More often than not, offset credits  wrongly equate  newly afforested plantings to mature forest ecosystems.

Continued

Cut Off Wasteful Offsets

Forests are the largest carbon sink and most effective sequestration mechanism on land - 59.7 billion metric tons (BMT) of carbon were stored in US Forests in 2022, and a large proportion of offset projects focus on forests. Forest offsets can cover three types of activity: 1) avoided conversion, whereby a forest that is threatened is protected (“proforestation”); 2) afforestation or reforestation, whereby a degraded or cut forest is restored and protected; and 3) improved forest management (IFM) which can include logging, thinning, and other harmful forestry practices that emit tons of CO2e back into the atmosphere and often decimates the forest.

The vast majority of offsets go to allegedly improved forest management (IFM) emitting more CO2e than would happen without these management activities creating management commodification which can add a layer of profit to harmful forestry practices. In California, for example, only 4% of forest offsets were dedicated to avoided conversion.

Preserving forests is a key building block of any climate preservation program. It is the single most effective way to sequester CO2e and support biodiversity. It is proforestation - the permanent protection of forests without any management - which has the highest carbon sequestration potential. (Please refer to the "No management" graphic on the home page and below.)

In addition to financing polluting forest management practices, offsets are fundamentally flawed due to their lack of reliability and enforceability. Proponents of carbon offsets admit that to have integrity, the emission reductions or sequestration in forests sold as offsets need to show (1) permanence; (2) cannot merely be transferred elsewhere (“no leakage”); (3) beyond what would otherwise occur without payment of the carbon fee (“additionality”); and, (4) subject to verification and enforcement (verifiable). What these same proponents fail to acknowledge is that these integrity building blocks cannot be met. Specifically, forest offsets suffer from (1) increasing threats from drought, fire, storms, and management making it impossible to guarantee permanence; (2) using offsets for logging or thinning (IFM) under the guise of “restoring forest health” thereby reemitting CO2 into the atmosphere undermining the benefit of the offset; (3) proving additionality which is subject to misrepresentations and exaggeration; and (4) verification which often happens through unreliable third parties far away.      

For example, The Nature Conservancy repeatedly claims that already protected lands are in danger of logging and sells offsets to polluters who then claim that they had lowered emissions, creating a false accounting of progress. Worse, the forested lands covered by offsets often become working forests where selective cutting (of the largest and most valuable trees first), thinning, burning, etc. continues. In short, even “avoided conversion” offsets have been found unreliable.

Offset programs have led to profits for carbon traders and verifiers but have not resulted in the urgently needed forest protections or CO2e reductions. Instead of offsets, Keep It In The Forest advocates for the adoption of a polluter-pays (per ton of CO2e emitted) system that funds programs that permanently protect forests. A polluter pays approach has many benefits, including to public health, and is consistent with maintaining full employment and a vibrant economy. Funds collected from pollution fees can create, expand, and connect strategic forest reserves needed to balance extreme weather, provide water security, and stem biodiversity losses. This approach has the potential to carry us towards the goals of protecting 30% of the lands and waters from conversion or extraction by 2030, and ideally, 50% by 2050. 

Let’s stop wasting funds on offsets and, instead, keep the trees in the forests and protect them so they can provide the ecosystem services all Americans need.

Sonia Demiray is the Founding Director of the Climate Communications Coalition out of greater Washington, D.C. ClimateCC.org moves people to act on climate, to protect forests and biodiversity, and supports environmental conservation and climate justice organizations in their communications and outreach. Sonia is a communications strategist, activist, advocate, writer, and back in school to keep up with the latest science in the fast evolving fields of forests and climate change.  

References:

Carbon Market Watch. 2023. Does Carbon Offsetting Do More Harm than Good.

https://carbonmarketwatch.org/2023/07/06/does-carbon-offsetting-do-more-harm-than-good/ 

Cullenward, D.,  Badgley, G., Chay,F. 2023. Carbon offsets are incompatible with the Paris Agreement. One Earth, Volume 6, Issue 9,2023, Pages 1085-1088, ISSN 2590-3322. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oneear.2023.08.014 

Giles, C. 2023. What Carbon Offsets Tell Us About Why Environmental Programs Fail. The Regulatory Review Dec 18, 2023 https://www.theregreview.org/2023/12/18/giles-what-   carbon-offsets-tell-us-about-why-environmental-programs-fail/ 

Haya, B., et al, Berkeley Study Finds Widespread Over-crediting and Weak Safeguards in Avoid Deforestation Carbon Crediting Programs https://gspp.berkeley.edu/assets/uploads/page/Press-release--Berkeley--Quality-Assessment-of-REDD+-Carbon-Crediting-BCTP.pdf.

Lang, C. 2020. The Nature Conservancy’s Fake Forest Offsets. The REDD Monitor.

https://reddmonitor.substack.com/p/the-nature-conservancys-fake-forest 

Nunery, J. S., & Keeton, W. S .2010. Forest carbon storage in the northeastern United States: Net effects of harvesting frequency, post-harvest retention, and wood products. Forest Ecology and Management, 259(8), 1363–1375. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2009.12.029