Carbon offsets allow firms and individuals to pay to offset or compensate for the carbon emissions they create. To eliminate the carbon footprint of airplane flights, a building project, or data centers by paying to pull carbon out of the air elsewhere. Voluntary offsets have developed into a billion-dollar global market. Now it appears that the carbon credits may just be greenwashing.
Until 2011 most carbon offset projects focused on building
out renewable energy and addressing sources of methane to reduce greenhouse
gases. This was because land-based projects, such as those involving
agriculture and forestry, had been excluded from the European Union emission trading system under the Kyoto Protocol.
As a result, almost no forestry projects were developed. However, in 2011 the
preventing deforestation became more desirable on the world stage and it became
possible to sell these type of carbon offsets.
The first and largest project was Kariba REDD+ a forest
conservation project aimed at providing sustainable livelihood
opportunities for poor communities in Northern Zimbabwe while locals maintained
and cared for the forest. Over the next decade, Kariba’s REDD+ carbon credits were the basis of the claims of breakthrough progress on cutting emissions from its
corporate clients. The project has generated $100
million by selling credits for more than 23 million tons of greenhouse
gas emissions. However, during the past year serious questions have been
raised.
Earlier this year news reports began appearing in Europe and
in Bloomberg Green that charged the project had overestimated
its climate benefits by at least a factor of five while delivering much less money
than indicated to communities in Zimbabwe. Last month, a report in The New
Yorker (“The Great Cash-for Carbon
Hustle”) raised the concerns about the illegal movement of money and claimed
that the carbon reductions were not real. Based on these reports, the
Washington, D.C.-based certification body Verra, the world’s leading carbon
standard setter for the offsets market, announced it had launched an
investigation into the Kariba project. Verra has said that the project will
remain on hold, along with “any further credit issuances” until the probe is
complete.
South Pole, the world’s leading seller of carbon offsets, has terminated its involvement in its flagship forest protection project in Zimbabwe following these recent allegations and the entire carbon offset market is in turmoil. The collapse of Kariba REDD+ could also endanger the viability of the rest of carbon market, which has slowed this year amid quality concerns, regulatory investigations in the United States and accusations of greenwashing by the United Nations. These problems and weather risks are also undermining the market’s underlying insurance mechanisms, known in the industry as the credit buffer pool. Climate change is bringing increased risks to natural landscapes from drought, wild fires, and invasive bugs and species and some fear these insurance mechanisms are under-capitalized.
A nonprofit, CarbonPlan, voiced concern as early as
2020 that forest fires could easily burn through the buffer pool in
California’s carbon market and wildfires this past summer have damaged a carbon
offset project. Researchers at the University of California at Berkeley found estimate
that forest offset projects underestimating the risk from natural phenomena by
a factor of 10.
No comments:
Post a Comment