Key Points

With the boom in renewable energy, many of the credits that trade hands merely represent a transfer of money from one profitable enterprise to another, critics say

Key Excerpts

‘Now that renewable energy can stand on its own financially, some investors, researchers and government regulators say companies buying … [some] credits are just transferring cash to other established companies. They say the old U.N. program… is draining money from newer initiatives that need it more, such as experiments in capturing carbon directly from the air.’

‘Pedro Martins Barata, a former executive board member of the U.N. program, known as the Clean Development Mechanism, or CDM, says he is concerned the market lacks transparency, making it difficult for buyers to understand which projects would have happened without issuing credits. “No one should buy any of that stuff anymore,” said Mr. Martins, who is now a senior director at the Environmental Defense Fund, a nonprofit advocacy group.’

‘Surging demand for credits is being driven by companies, often under pressure from investors, governments and customers, to reduce their net carbon footprint.’

‘…according to environmental finance data provider Ecosystem Marketplace, … estimates of the [voluntary carbon] market’s size over the next decade range from $50 billion to $180 billion annually, according to the carbon-credit industry trade group Taskforce on Scaling the Voluntary Carbon Markets.’

This article was originally published on The Wall Street Journal

Key Points

EasyJet is to stop offsetting carbon emissions by its planes as it unveiled a “roadmap to net zero” emissions by 2050 including introducing hydrogen-powered jet engines.

Other elements of easyJet’s new strategy include using sustainable aviation fuel, more fuel-efficient planes and carbon capture to reach the target.

EasyJet insisted it was the most ambitious plan yet from an airline to tackle emissions, while it continued to partner with firms on exploring new technologies.

Key Excerpts

‘Last year, a joint investigation by the Guardian revealed that major airlines including easyJet were using unreliable “phantom” carbon credits to claim their flights were carbon neutral.’

‘EasyJet plans to curb CO₂ emissions by 35% per passenger kilometre by 2035 as part of its new roadmap, and said the steps it was taking had been validated by the Science-Based Targets initiative.’

‘The airline believes it can cut its own emissions by 78% by 2050, with carbon capture technology allowing it to reach net zero.’

‘“We’ve said all along that we want to transition to technologies that reduce our carbon intensity from our direct operation, that’s our key goal.”’

‘The Guardian investigation with Unearthed, Greenpeace’s investigative arm, found that the carbon credits were based on complicated and unreliable hypothetical calculations of avoided deforestation, which experts warned were not real emission reductions. The findings were fiercely criticised by Verra, the carbon offsetting standard that approved the credits.’

This article was originally published on The Guardian

Key Points

New research published in the journal Global Change Biology raises alarming questions about the efficacy of forest carbon programs registered in California’s cap-and-trade program. Utilizing satellite imagery, particularly of forests in Northwest California, researchers have compared the carbon sequestered by forests versus what is claimed and have emerged with a concerning conclusion: forests registered in the offset program are overcounting the carbon that they are paid to protect.

Key Excerpts

‘large emitters are allowed to purchase, verified carbon offsets’

‘ensuring that … the money is actually going to sequestering more carbon than what than would have occurred in some business as usual scenario, that’s really, really key to … actually achieving the carbon reductions that we need to occur.’

‘we can’t ensure that as a result of enrolling these projects were gaining more carbon stored than if they would have just been managed like any other land in their ownership’

‘We found that these tend to be preferentially on lands that have been harvested more intensely in the past 20 or so years of our record and especially in the past 10 or seven years leading up to the offsets program. So we … flagged that as being … suspicious … They’re going to be recovering from that harvest, increasing their carbon stocks. So it’s kind of interesting that they’re still able to have carbon that’s above above baseline to receive credit. And and also to be increasing carbon over time.’

This article was originally published on The Eco News Report

Key Points

GreenCollar, which describes itself as the country’s largest environmental markets investor, natural resource manager and conservation-for-profit organisation, has made a joint submission to a government review of the carbon credit system with academics including Prof Andrew Macintosh, who used to be responsible for the scheme’s integrity.

Key Excerpts

‘It follows several companies that run projects to cut emissions from landfill sites backing analysis by Macintosh and his colleagues that the system was generating meaningless credits and resulted in emissions increasing.’

‘…up to 80% credits approved might not represent real or new cuts in emissions.’

‘…the legislation overseeing carbon credits, which was relaxed under the Coalition, did not ensure all methods used to create carbon offsets met high integrity standards.’

‘… the model used to estimate how much carbon dioxide was stored in regenerating forests … could lead to overestimation of emissions reductions.’

‘In a statement in June, the regulator and the Emissions Reduction Assurance Committee said Macintosh and his colleagues had failed to present robust evidence of a lack of integrity in the system and – as the precise areas of land where carbon credit projects took place could not be released due to legal restrictions – had based their analysis on an incomplete dataset.’

This article was originally published on The Guardian