by Many of the companies that have pledged “net zero” emissions to protect the climate are relying on large numbers of forests and what are known as carbon offsets to achieve that goal.
On paper, carbon offsets seem to balance out a company’s carbon emissions: The company pays to protect trees, which absorb carbon dioxide from the air. The company can then claim the absorbed carbon dioxide as an offset that reduces its net impact on the climate.
However, our new satellite analysis reveals what researchers have suspected for years: Forest offsets may not be doing much for the climate.
You can listen to more articles from The Conversation, spoken by Noa, here.
When we looked at satellite tracking of carbon levels and logging activity in California’s forests, we found that in the state’s 37 offset project sites, carbon is not increasing more than in other areas, and that timber companies are logging less than as they did before. .
The findings send a grim message about efforts to control climate change, and add to a growing list of concerns about forest offsets. Studies have already shown that projects are often over-credited at the start and may not last as long as expected. In this case we are finding a bigger issue: the lack of real climate benefit over the 10 years of the program so far.
But we also see ways to solve the problem.
How forest carbon offsets work
Forest carbon offsets work like this: Trees capture carbon dioxide from the air and use it to build mass, effectively locking the carbon in their wood for the life of the tree.
In California, landowners can receive carbon credits for maintaining carbon stocks above a minimum required “baseline” level. Third-party verifiers help landowners take inventory by manually measuring a tree sample. Until now, this process involved only measuring carbon levels relative to the baseline and did not leverage the emerging satellite technologies we explored.
Forest owners can then sell the carbon credits to private companies, with the idea that they have protected trees that would otherwise be cut down. These include major oil and gas companies that use offsets to meet up to 8% of their state-mandated emissions reductions.
Forest offsets and other “natural climate solutions” have received a lot of attention from companies, governments and non-profits, including during the UN climate conference in November 2022. One of the largest carbon offset programs in the world at California, and thousands of dollars there. flows through offset projects, and is often a model for other countries planning new offset programs.
It’s clear that offsets play a major role in growing climate policy, from the individual to the international level. In our view, they must be supported by the best available science.
3 possible problems
Our study used satellite data to track carbon levels, tree removal rates and tree species in forest offset projects compared to other similar forests in California.
Satellites offer a more complete record than ground reports collected by offset projects. This allowed us to consider all of California since 1986.
From this broad perspective, we identify three problems that have demonstrated a lack of climate benefit:
-
These projects are not adding carbon faster than the projects were started or faster than in non-offsetting areas.
-
Many of the projects are owned and operated by large timber companies, which manage to meet requirements for offset credits by keeping carbon above a minimum baseline. However, these lands have been and continue to be heavily harvested.
-
In some regions, projects are being placed on lands with lower value tree species that are not at risk of logging. For example, at one large timber company in the redwood forests of northwestern California, the offset project is only 4% redwood, compared to 25% redwood on the rest of the company’s property. Instead, the offset project area is overgrown with tanoak, which is not marketable wood and does not need to be protected from logging.
How California can fix its offset program
Our research presents a series of recommendations for California to improve its offset protocols.
One suggestion is to start using satellite data to monitor forests and confirm that they are indeed being managed to protect or store more carbon. For example, it could help foresters create more realistic baselines to compare offsets against. Publicly available satellite data is improving and can help make carbon offsets more transparent and reliable.
California can also avoid offset projects on lands that are already being conserved. We found several projects owned by conservation groups on land that already had low harvest rates.
Additionally, California could improve its offset contract protocols to ensure that landowners could not opt out of an offset program in the future and cut down those trees. There is currently a penalty for doing so, but it may not be high enough. Landowners may be able to start a project, get a big profit from the initial credits, cut down the trees in 20 to 30 years, pay back their credits plus a penalty, and still come out ahead if inflation exceeds the liability.
Ironically, while it is intended to help mitigate climate change, it also puts forest offsets at risk—especially in wildfire-prone California. Research suggests that California is underestimating the climate risks of forest offset projects in the state.
State protocol requires only 2% or 4% of carbon credits to be set aside in an insurance pool against wildfires, although recent fires have damaged multiple projects. When wildfires occur, the insurance pool can account for the carbon lost. The pool may soon be depleted, however, as area burned increases each year in a warming climate. The insurance pool must be large enough to cover worsening droughts, wildfires and disease and beetle infestations.
Considering our findings in relation to the challenges of forest carbon offsets, focusing on other options, such as investment in solar projects and electrification in urban income areas, could provide more cost-effective, reliable and fair results. low.
Without improvements to the current system, we could underestimate our clean-ups, increasing the profits of large emitters and landowners and detracting from the real solutions of transitioning to a clean energy economy .
This article is republished from The Conversation, a non-profit, independent news organization that brings you reliable facts and analysis to help you make sense of our complex world. It was written by Shane Coffield NASA and James Randerson, University of California, Irvine
Read more:
Shane Coffield received funding from the National Science Foundation Graduate Research Fellowship Program for his graduate studies at UC Irvine.
James Randerson receives funding from NASA, the US Department of Energy Office of Science, the National Science Foundation, and the California State Council for Strategic Growth.
