Carbon Offset Schemes Need Urgent Revision to Address Overestimation of Forest Preservation
Carbon offsetting schemes, which aim to counteract climate change by preventing deforestation, significantly overestimate the levels of forest protection they achieve, according to new research led by the University of Cambridge. The study warns that carbon credits generated by these schemes are often not an accurate representation of the actual preservation of forests. The analysis focused on 18 REDD+ sites around the world that aim to avoid deforestation. It found that an alarming 60.2 million credits generated at these sites in 2020 came from projects that made minimal efforts to reduce deforestation. This suggests a massive overestimation of the effectiveness of carbon offsetting schemes.
The researchers estimated that only six percent of the total number of credits produced at these sites in 2020 were valid. The findings indicate that the carbon offsetting market is vastly overblown. Carbon credits are purchased by companies to offset their unavoidable carbon emissions. These credits are typically generated through land protection projects like REDD+ that aim to preserve forests and promote tree plantation. Carbon credits in the UK currently range from £10 to £30 per tonne of carbon dioxide equivalent. However, the study’s lead author, Professor Andreas Kontoleon, stated that the market for carbon credits is essentially unregulated, and the claims of preserving vast forest areas are often exaggerated or inaccurate. He referred to the sale of carbon credits as selling hot air if the predictions of deforestation prevention are not fulfilled.
REDD+ projects were established following the Paris Agreement of 2015 as a strategy to reduce emissions from deforestation and forest degradation in developing countries. These projects calculate the potential tree loss that would have occurred without REDD+ interventions and sell credits accordingly. The market for carbon credits has expanded significantly, with nearly 500 million credits traded in 2021. However, the effectiveness of these schemes has been widely debated, as companies often purchase credits to claim progress towards achieving net zero without implementing substantive changes to their unsustainable practices.
The new research examined 18 sites in Tanzania, Cambodia, Colombia, Peru, and the Democratic Republic of Congo. These areas were chosen because they shared similarities with historic REDD+ projects in terms of mining activities, soil fertility, and annual deforestation rates. The calculations showed that 68 percent of the credits generated at these sites in 2020 came from projects that had not effectively reduced deforestation. This suggests that only six percent of the 89 million credits produced that year were valid overall.
The reasons behind this overestimation in the carbon offsetting market have yet to be fully understood. However, experts suggest that opportunistic inflation of baselines by profit-seekers and the influence of political and economic conditions on deforestation rates may contribute to the issue. Professor Kontoleon emphasized the need for the industry to regulate itself and prevent bad faith actors from exploiting the offset markets. He called for more transparent and sophisticated methods to accurately quantify the amount of preserved forest and establish a trusted marketplace.
In conclusion, the research calls for urgent revision of carbon offset schemes due to the significant overestimation of forest preservation. The findings highlight the need for the industry to address loopholes, improve transparency, and regulate the market to ensure the true effectiveness of carbon offsetting in combating climate change.
