
Why Carbon Credits for Forest Preservation May Be Worse Than Nothing - nkurz
https://features.propublica.org/brazil-carbon-offsets/inconvenient-truth-carbon-credits-dont-work-deforestation-redd-acre-cambodia/
======
gdubs
What an awful, dangerous headline. At the end of the day _some_ economic
incentive is needed to get people to put land back into forest, healthy
pasture, wetlands. This is an in-depth look at the current challenges — the
lack of accountability, the potential moral hazard of cheap offsets — that
comes off as reckless due to the article’s overall framing.

If you believe in climate change and believe that it’s a civilization
threatening crisis, then capturing carbon is critical. Healthy land is vital
in that fight. What we don’t have yet — but are moving towards despite what it
looks like here in the US — is more vigorous taxation of carbon to more
accurately reflect the negative externalities. With high enough taxes on
carbon, there would be a squeeze on the carbon credit market and prices would
go up significantly. With more money on the line, people would get more
serious about accurate measurement and accountability.

It’s currently the Wild West — the carbon market needs to mature and become
more sophisticated along side more strict pricing on carbon emissions. A less
reckless article would frame the challenges we need to solve rather than
blasting that credits for reforestation is bad.

~~~
autokad
> "capturing carbon is critical. Healthy land is vital in that fight."

The oceans represent something like 93% of carbon capture.

~~~
mistrial9
reading "The State of the Carbon Cycle" 2018 USGCRP it is not so easy to sum
up.. basically, there is "flux" which is the activity of both uptake and
production.. the coastal zones have a lot of organic matter, so the flux is
very active, while open oceans are different. Rivers carry carbon to the
oceans and dump it in sediment, mostly.. do you count that ? and, the
differences between anthropogenic sources, which are changing, and the base
rates, which are changing more slowly, are hard to separate because we can
only observe total activity as best as possible..

------
kstenerud
The author misses the point of these programs. It's already understood that
there will be waste and failure and graft and corruption and people who just
plain cheat; that's an inevitable result of ANY subsidy program.

The whole point of carbon credits and such (despite the touchy-feely PR speak
on the surface) is to increase the number of people economically motivated to
preserve trees, even if just for a little while, and less people to pollute,
even if just a little bit. Technology changes quickly, but trees grow slowly.
The idea is to preserve as many slow growing trees as we can while waiting for
the technology to catch up.

~~~
nabnob
The problem is that the economic incentive to exploit the environment will
always outweight the economic incentive to protect it.

The article cited a ton of research that showed that carbon credits don't have
a meaningful impact on carbon usage. It seems like what usually happens is
that the carbon credits get shuffled around, but overall the carbon output
stays the same.

Solutions like green technology or carbon credits seem to rest on this
assumption that we can prevent environmental collapse without significantly
changing our consumerist economy, standard of living, and energy consumption.
This seems like magical, faith-based thinking. There are theoretical limits on
how efficient any energy conversion will be, no matter how advanced our
technology is. The more our economy grows, the more we consume and
produce...the more energy we use and the more waste we create. We have to
start thinking about ways to move away from an always-growing, consumerist
economy.

~~~
gdubs
Except that there a numerous examples in the past century where we’ve put the
environment ahead of economic concerns: The Clean Water Act, a significant
reduction in urban smog, the reversal of the Ozone hole through cap-and-trade.

As far as our overall economic system, the immediate problem is figuring out
how to de-carbonize growth, first-and-foremost. And simultaneously reduce the
carbon floating around in the atmosphere. I’m all for exploring alternatives
and agree we don’t need so much “stuff”. But I don’t necessarily agree that
that means we have to turn off economic growth either. We need to de-carbonize
it.

An analogy I like to use is this: If you have a popular website and it’s
becoming overwhelmed with customers, you have a couple of options. Turn
everyone away and start kicking people off — or identify the bottlenecks and
solve them. We’re running society on an inefficient algorithm, and that needs
to change. We’ve built an amazing server that has drastically reduced
conflict, poverty, and starvation, worldwide. Do we close the door to that, or
do we find a more efficient algorithm?

