At the COP26 climate conference, carbon market players and conservationists met to discuss how to improve the quality of carbon offsets. The event made headlines – but not for the reasons its convener, Mark Carney, had presumably hoped.
Greta Thunberg, who attended the meeting, walked out halfway through saying loudly: “Stop greenwashing.”
The Swedish teenage activist echoed the position taken by Greenpeace. In November, the environmental NGO published a blog post titled “Carbon offsets are a scam”.
The language in the post was even more emotive. Offsets are “a book-keeping trick intended to obscure climate-wrecking emissions”, “tree-planting window-dressing”, and “a licence to keep polluting”.
They also, apparently unacceptably, “put a price on nature” and “distort economies and take land and resources away from the local communities that need it [sic] most”.
This approach is backed by other influential environmental groups such as Rainforest Action Network (RAN), which also stresses the supposed dangers carbon credits pose to indigenous peoples and biodiversity.
Frustration
Many conservationists, however, find this vocal opposition to offsetting deeply frustrating. For them, carbon markets offer a great way – indeed, possibly the only way – to raise desperately needed funding to address the nature crisis, particularly in poorer countries.
They also note that many of the concerns expressed by the likes of RAN and Greenpeace are hopelessly out of date. The risks to biodiversity of planting fast-growing monoculture pine forests have long been recognized.
The UN’s REDD+ framework for carbon projects – Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and forest Degradation – has mandated “respect for the conservation of natural forests and biological diversity” since 2005.
Projects under the scheme are also required to respect “the knowledge and rights of indigenous peoples and members of local communities”.
Many REDD+ projects in developing countries have been hugely successful, in terms of both carbon sequestration and social benefits – and there is plenty of demand for more from buyers and communities.
As to the supposedly unacceptable idea of putting a price on nature, for many conservationists this is exactly what is needed
Indeed, one COP26 attendee commented wryly: “These greenwashing accusations are so white. All the brown faces asked for finance but on their terms. They didn’t mention greenwashing.”
As to the supposedly unacceptable idea of putting a price on nature, for many conservationists this is exactly what is needed. Taking natural ecosystem services for granted and using them as a free resource, they argue, is what got us into the mess we are in today.
They want to see countries and communities paid to protect and restore nature – and if that has to be done through carbon offsetting, so be it. As one notes: “Obviously this needs to be accompanied by emissions reduction – but companies are already under pressure from consumers, investors and regulators to do that.”
Conflict
Yet even among advocates of carbon offsetting, there is little consensus.
First, there is the nature versus technology debate. Conservationists, unsurprisingly, want carbon-offsetting cash to go towards conservation, and hate the fact that so much is being diverted – particularly from Silicon Valley – towards unproven carbon capture and storage (CCS) technologies.
“Nature is proven,” says one. “It works.”
Tech advocates argue that nature-based solutions lack the permanence of CCS. Forests can be destroyed by wildfires. Carbon stored in soil can be released by ploughing a field once.
To which nature-based proponents respond that good-quality forest offsets have a large buffer to allow for accidental destruction, that forests in high-risk wildfire areas are not used for carbon credits, and that soil carbon credits promote a much-needed switch to regenerative agriculture.
Yet even the most ardent environmentalist proponents of offsetting are uneasy about the idea of standardizing and commoditizing carbon credits, as Mark Carney’s Taskforce on Scaling Voluntary Carbon Markets (TSVCM) is proposing.
For its supporters, this approach is essential to promote the development of carbon markets, which in turn will enable banks etc to get involved in trading and financing offsets. Conservationists worry that this risks encouraging secondary trading of carbon credits at the expense of new projects.
Concerns
The seemingly never-ending controversies around offsets – which include many more technical issues not enumerated here – may explain why companies and banks are reluctant to get involved in, or even openly discuss, the market.
Accusations of greenwashing are now seen as one of the biggest reputational risks and no one wants to get on the wrong side of Greta. Yet it is also a great shame and a wasted opportunity.
There are legitimate concerns about carbon offsets, particularly around the risk of double-counting by countries, corporations, asset managers and banks.
Yet as things stand, they offer the best opportunity to pay for the protection and restoration of nature, and to develop cutting-edge technologies that could eventually remove carbon from the atmosphere at scale.
Some people will never be convinced of their validity. For the likes of Greenpeace and RAN, the evil of carbon offsets is an article of faith, and they will continue to use their considerable public platforms to condemn them in the strongest terms.
Businesses and banks need to get over their squeamishness, get involved and be braver about defending their actions
This should not, however, deter businesses and banks from getting involved in the market. Neither should they need to wait for the imprimatur of the TSVCM.
It is not difficult to find high-quality offsets. REDD+ is an obvious place to start, and there are also several respected standard setters in the field, including Gold Standard and Verra.
The World Wildlife Fund, which supports the creation of carbon credits, offers detailed advice to corporates on how to pick good projects and how to report them without making claims that could lay companies open to charges of hypocrisy.
The climate crisis and the nature crisis need urgent action. Carbon offsets offer one of the most immediate and effective ways of addressing both. Businesses and banks need to get over their squeamishness, get involved and be braver about defending their actions.
