carbon offset credit

=<div>8 22</div><div><a href="https://www.desmog.com/2022/07/28/murky-world-of-carbon-offsets-faces-greater-scrutiny/">https://www.desmog.com/2022/07/28/murky-world-of-carbon-offsets-faces-greater-scrutiny/</a></div><div>
</div><div>=
<div>[long]</div><div>
</div><div><div style="font-size: small; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><a href="https://www.alternet.org/2021/05/climate-change-2652935020" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none;">https://www.alternet.org/2021/05/climate-change-2652935020</a></div><div style="font-size: small; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">lisa song pro pub</div><div style="font-size: small; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">The Massachusetts Audubon Society has long managed its land in western Massachusetts as crucial wildlife habitat. Nature lovers flock to these forests to enjoy bird-watching and quiet hikes, with the occasional bobcat or moose sighting.But in 2015, the conservation nonprofit presented California's top climate regulator with a startling scenario: It could heavily log 9,700 acres of its preserved forests over the next few years.The group raised the possibility of chopping down hundreds of thousands of trees as part of its application to take part in California's forest offset program.The state's Air Resources Board established the system to harness the ability of trees to absorb and store carbon to help the state meet its greenhouse gas reduction goals.The program allows forest owners like Mass Audubon to earn so-called carbon credits for preserving trees. Each credit represents a ton of CO2. California polluters, such as oil companies, buy these credits so that they can emit more CO2 than they'd otherwise be allowed to under state law. Theoretically, the exchange should balance out emissions to prevent an overall increase in CO2 in the atmosphere.The Air Resources Board accepted Mass Audubon's project into its program, requiring the nonprofit to preserve its forests over the next century instead of heavily logging them. The nonprofit received <a href="https://www.massaudubon.org/our-conservation-work/ecological-management/habitat-management/capturing-carbon/carbon-capture-faqs" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none; opacity: 1; transition: color 0.25s ease 0s, background 0.25s ease 0s, opacity 0.25s ease 0s;">more than 600,000</a> credits in exchange for its promise. The vast majority were sold through intermediaries to oil and gas companies, records show. The group earned about $6 million from the sales, Mass Audubon regional scientist Tom Lautzenheiser said.On paper, the deal was a success. The fossil fuel companies were able emit more CO2 while abiding by California's climate laws. Mass Audubon earned enough money to acquire additional land for preservation, and to hire new staff working on climate change.But it didn't work out as well for the climate, unless Mass Audubon actually intended to start acting more like a timber company. The project wouldn't achieve anywhere near the claimed levels of reduced carbon emissions if the nonprofit was getting credits for forests that were never in danger of aggressive logging. And every time a polluter uses a credit that didn't actually save a ton of carbon, net emissions go up, undermining the point of the program.In order for California's system to work, carbon market experts say, the program must cause carbon savings that wouldn't have happened in the absence of the program. If Mass Audubon had already planned to preserve the forest, then the carbon credits program is paying to save trees that were never at risk.The concept in question is known as “additionality." And how regulators create rules to ensure it happens is at the heart of the debate about whether California's carbon offset program is actually benefiting the environment.To the Air Resources Board, the landowner's intent is not important. So long as the land could have been logged in a way that is legal, doesn't lose money, and doesn't exceed typical logging practices in that region, the agency's rules treat the savings to the atmosphere as real.Some offset researchers argue that the state's approach allows landowners to claim credits for trees that were never in danger.New research by the San Francisco nonprofit CarbonPlan provides evidence that this is occurring: It shows that landowners in the program routinely maximize the number of trees they assert they could chop down if they weren't given carbon credits, even if they have little history of logging or have mission statements in sharp opposition to such practices.The research suggests the program could be significantly exaggerating the amount of carbon savings achieved....</div><div><div>=</div><div>
</div><div><a href="https://www.desmog.co.uk/2020/07/06/big-oil-forest-fever">https://www.desmog.co.uk/2020/07/06/big-oil-forest-fever</a></div><div>
