The land is part of a new project of 520 acres on private timberland that allows the private nonprofit Nisqually Land Trust to sell so-called “carbon credits” to individuals and companies – including Microsoft Corp.
Agreement for rules for international trade in carbon credits are a serious stumbling block for negotiators at the next climate meeting.
There are two main elements to the carbon markets, voluntary and compliance markets, with the latter primarily driven by emissions trading schemes launched to meet the requirements of international climate negotiations–such as the CDM, JI and EU-ETS under Kyoto.
The challenge is that without agreement on Article 6 of the Paris Agreement, where negotiators still need to agree the rules on the trade of international credits, there is less incentive for governments to develop robust domestic markets.
The REDD+ scheme has been somewhat problematic in terms of over-issuance due to inflated baselines, carbon leakage, and issues around additionality, which meant the mechanism itself wasn’t really working to deliver verified climate impact.
A recent Friends of the Earth report A dangerous distraction – the offsetting con argues that despite increasing standards demanding internal emissions reduction of 90% before offsetting, oil majors such as Shell are planning on managing their emissions largely through forestry offsets, which figures from Action Aid suggest would require land three times the size of the Netherlands.
A recent report from South Pole The Push and Pull of Net Zero: Drivers of Climate Action found that for companies setting new “net-zero” targets, over 60% have either set targets far into the future, or no clear target dates at all.
Emissions measure, reduction, removal and offsetting are going to play an important role in reaching net zero but, according to the report at this point Government action and regulation are not driving climate commitments.
To reach zero emissions by 2050 we need to shift into a higher gear and we need our governments to take the lead.” Operationalizing Article 6 is going to play a key role in making that happen and ensuring the overall integrity of the carbon markets.
Owen Hewlett, chief technology officer for the Gold Standard, an independent certification standard for carbon credits agrees that we need action at COP.
While it does call for prioritization of internal emissions reduction over offsets, there is no means of enforcement and that leaves the offset market open to question, especially given existing confusion.
Last year for example, Velux announced it was ‘lifetime carbon neutral’ by offsetting its historic emissions using carbon credits from REDD+ projects, which made little sense in the emissions management world.
To be compensatory or to claim to have offset, it must not be double counted or claimed; the mechanism used to issue the credit must not lead to disincentivizing internal abatement; and it must be honest and measurable.
He says, “Doing as much as you can is no longer enough, its necessary to have a science-based target to be credible.” What matters is credible decarbonization pathways from high carbon sectors, with strategic approaches.
Used wrong however, they undermine the principles at stake and end up presenting a short time buy-off from a long-term problem.
The difficulty however is that there is a duality in the market between those who understand the climate science and those who are focused on the money.
What’s needed is scale, quality and holistic thinking, integration with a range of mechanisms to make sure we scale the markets positively.
The intersection of innovation and global challenges such as climate change and sustainable development are driving change in the economy.