There were times during the Cop26 climate summit when the jargon of the negotiations fell away, and the underlying human connections came to the fore.
It was an exchange made in the spirit of mutual support and, in an ideal world, is akin to the logic behind “carbon offsetting”.
But this win-win scenario has not emerged in practice.
In order to act as a reliable clearing-house for carbon emissions, each credit must equate to one tonne of carbon removed from the atmosphere by an approved scheme.
Given that conditions can vary from acre to acre, it is hard to accurately determine how much carbon a new forest will absorb.
Furthermore, many offsetting projects registered under Kyoto can also now be carried forward, potentially creating up to 2.8 billion new credits by 2030, including from schemes such as wind and hydro plants that would have continued to operate regardless of whether they were included.
Numerous companies, such as energy giant Shell and airline Easyjet, have made purchasing carbon offsets integral to their target of meeting net zero by 2050.
For example, a loophole in the new rules could allow emissions reductions to be counted towards both the country of origin’s climate target and towards that of the buyer’s – via “unauthorised credits” sold through new voluntary markets.
Furthermore, it can take a newly planted tree 20 years to grow to a size where it’s capable of capturing the amount of carbon that offset schemes promise.
Not only are older trees better at storing carbon , but the species of tree also makes a difference.
Corporate schemes aimed at capturing carbon have typically chosen to plant fast-growing, monoculture forests.