Carbon offseting providers should embrace an entirely new business model based on simplified "climate compensation" funds rather than intricately calculated offsets if the fledgling industry wants to tap into growing public and business support for carbon reduction projects.

That is the view of Dr Paul Hooper, an academic at Manchester Metropolitan University’s Centre for Air Transport and the Environment (CATE) and the researcher behind a major new study into airline passenger attitudes towards carbon offsetting.

The study, which was undertaken on behalf of aviation industry research body Omega, surveyed 487 business and holiday travellers at Manchester Airport and found that while more than three quarters accepted flying contributes to climate change, less that 10 per cent had bought carbon offsets.

When asked why they had not offset, more than half of respondents said it was because they did not know what offsetting was or were unaware of how to purchase carbon offset, while less than 25 per cent expressed concern over the cost or effectiveness of offsetting schemes.

Moreover, when asked if they would be willing to make some contribution towards carbon offsetting projects based on hypothetical costs ranging from £3 for a domestic flight to £150 for a round-the-world trip, only 30 per cent said they would not be willing to pay. In contrast, 17 per cent said they would be happy to cover the full cost, while almost 30 per cent said they would be willing to pay half the cost of offsetting.

"There is a caveat in that we were asking if they were willing to pay and weren't asking for money," said Hooper. "But the results show there is a willingness to contribute to carbon reduction projects and a large conducive target market for offsetters."

However, he warned that attempts to tap into that market were being hampered by widespread confusion about offsetting that is not helped by the different prices offered by rival offsetting firms and complex academic debates about carbon footprints and project quality.

He advised that in order to continue its recent expansion, the offsetting industry may have to combine attempts to develop standardised best practices with a new simpler business model.

"For those who wish to offset their emissions fully, you need a more standardised approach," he said. "But for those who just want to contribute something there is a need for a much simpler system where customers can pay a flat rate as some sort of climate compensation that will go to fund credible emission reduction projects."

But Edward Hanrihan of offsetting industry trade group ICROA argued that while there was an urgent need for more standardised approaches to measuring carbon footprints and calculating the effectiveness of carbon reduction, projects simplifying the process too much could prove counter productive.

"Offsetting is complex and we do live in a soundbite world, but if you acquiesce to that and let go of some of the accuracy that governs offsetting projects you are opening yourself up to criticism," he said.

He added that the industry was seeking ways to simplify messaging for business and individual customers based on increasingly standardised approaches to offset projects, but warned that the "climate compensation" model could undermine some of the key benefits of offsetting.

"One of the big advantages of offsetting is that you have to measure and take responsibility for your carbon emissions, which encourages you to reduce them yourself," he argued. "If you allow people to only take responsibility for, say, half their emissions then you have to ask if you are really following environmental best practice."