Support our Nation today - please donate here

‘Worthless’ forest carbon offsets risk exacerbating climate change

28 Aug 2023 6 minute read
Rainforest. Photo by tauntingpanda is licensed under CC BY 2.0.

Julia P G Jones, Professor of Conservation Science, Bangor University and Neal Hockley, Senior Lecturer in Environmental Economics & Policy, Bangor University

In early 2023, the Guardian published an article suggesting that more than 90% of rainforest carbon offsets are worthless. These credits are essentially a promise to protect forests and can be bought as a way to “offset” emissions elsewhere. Verra, the largest certifier of these offset credits, said the claims were “absolutely incorrect” but the story still shook confidence in the billion-dollar market. Soon after, Verra’s CEO stood down.

The claims in the Guardian article rested heavily on analysis which had been published as a preprint (before peer review). Now the research has been fully peer-reviewed and is published in the journal Science. It shows unequivocally that many projects which have sold what are known as REDD+ (reducing emissions from deforestation and degradation) credits have failed to reduce deforestation.

REDD+ projects aim to slow deforestation (for example, by supporting farmers to change their practices). They quantify the carbon saved through reducing deforestation relative to what would have happened without the project, and sell these emission reductions as credits.

Such REDD+ credits are widely used to “offset” (that is, cancel out) emissions from companies (who may use them to make claims that their operations are carbon neutral) or by people concerned about their carbon footprint. For example, if you were planning to fly from London to New York you might consider buying REDD+ credits that promise to conserve rainforest in the Congo Basin (with added benefits for forest elephants and bonobos). Offsetting your return flight would appear to cost a very affordable £16.44.

A baby bonobo. Photo by jjjj56cp is licensed under CC BY-NC-SA 2.0.

However, while previous analysis showed that some REDD+ projects have contributed to slowing deforestation and forest degradation, the central finding from the new study is that many projects have slowed deforestation much less than they have claimed and, consequently, have promised greater carbon savings than they have delivered. So that guilt-free flight to New York probably isn’t carbon neutral after all.

The finding that many REDD+ carbon credits have not delivered forest conservation is extremely worrying to anyone who cares about the future of tropical forests. We spoke to Sven Wunder, a forest economist and a co-author of the new study. He told us that: “To tackle climate change, tropical deforestation must be stopped. Forests also matter for other reasons: losing forests will result in loss of species, and will affect regional rainfall patterns. Despite the evidence that REDD+ has not been delivering additional conservation, we cannot afford to give up.”

Deforestation could simply move elsewhere

Carbon credits also face other challenges, one of the biggest being “leakage” or displacement of deforestation. Leakage may occur because the people who were cutting down the forest simply relocate to a different area. Alternatively, demand for food or timber that was fuelling deforestation in one place may be met by deforestation elsewhere – perhaps on the other side of the world. Another problem is ensuring that the forests are protected in perpetuity so that reduced deforestation represents permanent removal of carbon from the atmosphere.

Addressing these challenges is vital because selling carbon credits is an important source of finance for forest conservation. It is not too dramatic to say that unreliable REDD+ credits directly threaten forests.

However, this is an active research area and new approaches are increasingly available. Andrew Balmford is a professor of conservation science at the University of Cambridge who is actively developing methods to improve the credibility of forest carbon markets. He says the new study raises some important concerns but that more robust and transparent methods have been developed. Deploying these new methods, he told us, is “an urgent priority”.

Deforestation. Photo by Bowman! is licensed under CC BY-NC-ND 2.0.

Change is also needed to how certification operates. At present, there are incentives for verifiers to inflate estimates of the amount of deforestation that would have happened without the project, and therefore the number of credits that can be issued. Sven Wunder explains: “We need to move beyond vested interest towards independent governance employing scientifically informed, cutting-edge methods.”

Reasons to be cautious

Even if these problems can be solved, there are still reasons to be cautious about the role of carbon offsets in combating climate change. First, there is the risk that offsetting actually increases emissions because people or companies might feel more comfortable emitting carbon if they believe they can undo any damage by simply buying carbon credits. For this reason, some argue that offsets must only ever be a last resort, after all non-essential emissions have been cut (the problem being of course: who decides which emissions are essential?).

Second, keeping warming within 2°C will require most deforestation to be stopped and major reductions in fossil fuel emissions. There is a limit to which one can be used to balance out the other.

Finally, there are serious equity concerns with some forest carbon offsets. If forest conservation is achieved by stopping farmers in low-income countries from clearing land for agriculture, REDD+ may exacerbate poverty: your long haul flight would come at the expense of others being able to feed their families.

We don’t know how much it would cost to achieve genuinely additional offsets which avoid leakage and ensure equity but it is likely to be considerably more expensive than forest carbon credits currently sell for. A higher price would reduce the perception that offsetting is an easy option and should encourage more focus on reducing emissions.

So, should you buy those cheap forest carbon offsets when taking a flight? Unfortunately, there’s currently little evidence that doing so will really make your journey carbon neutral. If you want to contribute to tackling climate change, perhaps the only real option is to not take the flight.

This article was first published on The Conversation 
The Conversation

Support our Nation today

For the price of a cup of coffee a month you can help us create an independent, not-for-profit, national news service for the people of Wales, by the people of Wales.

Notify of
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
7 months ago

 Good advice to virtue signaling politicians and others engaged in promoting Carbon credit scams – .. If you want to contribute to tackling climate change, perhaps the only real option is to not take the flight.

Sadly most of them are too entitled to heed such advice.

7 months ago
Reply to  hdavies15

Greta take note!

7 months ago
Reply to  David

I wasn’t aware that Greta was promoting carbon credits or green scams. She’s probably enough of a purist to see through all the manipulation and cheating that big corporates and their buddies in governments get up to. Splashing public funds out on over-wealthy globalist thieves is par for the course nowadays for most governments. It stinks, and not of CO2, although there might be a whiff of methane about it.

Doctor Trousers
7 months ago
Reply to  David

pretty sure Greta Thunberg’s position has pretty consistently been that we just need to stop burning fossil fuels, so not really sure what you’re on about here pal?

7 months ago

Colossal amounts of money in the ‘Carbon Credit’ & ‘Carbon Offset’ scams;
( taken from well meaning but naive people who lack critical thinking ).

Many ‘Carbon’ scammers about, but the first & most successful is …
‘Generation Investment Management LLP’ (started in 2004 by Al Gore & David Blood ),
worth $36BN that pays Gore $2m a month… as he sells climate fear by ranting about ‘rain bombs’ and ‘boiling oceans’ !!
(Al Gore’s net worth of $1.7 million in 2000 has jumped to $330 million mainly due to his carbon scams ),

7 months ago

This article is mixing oranges and apples and calling them grapefruit. REDD+ has nothing to do with voluntary carbon projects. I could plant potatoes in my back garden and claim “this is a REDD+ project” – that doesn’t make it one. So the fact that some voluntary carbon market certifiers call their projects REDD+ doesn’t make them so. The compliance REDD+ mechanism under the UNFCCC has its challenges, but to label the projects referred to in the article as REDD+ is equivalent to claiming that Plaid Cymru is a unionist party.

7 months ago
Reply to  Tim

Labour’s little helpers may just as well be.

Our Supporters

All information provided to Nation.Cymru will be handled sensitively and within the boundaries of the Data Protection Act 2018.