What is controversial is not the assumption that trees remove carbon dioxide, but some of the claims made about the quantities removed, the rate at which this occurs, and whether an overall reduction in carbon dioxide is achieved in this way.

A forestry project is no "quick fix": it must last to be effective. In itself this introduces a degree of uncertainty because of natural events that destroy forests such as disease, pests, or fires. Human activity may also intervene, as when trees are cut down for fuel, or a forest cleared for agriculture. Alternatively, if farmers are moved off land to make way for a tree-planting project they may clear trees in another location to begin farming there.

Young forests may absorb carbon at a faster rate than older ones, but mature forests store more carbon per acre in trees and soil and their value in terms of biodiversity is often higher. So, a plantation harvested at short intervals and replanted can have a high rate of carbon sequestration but low ecological value, and so we are faced with a trade-off between doing what is good for biodiversity versus what is good for the atmosphere.

"There are important choices to be made," says Dr Martin Blake, Head of Sustainability at Royal Mail Group. "You can plant trees in this country or in equatorial rainforests. Or help to prevent deforestation in rainforests," he says.

"Working overseas can be problematic. You need to be aware that there are charlatan companies quite likely to rip out native rainforest, and replace it with a monoculture of Eucalyptus because it grows fast," Blake says.

The promises and pitfalls of renewal energy

An alternative is to support renewable energy projects. Typically, these involve investing in wind or solar technologies or biofuels, produced by fermenting crops such as corn or soybeans. Of these, biofuels are by far the most controversial. For example, studies published recently in the journal Science argue they may actually be worse for the climate than fossil fuels.

Preparing land for biofuels can release large quantities of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, while the crops themselves may be less effective at absorbing carbon dioxide than the vegetation removed to make way for them. Researchers at Princeton University and the Nature Conservancy claim it would take nearly a century to overcome this deficit for corn ethanol produced in the US. They estimate that palm tree biodiesel from Indonesia and Malaysia has a "carbon debt" of 86 years, while soybean biodiesel from the Amazonian rainforest has a debt of 320 years.

Wind or solar projects tend to be less controversial, but a number of factors are key to their success. Many projects have high up-front capital costs, and planning approval processes and local opposition may also be a barrier to getting the project moving. Thought also needs to be given to the long-term viability of a project, which could be compromised by a lack of local capacity and infrastructure needed to operate the new technology, and this should be born in mind for projects implemented in developing countries.

Carbon offsets in perspective

Complex as these issues undoubtedly are, there are general questions that should be asked of any proposed offsetting project. Chief among these is the often deceptively simple question of "additionality". The key issue is whether an offsetting project is a substantial new development, or would have happened anyway to comply with legal or regulatory requirements, for example.

Perhaps more controversially, it has also been suggested that to be "additional" a project must rely on revenues from carbon offsets for its financially viability, so ruling out projects that make commercial sense anyway, but are simply branded as carbon offset projects. The second important issue is accounting for claimed reductions, thus avoiding a situation where numerous participants take the credit for the same reduction, a key question being whether an offset company submits to independent scrutiny and verification.

Company directors needing detailed guidance are well-advised to consult the Carbon Trust three-stage approach (http://www.carbontrust.co.uk/Publications/publicationdetail.htm?productid=CTC621) to developing an offsetting strategy, suggests Martin Blake. "The main priorities should be reduction and replacement. First, reduce emissions with an austerity programme. Second, replace with low carbon alternatives. Only with the residual emissions is it appropriate to think about offsets," he suggests.

Key questions:

· Where does offsetting come in our priorities for tackling climate?
· What options are we considering for offsetting and why?
· What due diligence have we done on our offsetting provider?