MIT Technology Review: “The climate solution adding millions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere”

CarbonPlan’s study comes days after the Washington state legislature moved a cap-and-trade bill with an offset program to the governor’s desk for approval. Oregon has also debated in recent months establishing a carbon market program that would emulate California’s policy. In Washington, DC, the Biden administration has signaled growing interest in harnessing forests and soil to draw down CO₂. Businesses, too, increasingly plan to rely heavily on trees to offset their emissions in lieu of the harder task of cutting corporate pollution.

Forest offsets have been criticized for a variety of problems, including the risks that the carbon reductions will be short-lived, that carbon savings will be wiped out by increased logging elsewhere, and that the projects are preserving forests never in jeopardy of being chopped down, producing credits that don’t reflect real-world changes in carbon levels.

But CarbonPlan’s analysis highlights a different issue, one interlinked with these other problems. Even if everything else about a project were perfect, developers would still be able to undermine the program by exploiting regional averages.

Every time a polluter uses a credit that didn’t actually save a ton of carbon, the total amount of emissions goes up.

Far from addressing climate change, California’s forest offsets appear to be adding tens of millions of tons of CO₂ into the atmosphere on balance, undermining progress on the state’s long-term emissions goals.

James Temple & Lisa Song

Convoluted story, and I’m not entirely certain I’ve understood all its twists and implications. Which I guess rather proves the point of the article: if not sufficiently transparent, the regulations used to determine carbon offsets can be exploited to generate meaningless carbon credits without materially reducing emissions. The overall effect thus delays climate action, as big polluters buy emissions credits while continuing to pollute, instead of investing in lasting measures to reduce their carbon footprint.

I think we did a good thing by saving the trees, but I’m not happy with it, Jene McCovey, a tribal elder, said. It’s not viable. It allows polluters to pollute. Photograph by Joel Redman

Some tribal members are deeply uncomfortable with the idea of selling offsets to companies like this even if they are legitimate, fearing they’re effectively profiting from pollution.

The offsets, by definition, allow California companies to continue producing more CO₂ than otherwise allowed—as well as the toxic pollutants like soot and heavy metals that frequently accompany such emissions—often near poor neighborhoods. Communities near refineries, cement kilns, and power plants have frequently opposed offset programs.

Thomas Joseph, an activist and a member of the Hoopa Valley Tribe in California, said offset developers target tribal projects because tribes are in dire need of revenue and own vast tracts of mostly intact forest. He said his tribe has resisted multiple pitches from developers. For us to use this as a means to allow corporations to continue to pollute, he said, goes against our cultural values. He added, I see it as a second wave of colonization.

Apparently, sales of carbon credits account for a sizeable chuck of Tesla’s profits as well… Without the revenues from these government credits – and occasionally Bitcoin – Tesla wouldn’t have reached profitability for multiple quarters in previous years.