When we looked at satellite tracking of carbon levels and logging activity in California forests, we found that carbon isn’t increasing in the state’s 37 offset project sites any more than in other areas, and timber companies aren’t logging less than they did before…
Studies have already shown that projects are often overcredited at the beginning and might not last as long as expected. In this case we’re finding a bigger issue: a lack of real climate benefit over the 10 years of the program so far.
The research into Verra, the world’s leading carbon standard for the rapidly growing $2bn (£1.6bn) voluntary offsets market, has found that, based on analysis of a significant percentage of the projects, more than 90% of their rainforest offset credits – among the most commonly used by companies – are likely to be “phantom credits” and do not represent genuine carbon reductions…
Verra, which is based in Washington DC, operates a number of leading environmental standards for climate action and sustainable development, including its verified carbon standard (VCS) that has issued more than 1bn carbon credits. It approves three-quarters of all voluntary offsets. Its rainforest protection programme makes up 40% of the credits it approves and was launched before the Paris agreement with the aim of generating revenue for protecting ecosystems.
Action needed to make carbon offsets from forest conservation work for climate change mitigation www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.ade3535
Editor’s Summary:
Reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation (REDD) projects are intended to decrease carbon emissions from forests to offset other carbon emissions and are often claimed as credits to be used in calculating carbon emission budgets. West et al . compared the actual effects of these projects with measurable baseline values and found that most of them have not reduced deforestation significantly, and those that did had benefits substantially lower than claimed. Thus, most REDD projects are less beneficial than is often claimed.
People who harvest trees should be encouraged to plant new trees. Thats a no brainer. If they plant more than they harvest, so much the better. They should be recognized and rewarded.
As to carbon offsets, every program has loopholes. Plug a few of them.
Figures dont lie but liars figure. Who knows how reliable the numbers are?
It does seem there is some creative accounting going on. Or maybe just incompetence. As West et al. write, “If we replace the ex-ante baselines adopted by the projects with the deforestation observed in the SCs, our estimates suggest that only 5.4 million (6.1%) of the 89 million expected offsets from the REDD+ projects would be associated with additional carbon emission reductions.”
The carbon-offset market (VCM) is wild. Creating a marketplace is probably the best way to incentivize GHG initiatives, but regulation needs to exist. California has a regulated market with a better floor for in-state credits earned.
I’ve been researching a company I believe will realize significant earnings from carbon offsets due to California’s SB 596 requiring reductions in carbon emissions from cement manufacturing. This company is pre-IPO and will be up-listing / Re-IPOing – It’s not something to throw a ton of money into-- but I do think could be a millionaire maker in the next 4 years. here’s my write up on them.