</div><div>Elon Musk, Greta Thunberg, Rishi Sunak, Donald Trump — trees suddenly have an eclectic mix of fans, all drawn to the apparent simplicity of their carbon-locking power. Now Big Oil has joined the party, in a big way.Over the past year, BP, Total, Eni, Equinor and ConocoPhillips have invested millions of dollars in forest projects to offset their greenhouse gas emissions. Shell, in particular, has taken a lead, promising to spend $300 million on “natural ecosystems” as part of its market-leading net-zero emissions plan.The recent surge in corporate pledges gives the impression that nature-based solutions (NBS) provide the key to a decarbonised future. But given oil companies’ status as some of the world’s largest emitters, and the industry’s long history of lobbying against climate action, Big Oil’s push for more trees has been met with scepticism.There is little doubt that planting trees — <a href="https://friendsoftheearth.uk/climate-change/doubling-trees-will-help-stop-climate-chaos" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">often cited</a> as a cheaper and more readily available complement to carbon capture technology —  must form part of the solution to climate change. But are trees really the answer to Big Oil’s climate conundrum? Or are schemes that rely on preserving and planting millions, billions or trillions of trees (depending on who you ask) just an excuse to continue drilling for more fossil fuels?A close inspection suggests that as the projects and regulations currently stand, the trees that Big Oil plans to plant simply can’t live up to the hype. Planting trees may be part of the solution, but not at the expense of widespread systemic change in the energy sector.This investigation reveals:<ul style="margin: 1.5em 0px; padding: 0px 0px 0px 30px;"><li>The details of Big Oil’s tree planting plans, and the NGO partners they are cooperating with;</li><li>How Shell has been gaming the voluntary carbon credit market, claiming credits that may be double counted, or that may not qualify to be counted towards their climate goals;</li><li>How renewed interest in nature-based projects has reignited debates around the effectiveness of forestry projects to reduce global emissions;</li><li>And how national agencies, including the Dutch Forestry Commission (Staatsbosbeheer) and Forestry and Land Scotland (FLS) continue to partner with Shell, despite concerns they are helping the company greenwash its image.</li></ul><h3 style="line-height: 1.28205em; margin-top: 1.28205em; margin-bottom: 1.28205em;">Investing in nature</h3>Nature-based solutions (NBS) can be anything that involves the use of the natural world — such as forests, grasslands and wetlands — to remove harmful emissions from the atmosphere. The creation and preservation of these lands is enabled by big polluters purchasing credits to offset their emissions.Corporations’ forest offset fever was in part sparked by the 2015 <a href="https://unfccc.int/process-and-meetings/the-paris-agreement/the-paris-agreement" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">Paris Agreement</a>, the global climate treaty that committed nations to curbing warming to at most 2°C above pre-industrial levels. The agreement made clear that natural carbon sinks would be vital for countries to hit the goal.Alongside the Paris Agreement, a <a href="https://www.pnas.org/content/114/44/11645" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">joint study</a> co-authored by NGO The Nature Conservancy (TNC) in 2017 was particularly influential in shaping the NBS narrative. It claimed natural solutions could mitigate 37 percent of emissions (or 11 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide) by 2030 to reduce warming to well below 2°C. The report is frequently cited by corporate-friendly global organisations, from the World Economic Forum (WEF) to the World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD).But the TNC study came <a href="http://desmogblog.com/2019/07/06/big-oil-natural-climate-solutions-nature-conservancy" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">under fire</a> from critics of projects that fall under the umbrella of ‘Redd+’ (reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation, plus conservation). They claimed that it ignored the major social and environmental implications of such extensive land use, and is fundamentally infeasible.Such concerns did little to stem the rising popularity of nature offsets, however, which is most evident in the recent upswing of the voluntary credits market.Between 2016-2018, sales of Forestry and Land Use (FALU) and Redd+ offsets <a href="https://www.forest-trends.org/pressroom/demand-for-nature-based-solutions-for-climate-drives-voluntary-carbon-markets-to-a-seven-year-high/" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">soared by 264 percent</a> — compared to a 21 percent increase in all other categories. Airlines and oil companies have helped fuel this trend, according to the report by EcoSystem Marketplace (ESM), which singles out the <a href="https://www.forest-trends.org/pressroom/demand-for-nature-based-solutions-for-climate-drives-voluntary-carbon-markets-to-a-seven-year-high/" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">“emergence of major voluntary buyers, such as Shell”</a>.Significantly, in the past year, Shell, BP and Total updated their climate plans to include ‘Scope 3’ emissions — a major shift.Historically, polluters have only reported output from their own operations (Scope 1) and from the electricity purchased and used by the company (Scope 2). But these two categories account for just five to 10 percent of emissions. Scope 3, however, includes all harmful gases from fossil fuel products sold to customers.Without a rapid transition away from fossil fuels, these energy companies will have to rely heavily on carbon offsets to fulfil these expanded targets. That’s where forests come in.