>
Carbon offset programs need an “urgent review” because they significantly overestimate the levels of deforestation they prevent, scientists warn.
Kil research Led by the University of Cambridge, it has been argued that the ‘carbon credits’ generated by many land conservation programs are often not truthful.
This warning follows the analysis of 18 ‘REDD+ locations’ around the world that are trying to prevent tree felling as a way to combat climate change.
But calculations suggest that 60.2 million credits here in 2020 actually came from projects that made barely any deforestation cuts.
Instead, experts believe that only six percent of their total credit production is valid, suggesting that the market is vastly “exaggerated.”
Carbon offset programs need an “urgent review” because they significantly overestimate the levels of deforestation they prevent, scientists warn. In the photo: deforestation in the Amazon region
“Carbon credits offer big emitters some semblance of climate credentials,” says senior author of the study, Professor Andreas Kontoleon, from Cambridge’s Department of Land Economy.
“Yet we can see that the claims of saving large tracts of forest from the chainsaw to balance emissions are exaggerated.
“These carbon credits essentially predict whether someone will cut down a tree, and sell that prediction. If you exaggerate or get it wrong, intentionally or not, you’re selling hot air.’
REDD+ projects were set up following the 2015 Paris Agreement as a way to reduce emissions from deforestation and forest degradation in developing countries.
Carbon credits are often sold in line with the potential boom loss that would have occurred had it not been for these REDD+ schemes.
In the UK these vary between £10 and £30 per tCO2 (tons of carbon dioxide equivalent) avoided.
Amid grim climate change predictions, this market has boomed in recent years, with nearly 500 million credits traded by 2021, according to ClimateTrade.
But their effectiveness is hotly debated because companies often buy them to move to “net zero” without directly changing their unsustainable practices.
Scientists looked at 18 sites in Tanzania, Cambodia, Colombia, Peru and the Democratic Republic of Congo
To analyze the impact of this, researchers looked at the progress of 18 sites in Tanzania, Cambodia, Colombia, Peru and the Democratic Republic of Congo.
Calculations suggest that 68 percent of credits from these areas in 2020 actually came from projects that failed to sufficiently reduce deforestation.
If correct, this means that in total only six percent of the 89 million credits generated in that year were valid.
“These projects have already been used to offset almost three times more carbon than they actually reduced through forest conservation,” Professor Kontoleon continued.
‘And that while there are still more than 47 million credits available on the market.’
The reason for this “exaggerated” market is currently unclear, although experts believe that baselines “could be opportunistically inflated by freeloaders trying to maximize the volume of offsets spent by a project.”
They also recognize that political and economic conditions can affect deforestation.
“There are perverse incentives to generate huge numbers of carbon credits, and at the moment the market is essentially unregulated,” Professor Kontoleon added.
In 2020, only six percent of the CO2 credits were valid at 18 global offset locations. Pictured: deforestation in the Amazon, Colombia
Watchdog agencies are being set up, but many of those involved are also connected to carbon credit certification bodies, so they will do their own homework.
“The industry must work to close loopholes that allow actors to exploit the compensation markets in bad faith.
“It needs to develop much more sophisticated and transparent methods of quantifying the amount of protected forest to become a trusted marketplace.”