This week, the UK government finally released its Code of Best Practice for carbon offsetting. Actually, it’s just a draft, and even that took a year of debate and consultations. That’s what happens when government tries to get its head around controversy, confusion, and more than a few vested interests.

You can read the full document here (PDF). Here’s our summary of the most interesting tidbits:

• The government will offer a quality mark to offset providers who meet their requirements. This could be a great way to help the confused consumer, assuming of course that the Code is sound. Applying for the mark is costly (UK £4,500+) and available to non-UK providers.

• Providers must follow a uniform formula for calculating how much carbon is emitted by a particular activity. This addresses one of the weird things about buying offsets right now - different providers show different quantities of CO2 for the same flight or road journey.

• Carbon reduction projects must be certified under the United Nations Kyoto Protocol to qualify. This shortcut allows the government to accept the UN’s stamp of approval, instead of developing a complex procedure of its own.

This last point has split the offsetting industry. Predictably, providers who only sell Kyoto credits are happy, while others are apparently not. Currently, only 10 of the 75 carbon offset providers listed in Carbon Catalog are focused on reselling Kyoto credits. These providers tend to be more expensive, since they must pass on the cost of pushing projects through the UN’s bureaucracy.

The government clearly thinks it’s worth paying extra for the transparency and reliability that UN credits offer. But an accompanying letter (PDF) also recognizes the value of non-Kyoto projects in “bringing forward… innovation”. Once a formal validation standard is agreed for non-Kyoto projects, they’ll probably be accepted too.

More coverage of the guidelines can be found in the UK’s Daily Telegraph and Guardian. While the jury is still out, we can at least give the UK credit for being ahead of the US. And we also like the informative FAQs that DEFRA published alongside the Code - highly recommended.