<h3 style="line-height: 1.28205em; margin-top: 1.28205em; margin-bottom: 1.28205em;">Big Oil investments</h3>Many of the NGOs that partner with Big Oil to deliver the companies’ much-needed forest projects say the corporate partnerships are vital to provide the necessary investment for nature-based emissions programmes. The projects cost money and Big Oil has it, the argument goes.But these investments should be treated with extreme caution, and only be accepted once all other avenues have been explored, campaigners argue.TNC, which <a href="https://www.shell.com/sustainability/our-approach/environmental-and-community-partners.html#iframe=L3dlYmFwcHMvRWFydGh3YXRjaC92Ml8wLw" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">works with Shell</a> and a number of other corporations on climate strategies, told DeSmog, “many of these nature-based solutions are available for support and investment now, but there is not enough public investment.”.“Big businesses have an opportunity to scale these environmental benefits on a global scale,”, a spokesperson said, though they acknowledges this must be “with dual investment in natural climate solutions and through ambitious and immediate changes in energy systems, transportation and other activities.”[graf]Big Oil has certainly suddenly become committed to the NBS cause.A long-term Redd+ investor, Shell appears to be going further in how it presents its natural climate solutions to the public than any other company. Shell’s <a href="https://www.shell.com/energy-and-innovation/the-energy-future/what-is-shells-net-carbon-footprint-ambition.html" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">newly updated 1.5</a><a href="https://www.shell.com/energy-and-innovation/the-energy-future/what-is-shells-net-carbon-footprint-ambition.html" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">°</a><a href="https://www.shell.com/energy-and-innovation/the-energy-future/what-is-shells-net-carbon-footprint-ambition.html" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">C climate strategy</a> – to be fully mapped out later this year – will rely heavily on NBS, following last year’s <a href="https://www.shell.com/media/news-and-media-releases/2019/shell-invests-in-nature-to-tackle-co2-emissions.html" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">$300 million investment in natural ecosystems</a>.Meanwhile, rival BP has donated <a href="https://www.bp.com/en/global/corporate/news-and-insights/press-releases/bp-invests-in-forest-carbon-offsets-leader-finite-resources.html" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">$5m to US carbon company Finite Carbon</a> to generate its own voluntary carbon market for businesses. BP, which has also previously invested in Redd+ projects, is also set to unveil its net-zero plans in late-2020.Of all the oil majors, Italian giant Eni appears the most committed to the traditional Redd+ model, with investments planned in Zambia, Mozambique, Ghana, Angola, the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), Vietnam and Mexico. To help reduce the energy intensity of its products by 80 percent by 2050, Eni plans to store 20 million tonnes per year of carbon dioxide equivalent in forests and wetlands by 2030.France’s Total has also launched a new fund to invest $100 million a year in NBS, but has estimated these will provide only five million tonnes per year in greenhouse gas reductions by 2030 – just 12 percent of its current Scope 1 emissions.Taking a different approach, state-owned Equinor in Norway has indicated it is “readying” itself to buy the equivalent of one million tonnes of carbon dioxide per year from <a href="https://www.emergentclimate.com/faqs/" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">Emergent</a>, a “catalyst” that claims it is “priming the market pump that will drive capital toward forest protection on a global scale”. Norway has long invested in Redd+ projects to offset carbon from its North Sea oil cash cow. But Equinor’s move signals that companies increasingly have an interest in controlling how future offsets are processed.In contrast, Spanish major Repsol is focusing on investing in <a href="https://www.desmogblog.com/2019/04/27/renewables-offset-35-times-co2-carbon-capture-storage" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">carbon capture and storage technology (CCS)</a> — an expensive technology that has been around for decades but is yet to be proven at-scale, and which campaigners regularly reference as <a href="https://www.desmog.co.uk/2017/11/15/industry-betting-big-ccs-shield-fossil-fuels-bonn-climate-talks" style="text-decoration-line: none;">a false solution</a> to climate change — to meet its ambitious 2050 net zero target. Repsol <a href="https://www.repsol.com/en/press-room/press-releases/2019/repsol-will-be-a-net-zero-emissions-company-by-2050.cshtml" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">has indicated</a> it would additionally offset emissions through reforestation and other natural climate sinks “if necessary”.European majors’ pledges are far more significant than their US and international counterparts, where NBS barely register in investor reports.Spokespeople for ExxonMobil and Chevron told DeSmog they had no current plans to invest in NBS, with both companies heavily funding CCS to attempt to align with the Paris Agreement’s goals. Meanwhile, Saudi Aramco, the <a href="https://www.marketwatch.com/story/ranked-saudi-aramco-chevron-and-other-top-companies-responsible-for-one-third-of-all-carbon-emissions-2019-10-09" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">biggest fossil fuel polluter in the world</a>, announced the planting of one million trees at home, but has not clarified whether these will go towards creating offsets.Tracey Cameron from sustainability NGO Ceres, which works with the world’s biggest polluters to cut emissions through the <a href="http://www.climateaction100.org/" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">Climate Action 100+</a> initiative, says a nuanced approach is important when it comes to using nature for offsetting.