One of the first large-scale attempts to use carbon markets to prevent deforestation was largely unsuccessful, according to a new Greenpeace report.
The report concludes that carbon offsets from forest projects such as REDD are too unreliable to be included in cap and trade systems.
“Carbon Scam: Noel Kempff Climate Action Project and the Push for Sub-national Forest Offsets,” examines the Noel Kempff Climate Action Project (NKCAP) in Bolivia, which is sponsored by American Electric Power (NYSE: AEP), BP (NYSE: BP) and PacifiCorp. The report states that the project did not deliver promised emissions reductions and failed to address fundamental shortcomings.
For example, over the last decade of the project (1997-2009), the estimated emissions reductions of NKCAP plummeted by more than 90%, from about 55 million to 5.8 million metric tons of CO2. In addition, project sponsors did not produce tangible evidence that avoided deforestation did not move to other regions or countries, a phenomenon called leakage.
“This report should end speculation that sub-national carbon offset projects can be used to reliably cut carbon emissions,” said Greenpeace senior campaigner Rolf Skar. “The fundamental uncertainties at the core of sub-national REDD offsets are not ones that can be resolved with technical tinkering and quick fixes. They require a leap of faith. We simply shouldn’t gamble with our climate.”
If low-quality REDD offsets like those from NKCAP are included in a government cap and trade scheme, climate pollution could actually increase. At the same time, sub-national REDD offsets traded on a large scale could undermine the integrity of carbon markets, acting as “sub-prime” carbon credits creating financial implications. It is estimated carbon markets could be worth trillions of dollars in coming years.
“While polluters are looking for the cheapest way to get out of cleaning up their act, they are setting up a lose-lose-lose for forests, our climate and financial markets” said Skar.
Greenpeace said legislation pending in the US Congress allows for 2 billion tons of offsets, including sub-national REDD offsets. This staggering amount of offsets prompted Rep. Rick Boucher (D-VA), a staunch coal industry supporter, to say, “That means an electric utility burning coal will not have to reduce the emissions at the plant site. It can just keep burning coal.”
Greenpeace believes REDD should be financed through a large, predictable supply of revenues from pollution permits. Unhampered by carbon markets and the need to “credit” emissions reductions, funds could be used more efficiently and broadly to end deforestation worldwide, avoiding the dangers of forest offsets.
In April, Greenpeace published a separate report stating that forest carbon offsets could crash carbon market prices by up to 75%.
The latest Greenpeace report can be found at the link below.
Loading...