Careful scrutiny of rapidly emerging, complex markets is desirable, and the carbon offset markets should be no exception. While not exactly new given the UN’s clean development mechanism programme has been generating credits since 2006, the intricate web of standards and offset methodologies that has developed subsequently has certainly delivered huge complexity.
Carbon offsets are tradable certificates representing measurable reductions or sequestrations of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, derived from projects such as renewable energy, energy efficiency, waste diversion, green transport and nature-based solutions. The market for these credits allows for the transfer of finance to parties leading the way on reducing atmospheric GHGs. The rapid growth of the market facilitated the transfer of $1.2bn to projects combating climate change in 2022.
With its wide array of potential carbon credit-generating activities, it is little wonder that the carbon credit market has drawn its fair share of scrutiny and criticism since its inception that have facilitated the evolution of ever-more-robust and credible outcomes. I consider it to be constructive criticism. However, in the last few months there has been an unfortunate trend in which legitimate scrutiny of nature-based solutions credits particularly has given way to sensationalism in which scientific best practice has been rubbished in the pursuit of airtime.
John Oliver’s humorous but scathing review of carbon offsets in his Last Week Tonight show in August was the first such example, in which fair points and facts where sacrificed at the altar of a few laughs. In January the The Guardian in the UK one-upped Oliver when it published an appalling piece of sensationalism under the title “Revealed: more than 90% of rainforest carbon offsets by biggest certifier are worthless, analysis shows”, which bore little resemblance to the truth.
False claim
Just last week The Guardian sought to double down on its previous transgression by publishing deliberate misrepresentations in an article: “Biggest carbon credit certifier to replace its rainforest offsets scheme — Verra will phase out programme by mid-2025 after Guardian investigation found it was flawed”.
Leaving aside the dearth of journalistic integrity in publishing the false claim that Verra (the world’s largest carbon credit issuer) is replacing its rainforest offset scheme, or that the preplanned, regular updates to its rainforest methodologies had anything to do with the Guardians “investigation”, a few points must be made.
While no-one in the carbon offset industry thinks the methodologies that have been defined for complex processes such as agricultural or forestry projects are perfect, we definitely support the concept that the credits derived from these methodologies represent the most up-to-date consensus point of scientific best practice. This is why these methodologies are constantly evolving through the release of methodological updates.
While all systems are vulnerable to abuse, most buyers of carbon credits are not using them to avoid having to reduce their GHG emissions. The primary global corporate initiative to achieve the goals of the Paris climate agreement is the Science-Based Targets Initiative (SBTI), which represents companies generating about a third of global economic activity. The SBTI only allows for the use of offsets up to a maximum of 10% of a company’s footprint, the same amount allowable under the SA carbon tax system.
Human activities in agriculture, forestry and other land-uses contribute to a quarter of total net anthropogenic GHG emissions. Of these, about half come from land-use changes such as deforestation and wetland loss. If humanity is to keep the effects of climate change to within manageable levels it is vital that improvements in the management of natural systems have to be driven.
I am yet to see any credible solution that comes anywhere close to the scientific veracity of the mainstream carbon standards nature-based solutions methodologies’ ability to achieve this.
• Maguire is carbon project manager at Climate Neutral Group SA. He writes in his personal capacity.
Would you like to comment on this article?
Sign up (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.