“NBS should definitely be part of the solution. It should be thoughtful, but also judicious in where it’s used,” she told DeSmog.However, “it should be used in those areas where there are no alternatives, or where the final mile can’t be hit. It’s part of the strategy but not the strategy. That has to be that the fundamental business has to change,” she argues.Right now, there’s little evidence that fundamental business model is shifting. Big Oil’s NBS investments are tiny when compared to their fossil fuel business.Before the coronavirus pandemic, Shell alone planned more than 35 new oil and gas projects by 2025. And the company invested just £2 billion in renewables last year, compared to £30 billion in oil and gas.So far Total and Eni are the only companies to have declared their nature-based targets in full. Together these equate to just 25 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent by 2030, only 60 percent of their respective Scope 1 emissions, and less than half of Shell’s.<h3 style="line-height: 1.28205em; margin-top: 1.28205em; margin-bottom: 1.28205em;">New pastures</h3>Shell more than any other has leapt at the possibility of forestry offsets helping it meet its ambitious climate targets.  While continuing to buy credits from tropical forests in Peru and Indonesia, Shell is the first energy company to explore creating carbon credits within Europe.Its $300 million investment in “natural ecosystems” includes two forestry projects in Spain and the Netherlands. The projects highlight a key problem with the current system — it is still unclear who gets credit for the emissions offsets created by forestry projects (or even who can legally claim them).In 2019, Shell paid the Dutch Forestry Commission (Staatsbosbeheer) €17.4 million to plant five million trees over the next 12 years, in areas where an aggressive fungal disease had destroyed the ash tree population. Shell’s <a href="https://www.shell.com/media/news-and-media-releases/2019/shell-invests-in-nature-to-tackle-co2-emissions.html" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">press release</a> clearly stated that both projects are “expected to generate carbon credits within five years”.This appears to be speculation, however, as a Dutch Forestry Commission spokesman acknowledged that the plan was “a work in progress and credits are not yet possible”. That’s because the EU’s Land Use, Land Use Change and Forestry (LULUCF) regulation means all emissions savings from forestry and land use (FALU) projects in the EU are channelled into meeting national climate targets (NDCs), and cannot be counted towards corporate goals.The EU regulation has been implemented since the Kyoto Protocol (first adopted in 1997), but will be enshrined into national targets under the Paris Agreement from next year until 2030 — making Shell’s initial promise to generate credits by 2024 implausible....[grafs]</div><div></div><div>
</div><div>=</div><div>619 see also UN official</div><div>
</div><div><h2 style="line-height: 1.375em; margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 0.5em; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">A<a rel="nofollow" target="blank" href="https://go.propublica.org/e/125411/l-utm-campaign-dailynewsletter/6s5jws/389961857?h=cFeesJ6KCrQuLB54_FViE9uJbCwDSfaUrqN8OtULrVA" style="text-decoration-line: none;">n (Even More) Inconvenient Truth: Why Carbon Credits For Forest Preservation May Be Worse Than Nothing</a></h2>How the hunger for these offsets is blinding us to the mounting pile of evidence that they haven't — and won't — deliver the environmental benefit they promise<div class="yiv9160559917byline" style="line-height: 1.2; margin-top: 0.5em; margin-bottom: 0.5em; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); padding: 0.25em 0em;">by Lisa Song</div></div><div><div>=</div><div><a href="https://www.alternet.org/environment/could-be-moment-world-governments-chart-path-toward-tackling-climate-change">https://www.alternet.org/environment/could-be-moment-world-governments-chart-path-toward-tackling-climate-change</a></div><div>
</div><div>sf mtg and carbon tax</div><div>
</div><div>Killer floods and heat waves have made 2018 another record-setting year as the climate crisis intensifies. The <a href="https://unfccc.int/process-and-meetings/conferences/bangkok-climate-change-conference-september-2018" style="text-decoration-line: none;">UN climate negotiations in Bangkok</a> (September 4-8), followed by the <a href="https://globalclimateactionsummit.org/" style="text-decoration-line: none;">Global Climate Action Summit</a> (GCAS) in San Francisco (September 12-14) and the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change 24th Conference of the Parties (COP24) in Katowice, Poland, (December) could make 2018 the year that world governments chart a path toward tackling climate change, enhanced ambition and implementation of the Paris Agreement. It could also be the time that global leaders fall dangerously short in reckoning with the climate crisis, condemning millions more to losing their lives and livelihoods.

