Now that we understand carbon offsets a little better (if you don’t, check out my previous post!), this blog delves into the reasons why carbon offsets may not be entirely as green nor as effective as they sound. The biggest backlash that carbon offsets face is their inability to address the root cause of the pollution and climate change problem: the continuous and exponential rise in global emissions. This blog thus examines some of the key limitations and controversies surrounding the adoption of carbon offsets.  

 

A Dangerous Distraction

Firstly, polluting industries and countries may cover up their environmentally destructive practices by shifting the media attention toward their investments in carbon offset projects. This is done via a process known as “greenwashing”, whereby company leaders attempt to mislead the public into believing that the organization is environmentally-friendly. 

In a nine month long investigation, The Guardian partnered with Die Zeit and SourceMaterial to analyse Verra, the “world’s leading greenhouse gas crediting program”. Some of their major clients who purchase carbon credits include Shell, Gucci and easyJet. However, the study revealed that at least 90% of Verra’s rainforest carbon credits do not represent real emission reductions, becoming what is called “phantom credits”. In another study conducted by researchers from the University of Cambridge, only 4 out of the 40 projects examined under Verra were responsible for three-quarters of the total forest that was protected. The implication of this is that investors and consumers falsely think that the company they are purchasing from is actively participating in environmental schemes to protect the forests. In reality, they may not be making any significant contributions to avoiding deforestation. 

One example of a Verra project that EasyJet purchases from is the Madre de Dios Amazon REDD Project in Peru. A reference region (Fig 1) was identified, which includes the town of Iberia, major roads and rivers, for the purpose of setting a baseline for deforestation. Forests surrounded either side of the 2,600km long Interoceanic Highway in the reference area. These trees are likely to be cut down to make way for expansion and development projects, thereby inflating the rate of deforestation in the reference area compared to the project area.

Fig 1: A comparison between the project area and the reference area (Source: Lang, 2021)

As a result, the unfair and biased baseline enabled the company to claim that a significant portion of forests was successfully saved from deforestation.

 

(Un)intended Consequences

This brings us to point of climate justice or the lack of it. Such carbon offsetting projects might actually cause more harm than good, especially to the local indigenous and marginalized communities that reside near or within the project areas. It is cheaper to set up global offsetting projects in the Global South, which infringes on the rights of local communities and leads to widespread displacement. 

Forest offsetting schemes are often found on land that belongs to local indigenous communities. For example, the Sápara people in Ecuador were victims of indigenous land grabbing. They hold collective legal land title to more than 364,000 hectares (900,000 acres) of roadless rainforest in Ecuador’s remote Amazon. In May 2021, a small non-Sápara community filed a claim for 250,000 hectares of officially recognized Sápara territory, for which they were granted ownership of the land by the state. The Ecuadorian government failed to consult relevant Sápara representatives before coming to a decision, and did not provide adequate compensation to the original landowners. 

Apyterewa is only one out of the hundreds of indigenous territories threatened by climate colonialism and deforestation (Fig 2). These carbon offsetting projects, along with other green schemes situated in the Global South, often result in an exacerbation of the conflicts between marginalized groups and outsiders. This can perpetuate violence and worsen the existing stigmatisation that such groups already face. As these people are often powerless, they are unable to make any changes to stop these actions from happening. 

Fig 2: The alarming rates of deforestation on Indigenous land in the Amazon (Source: INPE)

Poorer countries are paid to offset carbon emissions, allowing wealthier countries to use monetary and environmental “compensation” as a means to justify their right to continue emitting. This ongoing cycle will thereby widen the global inequality between DCs and LDCs.

 

The Takeaway

Carbon offsets can only alleviate or ameliorate air pollution and global warming to a certain extent. Despite the increase in its projected market size, such projects might result in disastrous consequences by aggravating environmental injustice and causing a slew of environmental, political, and social problems for marginalized communities. This blog post only highlighted two reasons why carbon offsets have their own limitations and pitfalls. In reality, there are other downsides as well, such as the inability to follow through with the projects. The core problem remains that carbon offsets alone cannot make up for the emissions produced and do not urge countries to cut their emissions.  

 

Bibliography

Amazon Watch. (2021). THE AMAZON RAINFOREST-SIZED LOOPHOLE IN NET ZERO. Washington DC: Amazon Watch.

Ghussain, A. A. (2020, May 26). The biggest problem with carbon offsetting is that it doesn’t really work. Retrieved from GreenPeace: https://www.greenpeace.org.uk/news/the-biggest-problem-with-carbon-offsetting-is-that-it-doesnt-really-work/

Greenfield, P. (2023, January 18). Revealed: more than 90% of rainforest carbon offsets by biggest certifier are worthless, analysis shows. Retrieved from The Guardian: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/jan/18/revealed-forest-carbon-offsets-biggest-provider-worthless-verra-aoe

Guizar-Coutiño, A., Jones, J. P., Balmford, A., Carmenta, R., & Coomes, D. A. (2022). A global evaluation of the effectiveness of voluntary REDD+ projects at reducing deforestation and degradation in the moist tropics. Conservation Biology, 36(6): e13970.

Lang, C. (2021, May 14). Madre de Dios Amazon REDD Project: EasyJet’s phantom carbon credits are generated by logging the forest. Retrieved from REDD Monitor: https://redd-monitor.org/2021/05/14/madre-de-dios-amazon-redd-project-easyjets-phantom-carbon-credits-are-generated-by-logging-the-forest/

Netto, S. V., Sobral, M. F., Ribeiro, A. R., & Soares, G. R. (2020). Concepts and forms of greenwashing: a systematic review. Environmental Sciences Europe, 32(19).

Savoldi, A. (2022, September 5). Mongabay. Retrieved from Report lists Indigenous territories under greatest pressure in the Amazon: https://news.mongabay.com/2022/09/report-lists-indigenous-territories-under-greatest-pressure-in-the-amazon/