"The researchers said the worst problems were with issuing additional credits for projects that were already in the pipeline, such as building a windfarm that would have gone up anyway; impermanent projects, such as planting trees that later burn down in a wildfire; projects with leakage, such as protecting part of a forest but effectively pushing loggers elsewhere; and double-counted projects, such as restoring a peatland but letting the seller and buyer claim the drop in emissions."
"We must stop expecting carbon offsetting to work at scale, said Stephen Lezak, a researcher at the University of Oxford's Smith School and co-author of the study, in Annual Reviews. We have assessed 25 years of evidence and almost everything up until this point has failed. Carbon offsets are a tool to cut emissions efficiently by crediting rich polluters for financing cheap climate action abroad while pumping out the same amount of planet-heating gas at home."
Twenty-five years of evidence show systemic flaws make most carbon offsets ineffective at reducing global emissions. Major failures include issuing credits for projects that would have happened anyway, impermanent carbon stores that can be reversed, leakage that shifts emissions elsewhere, and double-counting of claimed reductions. Industry and diplomatic efforts, including recent UN rules, have not substantially resolved these quality problems. Offsetting often permits continued domestic emissions while funding low‑impact projects abroad. Individual offsets may meet some criteria but fail overall, producing little or no real emissions reduction without fundamental reform.
Read at www.theguardian.com
Unable to calculate read time
Collection
[
|
...
]