Despite consensus that climate change is jeopardizing life on Earth, there is a massive chasm between the action needed and what the fossil fuel industry—with governments in the Global North in its pocket—is pushing. If polluting countries and corporations are successful, ineffectual interventions—like carbon markets and geo-engineering—become central to the global response to climate change. The result: soaring emissions, lives lost, hundreds of millions of people displaced and species extinction.This is the path we are on. We are here because of decades of mass deception and political manipulation by big polluters that has allowed them to undermine international, national and subnational climate policy to guard their profits. This political interference is directly correlated with the emergence of carbon market schemes as a "solution" to today's crisis, <a href="https://law.stanford.edu/publications/why-carbon-pricing-isnt-working/" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); text-decoration-line: none;">despite their consistent failure</a>.

Carbon pricing—putting a price on carbon and regulating it through markets including cap and trade and offsets (i.e., commodifying the air we breathe)—have been pushed by corporations and Global North countries as our fail-safe for the planet.

Carbon markets have not proven to be an effective way to reduce emissions. Instead of the Global North making emission reductions domestically, corporations located in the Global South can sell offset credits to corporations in the north to meet their emissions reduction limits. Human rights and environmental injustices are well-documented by communities who live near these so-called clean development projects in the Global South. Instead of holding northern economies accountable to change their production systems and consumption patterns, carbon markets allow for business as usual in the north, leaving the Global South to offset the Global North's emissions and endure the impacts. 

Such schemes are criticized for being rooted in the colonialism and environmental racism that is at the core of fossil fuel extraction. Indigenous peoples, small-scale farmers, forest peoples, youth, communities of color and women are most impacted by these schemes. For example: Kenya Forest Service guards have violently evicted the Sengwer Indigenous people in the Embobut Forest due to pressures from voluntary international offset schemes that provide financial incentives for forest preservation. In Colombia, Indigenous Wayuu fight for the ancestral rights to land and water due to impacts from the largest open-pit coal mine in Latin America, Cerrejon. Cerrejon has used the Clean Development Mechanism—which lets countries in the Global North purchase credits from Global South countries to continue polluting—to sell offset credits from a few wind power generators placed next to the looming mines.

In addition to the examples above, these schemes have failed in the very countries whose governments are pushing them, including the UK, the EU, Canada, Australia, and California in the US. Despite the documented global failures of carbon market schemes, big polluters are seeking to make these schemes the centerpiece of climate policy at upcoming milestones in Bangkok, San Francisco and Katowice. At GCAS, polluters are promoting an expansion of carbon pricing <a href="https://theinvestoragenda.org/areas-of-impact/investment/" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); text-decoration-line: none;">mechanisms</a> that guarantee more fossil fuel extraction, despite needing to keep the vast majority of fossil fuel reserves in the <a href="https://unfccc.int/news/most-fossil-fuels-must-stay-in-the-ground-new-study" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); text-decoration-line: none;">ground</a> to curb temperature rise. At COP24, the guidelines for Paris Agreement implementation are being used to link up international carbon markets. This creates an official space for polluters to continue polluting unregulated.

These upcoming meetings will chart the immediate future of climate action. Real, just solutions must receive the priority they deserve. We call on governments to listen to the people without delay at COP24, reject false solutions stemming from GCAS and to take urgent steps to protect our lives. Instead of permitting the very actors that fuelled the climate crisis to advance their own agenda, it is time governments embody true climate championship by embracing the meaningful solutions communities on the front lines of climate change already have. They are feasible and affordable, and they work. They include a managed decline of fossil fuel production; pacts to keep fossil fuels in the ground in the Global North immediately, with a phaseout for the Global South; finance and technology transfer; a total and just transition to community-led renewable energy; and a singular focus on keeping big polluters out of climate policymaking.This article was produced by <a href="https://independentmediainstitute.org/earth-food-life/" style="text-decoration-line: none;">Earth | Food | Life</a>, a project of the Independent Media Institute, and originally published by <a href="https://buzzflash.com/commentary/this-could-be-the-moment-world-governments-chart-a-path-toward-tackling-climate-change" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">Buzzflash at Truthout</a>.</div><div>
</div><div></div></div><div></div></div></div></div>