90% of rainforest carbon offsets are worthless – report

Paying to preserve rainforests may be doing more harm than good

A nine-month investigation by the Guardian, the German weekly Die Zeit and SourceMaterial, a non-profit investigative journalism organisation, has concluded that over 90% of rainforest carbon offset credits sold by a leading supplier of such credits to VCMs (voluntary carbon markets) are useless. Worse, they may even be causing harm. This shocking finding will bring more scrutiny to the already discredited forestry carbon credit business, which we consider to be nothing more than greenwashing.

What makes these rainforest carbon offsets worthless?

The rainforest carbon offset market operates like this: Companies pay a provider, typically an NGO, to prevent a piece of rainforest from being cut down. Rainforests are typically cut down to make way for cows for burgers, or soybeans or palm oil for use in a startling array of processed food products.

The investigation found that:
– Only a handful of Verra’s rainforest projects showed evidence of deforestation reductions, according to two studies, with further analysis indicating that 94% of the credits had no benefit to the climate.
– The threat to forests had been overstated by about 400% on average for Verra projects, according to analysis of a 2022 University of Cambridge study.
– Gucci, Salesforce, BHP, Shell, easyJet, Leon and the band Pearl Jam were among dozens of companies and organisations that have bought rainforest offsets approved by Verra for environmental claims.
– Human rights issues are a serious concern in at least one of the offsetting projects. The Guardian visited a flagship project in Peru, and was shown videos that residents said showed their homes being cut down with chainsaws and ropes by park guards and police. They spoke of forced evictions and tensions with park authorities.

The Guardian, 18 January 2023

The problem with forestry carbon offsets

Forestry carbon offset schemes, also known as Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation (REDD+) schemes, are a type of carbon offset project that aims to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by protecting and restoring forests. These schemes allow individuals and organizations to offset their emissions by investing in projects that conserve or reforest areas of high conservation value or that are at risk of deforestation.

While forestry carbon offset schemes have the potential to make a significant contribution to reducing greenhouse gas emissions, there are also a number of critical issues that must be considered.

First, the effectiveness of these schemes in actually reducing emissions is questionable. There are concerns that the carbon sequestered by these projects may not be permanent, as forests can be affected by natural disturbances such as fires, pests, and disease. Additionally, there is the risk that carbon stored in the forest may be released through deforestation or degradation.

Second, there are concerns about the social and environmental impacts of these schemes. In many cases, forestry carbon offset projects are implemented in areas where indigenous communities and other local populations rely on the forest for their livelihoods. These communities may be displaced or have their rights and resources restricted without proper consultation or compensation. Additionally, there are concerns about the potential for these schemes to negatively impact biodiversity and ecosystem health.

Third, there is a lack of transparency and accountability in many forestry carbon offset schemes. Many projects lack proper monitoring and verification, making it difficult to assess their effectiveness and ensure that they are delivering the promised emissions reductions. Additionally, there is a lack of standardization and consistency in the ways that these schemes are implemented, making it difficult to compare their effectiveness and ensure that they are delivering the promised emissions reductions.

Fourth, there is a risk of double-counting and leakage, which can occur when the same carbon sequestered by a project is counted as offsetting emissions in multiple locations or when deforestation is displaced to another location, rather than being avoided or reduced.

In conclusion, while forestry carbon offset schemes have the potential to make a significant contribution to reducing greenhouse gas emissions, there are a number of critical issues that must be considered. The effectiveness of these schemes in actually reducing emissions is questionable and there are concerns about their social and environmental impacts. Additionally, there is a lack of transparency and accountability in many forestry carbon offset schemes, which makes it difficult to assess their effectiveness and ensure that they are delivering the promised emissions reductions. It is crucial for carbon offset schemes to be transparent, accountable and to have a clear benefit for the local communities and environment.

We love trees

We love trees and we want them to stay growing. That’s why we’re creating a totally new kind of carbon offset credit. By working with our partners who grow industrial hemp, we can measure the carbon we’re capturing, and we can do this very quickly, with full transparency and trust. If your business wants to do the right thing and not get conned, get in touch today.

---

Learn more

Read the complete report on the Guardian

Read why the world needs quality carbon offset products fast

Get in touch with us to learn more about our REAL carbon credit products

---

Latest posts

• Hemp and the City: Our Big Hemp Pitch at the San Francisco XPRIZE Carbon Removal Capital Summit
• Hempoffset / Tao Climate Expands into USA, Joins Hemp Incubator Company Technology Accelerator
• We’re in the XPRIZE Top 100 in the World
• Earth Day 2024: Planet vs. Plastics
• Tao Climate Urges UN Commission on Narcotic Drugs to Exclude Industrial Hemp from Narcotics Conventions