Carbon offsets are often derided as a modern-day form of the Catholic indulgence. Pollute as much as you want, pay for someone else to offset your emissions, and feel good at the end of the day. But polluters might not feel so great after learning about what Greenpeace is calling a "carbon scam"--a Bolivian carbon offset project that is actually increasing deforestation in the region.
Here's how The Noel Kempff Climate Action Project (NKCAP) was supposed to work: American Electric Power, BP, and Pacificorp agreed to buy many millions of dollars worth of carbon offset credits from the Bolivian government. In exchange, the government would stop deforestation for 30 years near Noel Kempff National Park (NKNP), thus greatly reducing emissions from deforestation and degradation (a program known as REDD).
That's not exactly how it's worked out, Greenpeace says. The government has claimed to offset 55 million metric tons of carbon emissions in the first decade of the program (1997 to 2009) by leaving forests near the national park alone. But research shows the government only offset "up to" 5.8 million tons each year. At the same time, logging may have simply moved from the NKCAP protected area to other nearby areas, negating any positive effects of the deal. And changes in Bolivian forest law mean that forests left standing as a result of the project may have stayed untouched anyway.
The Nature Conservancy disagrees, claiming, "The Noel Kempff project also serves as an example of how well-designed forest carbon projects can result in real, scientifically measurable and verifiable emissions reductions with important benefits for biodiversity and local communities." The organization's Cool Green Science blog goes on to say that the project has preserved a diverse forest ecosystem, cut 1,034,107 metric tons of verifiable CO2, and provided economic opportunities to locals.
There is no clearcut way to discern whether Greenpeace or the Nature Conservancy is in the wrong here, but we can take away an important lesson from the debate: carbon offsets should always be taken with a grain of salt.
[Via Treehugger]
Email
Digg
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Buzz Up!
LinkedIn
Recent Comments | 1 Total
October 16, 2009 at 11:28am by Robert Lalasz
Hi, Ariel -- Robert Lalasz from The Nature Conservancy here. It's hard to understand your conclusion that carbon offsets should always be taken with a grain of salt. We've worked very hard to document the considerable accomplishments at Noel Kempff, as you've noted. We are doing the science on the ground and producing actual published, peer-reviewed results. And Noel Kempff was a pioneering forest carbon project -- we shouldn't throw out the baby with the bathwater just because initial projections weren't met. Subnational forest carbon projects are important stepping stones and tools toward the goal of countries protecting their own forests. Based on the science and the results at Noel Kempff, we respectfully submit that it's the Greenpeace report that needs to be taken with a grain of salt.