Carbon credits have become a popular tool for offsetting the environmental impact of air travel.
Every flight we take adds to the growing cloud of greenhouse gas emissions hovering over the planet. The aviation industry now emits more carbon dioxide than many individual nations.
To soften the environmental blow, some airlines offer passengers the option to “offset” their emissions – usually by paying into forest protection schemes.
The promise is simple: fund the preservation of trees, and they’ll absorb enough carbon to balance out your flight. But does it really work? A new study says not always.
Concerns about carbon credits
Researchers from Boston University and the nonprofit Clean Air Task Force recently examined how forest carbon credit systems are run and regulated in North America.
These programs are often part of the voluntary carbon market, where companies and individuals can buy credits to compensate for their emissions. But the study found that the protocols behind many of these credits are weak – and in some cases, entirely ineffective.
“There’s been a lot of appetite for these credits so corporations can meet their sustainability goals, but some of the credits that have been sold have been found to be dubious at best,” said Lucy Hutyra, a BU College of Arts & Sciences Distinguished Professor, and chair of Earth and Environment.
“This paper is not about whether the system is broken, let’s just scrap it; it’s looking at what works well, what doesn’t, and how we can improve it.”
Flaws in the current system
Forest carbon credits come in different forms. Some are part of mandatory systems; others are voluntary. At the cheaper end, they involve paying landowners to keep forests standing.
On paper, each credit is a promise to absorb one ton of carbon dioxide somewhere to make up for one ton emitted elsewhere. But it’s not always that simple.
The researchers evaluated 20 forest carbon credit protocols and gave each one a score based on how effectively it guarantees climate benefits. Most didn’t score well.
Only one protocol received a “satisfactory” rating – and it hasn’t even been used yet. None earned a “robust” rating or higher.
“Our results show that the protocols used to generate credits are a critical weak link in the forest carbon market system,” said BU alum Rebecca Sanders-DeMott, the Clean Air Task Force’s director of ecosystem carbon science.
“Without significant improvements, the integrity of the forest carbon market will remain at risk,” she stated.
Essential role of forests
Forests play an essential role in absorbing atmospheric carbon. But depending on how a credit scheme is managed, the benefits may be overstated.
One example is the use of “buffer zones,” which are extra preserved areas intended to act as insurance in case something happens to the main forest area, such as a wildfire or disease outbreak.
“In the current system, the buffer pool risks are very conservative, very low estimates of risk,” said Hutyra. “The wildfire risk in one part of California could be really quite different than another part.”
They propose the establishment of larger buffer zones and detailed, location-specific risk maps to better reflect real-world threats.
Carbon credits need improvement
In addition to managing risk better, the study highlights four other areas where the carbon market could improve.
It lists 22 total recommendations – half are relatively simple to implement, like reassessing project risks every five years. The rest are more complex.
One major issue is something called “leakage.” If you protect one area of forest from development, but that simply pushes deforestation or construction to another location, you haven’t achieved a true reduction in emissions.
“The net effect is no actual change in the land carbon sink, in real emissions to the atmosphere,” Hutyra explained.
To fix this, they suggest national and global tracking of land use changes and stronger incentives to support truly climate-positive outcomes.
What’s next for carbon credits
The research team is now focused on getting their recommendations into the hands of those who can make a difference.
The Clean Air Task Force is preparing an easy-to-read version of the report, organizing webinars, and reaching out to groups who manage carbon credit protocols.
Even without strong federal interest in regulating these markets right now, the researchers are hopeful that their work will help steer voluntary efforts in a more effective direction.
“Global energy demand is rising and, while decarbonizing our energy systems is critical, it will take time – decades, in fact. Meanwhile, the impacts of climate change are already being felt and are accelerating. Forests, which have long served as vital carbon sinks, are under increasing threat,” said Sanders-DeMott.
“By taking these recommendations seriously, carbon market actors can help restore confidence in carbon markets and unlock the full potential of forests to mitigate the worst effects of climate change, buying us time as we scale the technologies we need to ensure a high-energy, zero-emissions future.”
The full study was published in the journal Earth’s Future.
—–
Like what you read? Subscribe to our newsletter for engaging articles, exclusive content, and the latest updates.
Check us out on EarthSnap, a free app brought to you by Eric Ralls and Earth.com.
—–
