By systematically removing the oldest trees from this magnificent wilderness, Maderacre may seem an unlikely seller of carbon credits, the financial instrument that theoretically allows consumers and businesses to “offset” their greenhouse gas emissions from the air transport, carpooling applications, fashion. purchasing and other pollution-generating activities.
The company does not earn credits by planting trees to absorb carbon dioxide. The offsets it sells are based on an assumption: an estimate of how many existing trees it prevents from being cut down.
There is a logic to this. Maderacre says that unlike its neighbors – illegal loggers and settlers – it practices selective, sustainable logging on its 1,000 square mile logging concession that maintains the ecological balance of the forest.
But this approach, known as Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation, or REDD+, raises questions about how to protect the world’s forests, which sequester billions of tons of carbon, and the market in full boom in carbon credits. As the window to avoid catastrophic climate change closes, scientists are questioning the complex methodologies used to calculate this lucrative counterfactual, known as “averted deforestation.”
Some warn that this could actually accelerate the climate crisis, as consumers, instead of reducing their emissions, buy credits that fail to deliver on their green promises.
The stark contrast between the lush Maderacre concession and the arid lands surrounding it makes the benefits of offsets obvious. Along the perimeter of the forest is a patchwork of dusty fields cleared by lawless deforesters in a chaotic race to colonize this isolated region.
Household brands such as Shell, Southwest Airlines, Disney and Gucci have all used credits generated this way.
Southwest emphasized that it offers credits to passengers on a voluntary basis, but does not use them as part of its net zero strategy. Shell declined to comment. Disney and Gucci did not respond to requests for comment.
According to S&P Global Commodity Insights, REDD+ represents nearly a third of the voluntary carbon market, worth $2 billion in 2021, but expected to reach up to $40 billion annually by 2030.
But Britaldo Soares, the professor at the Federal University of Minas Gerais in Brazil who created the software used by Maderacre, calls REDD+ a “climate scam.”
“This is a logging concession,” he said. It developed its Dinamica EGO program to measure the impact of government policies, he said, not to calculate credits. This is equivalent, he says, to “predicting the future with a crystal ball”.
Barbara Haya, who directs the Carbon Trading Project at the University of California, Berkeley, said REDD+ projects around the world generate “phantom” credits.
The reason, she says, is simple: “Everyone at the table benefits from more credits. There is excess credit everywhere you turn. It’s systematic.
By “everyone,” she means project developers, certification companies that set the rules, and third-party auditors who determine whether a project prevents forest loss.
The latter two, she pointed out, have an incentive to approve projects because rejecting them could dissuade others from using their services.
With some projects generating millions of credits, each representing a ton of carbon and trading for around $1.40 – sometimes much more – the temptation to exaggerate avoided emissions is powerful.
Verra, the non-profit organization that holds 70% of the global carbon project verification market, has issued 1.23 billion credits to date. But he doesn’t get paid just for the certification. The group also receives 20 cents per credit sold. Haya calls it a conflict of interest.
Doubts exist about the predictions of deforestation that would occur without carbon concessions. These are calculated in a variety of ways, including projections from historical forest loss and comparisons with other parts of the forest.
“Maybe they are deliberately exaggerated,” said Erin Sills, an environmental economist at North Carolina State University. “But it may also be because project developers are trying to predict the future. This is never possible.
Then there is “additionality”, the concept according to which for emissions to be avoided, the income generated by carbon credits must make the difference between the preservation or destruction of the forest.
Additionality is difficult to calculate because most carbon projects rely on pre-existing land uses: sustainable logging like that of Maderacre, ecotourism, Brazil nut picking – and even protected areas with a ban on extractive activities. Many should already have protective measures in place, such as security guards or perimeter fencing.
Sills is one of eight researchers who examined dozens of forest carbon concessions in Africa, Asia and Latin America. In a paper published last year in Science, they found that deforestation was much lower than claimed.
Of the 89 million carbon credits generated by the projects, they concluded, only 5.4 million represented a real reduction in emissions.
Maderacre had generated nearly 9.7 million credits at the end of 2021 for buyers, including Scotiabank of Canada and the very greedy Dakar Rally. The researchers said they found no evidence that these efforts achieved the claimed level of deforestation. (Scotiabank declined to comment; the Dakar Rally did not respond to a request for comment.)
This analysis is supported by Soares. “As it is already a (timber) concession and they have an obligation to maintain it,” he said, “there is no additionality at all.”
Maderacre superintendent Nelson Kroll disagrees. “Wood is wood, not oil or gold,” he said. “A company based solely on logging cannot pay for everything it needs to conserve the forest. »
Verra acknowledges that calculating avoided emissions is complex and imperfect but disputes the researchers’ conclusions. The organization points out that the “voluntary” carbon market was created by the private sector, driven by consumer demand, to fill a void left by the failure of governments to set mandatory offset standards in carbon negotiations. UN on climate.
“The best hasn’t happened, but the good has come a lot,” Verra spokesman Joel Finkelstein said. The group constantly updates its methodologies, sometimes in response to harsh criticism from academics and environmentalists.
“The science of 15 years ago was very different from today,” Finkelstein said. “At all times, we aim for the best standard. »
On the Maderacre compound, scarlet and blue macaws howl overhead while capuchin monkeys frolic in the canopy. The jaguar population is so dense that the San Diego Zoo Wildlife Alliance is conducting a research project on the alpha predator.
But on neighboring plots, Cebu cattle dot brown fields of poor-quality pasture. Small, often derelict and derelict teak plantations – not native to the Amazon – break up the terrain. Smoke tower columns on the horizon.
Ecocide was caused by the interoceanic highway. The 1,600-mile road, completed in 2011, was intended to connect Brazilian goods to Peruvian Pacific ports to feed China’s insatiable economy.
Few goods now travel on the highway. Former Peruvian President Alejandro Toledo, who launched the highway with Brazilian President Luis Inácio Lula da Silva, is currently in pre-trial detention, accused of accepting a $25 million bribe in exchange for contracts for its construction.
Yet the road literally paved the way for the destruction of this part of the Amazon. Maderacre at least prevented deforestation from overwhelming his claim.
“Deforestation is real and someone has to do the work,” said Kroll, a forestry engineer who previously worked as an Amazon park ranger.
He points out that Maderacre harvests one tree per hectare every 30 years and only takes shihuahaco trunks with a diameter greater than 75 centimeters, a stricter standard than the legal minimum of 51 centimeters.
“It’s not a forest concession. It’s a natural concession,” Kroll said. “Until we find a way to make living forests economically competitive, they will continue to be decimated.”
Sills believes radical change is needed.
“We rely on these offsets to reduce our own footprints, but the result is a net increase in emissions,” she said. “The climate is the real loser.”
Reporting on this story was supported by a travel grant from the Pulitzer Center on Crisis Reporting.
washingtonpost
