Scientists have issued a warning, stating that carbon offsetting schemes need urgent revision as they greatly exaggerate the impact they have on preventing deforestation. Bleak research conducted by the University of Cambridge suggests that the carbon credits generated by these schemes are often not accurate representations of the actual deforestation prevented. The study analyzed 18 sites around the world involved in the REDD+ program, which aims to combat climate change by avoiding deforestation. However, calculations indicate that a significant number of credits generated in 2020 came from projects that did not effectively reduce deforestation. In fact, experts believe that only six percent of the total credit output is valid, indicating that the market is inflated.
Carbon credits are a method through which companies can offset their unavoidable carbon emissions. These credits are usually purchased from conservation projects like REDD+, which support land protection and tree plantation efforts. In the United Kingdom, carbon credits are priced between £10 to £30 per tCO2 (tonne of carbon dioxide equivalent). However, Professor Andreas Kontoleon, the senior author of the study, argues that these credits provide major polluters with a false sense of climate responsibility. He explains that claims of saving vast forests from destruction to balance emissions are exaggerated. Carbon credits essentially predict whether a tree will be chopped down and sell that prediction. If these predictions are exaggerated or incorrect, it amounts to selling hot air.
REDD+ projects were established after the Paris Agreement in 2015 as a means to reduce emissions caused by deforestation and forest degradation in developing countries. Carbon credits are typically sold based on the potential amount of tree loss that would have occurred without the REDD+ projects. In the UK, these credits range from £10 to £30 per tCO2 prevented. The market for carbon credits has seen significant growth in recent years, with nearly 500 million credits traded in 2021. However, their effectiveness is a subject of debate, as companies often purchase these credits as a way to achieve “net zero” without fundamentally changing their unsustainable practices.
To assess the impact of carbon offsetting schemes, researchers examined 18 sites in Tanzania, Cambodia, Colombia, Peru, and the Democratic Republic of Congo. These sites were chosen because they resembled previous REDD+ projects in terms of mining history, soil fertility, and deforestation rates. The calculations indicate that 68 percent of credits from these areas in 2020 came from projects that had failed to sufficiently reduce deforestation. This suggests that only six percent of the 89 million credits generated that year were valid overall. Professor Kontoleon emphasizes that these projects have been used to offset almost three times more carbon than they have actually mitigated through forest preservation, with over 47 million credits still available in the market. The reason behind the “overblown” market is not yet clear, but experts suggest that baselines may be inflated by individuals seeking to maximize the volume of offsets issued by a project. They also acknowledge that political and economic conditions can influence deforestation rates.
Professor Kontoleon adds that there are perverse incentives to generate a large number of carbon credits, and the market is currently unregulated. While watchdog agencies are being established, many individuals involved in these agencies are also connected to carbon credit certification agencies, which raises concerns about impartiality. He argues that the industry needs to address these loopholes that may allow bad-faith actors to exploit offset markets. To become a trusted marketplace, it must develop more advanced and transparent methods of quantifying preserved forests.
In conclusion, carbon offsetting schemes need urgent revision as they significantly overestimate their ability to prevent deforestation. The market for carbon credits is currently inflated, with a large portion of the credits generated not accurately reflecting the reduction in deforestation. There is a need for more regulation and transparency in the industry to ensure that offsets are valid and not misrepresentations of forest preservation efforts.
Denial of responsibility! VigourTimes is an automatic aggregator of Global media. In each content, the hyperlink to the primary source is specified. All trademarks belong to their rightful owners, and all materials to their authors. For any complaint, please reach us at – [email protected]. We will take necessary action within 24 hours.