------
hnhg
A more accurate title would be “reforestation for carbon offsetting hasn’t
worked so far”. I dislike this title because it implies the idea is flawed,
when it’s the implementation. Maybe it is unworkable given human nature but
that’s something else entirely.

~~~
jpfed
Well, it looks like the programs this article is talking about are not so much
"reforestation" as "delayed deforestation".

------
jdavis703
Carbon credits seem too cheap. I just offset a round trip flight between
California and New York with about $15 in carbon credits. If solving climate
change was that cheap (about 5% the cost of that flight), I think the world
have done much more by now. I can only think that solving climatate change is
going to cost a lot more money and require a lot more lifestyle changes.

~~~
nicpottier
I agree that it really does feel that way. I don't really have an explanation
for it either and I do wonder if the figures are accurate.

Where did you buy credits from? The one I found which seems the most legit is
Cool Effect: [https://www.cooleffect.org/](https://www.cooleffect.org/)

You can pick your project. This seemed like the most credible "offset" to me:
[https://www.cooleffect.org/content/project/renewable-
energy-...](https://www.cooleffect.org/content/project/renewable-energy-wind-
turbines)

Problem with planting or keeping trees is it is a future promise and a long
term one and that just seems too easy to break. (either on purpose or due to
other factors)

~~~
jdavis703
I buy them from Cool Effect. I try to pick energy projects because it’s easier
to see the accounting ... and you get carbon sequestration faster (trees take
a long time to grow vs erecting a wind turbine).

~~~
paulyacoubian
I spent some time researching carbon credit providers and what I found was the
the only way they have to distribute credits is through online advertising.
That means that they have to spend multiples of the actual wholesale credit
costs on ads just to sell them.

By my estimate, Cool Effect spends around 3-4x of the actual credit costs on
marketing related expenses. This is publicly available through their 990
filing.

[https://990s.foundationcenter.org/990_pdf_archive/475/475068...](https://990s.foundationcenter.org/990_pdf_archive/475/475068496/475068496_201706_990.pdf)

I inquired from credit wholesalers about large volume pricing and found that
the actual cost is less than $3/ton of CO2e. For an average US consumer with a
20 ton carbon footprint, that would come out to $60/year or $5/mo if sold at
cost. To me this is a no-brainer for anyone that wants to be carbon neutral
immediately.

I'm setting up a carbon credit buying club where we can get them at wholesale
prices. My goal is to sell them right at cost in a radically transparent way
where members provide all the marketing we need. If anyone here is interested
in joining, you can email me at paul@carbonspace.com.

~~~
nicpottier
That's unsurprising in a way, but does it really make a difference between
$180/year vs $60/year? Both of those are pretty in the noise.

CoolEffect seems do be doing a nice job of both marketing and explaining and
verifying their projects. I have no problem paying a premium for that.
(remember this thread started as surprise that it could be SO CHEAP)

------
crazygringo
This is a tricky article.

Carbon credits are essentially perfect in theory, if they're sold at auction
worldwide and governments are compliant with them. They also seem to be
perfect even if implemented within a single country.

What this article seems to be arguing is that credits are:

1) misallocated initially, presumably because they're allocated as opposed to
being auctioned, and therefore there are too many,

2) not enforced or monitored well enough (if you sell credits promising to
plant a forest and then don't plant it, or you cut it down later), and

3) _particularly_ not enforced across international boundaries (because who's
gonna check?).

The first two seem politically solvable within countries. The third, I think,
is a decent argument as to why cross-border carbon credit selling should be
disallowed, or allowed only between countries that can prove compliance (e.g.
between countries like France and Germany). Rather, international treaties
should set each country's overall permitted carbon output by year.

If the article is trying to suggest that carbon credits are a failure and
shouldn't be pursued further, I think it's tremendously wrong, especially
since it doesn't provide a better alternative. But if it's trying to point out
implementation pitfalls so we can avoid them and create carbon credits that
work, then I support that 1,000%.

So it's tricky because it's unclear to me what the author's actual agenda is.

------
SubiculumCode
Can someone explain to me like I am 10 why a carbon credit system is preferred
over a straight carbon tax? Also, isn't most carbon produced by industry
caused by burning fuel? Seems easy to tax fuel.

~~~
strommen
Carbon credits vs. carbon tax isn't an either/or.

Carbon tax discourages emitting carbon into into the atmosphere. Carbon credit
encourages sucking carbon out of the atmosphere. Both are needed.

One advantage to carbon credits is that anybody can pay them, whereas only the
government can enforce a carbon tax. And when it comes to the Amazon, this
means the Brazilian government...whose leader is a climate denier that wants
to bulldoze the Amazon for agriculture.

~~~
SubiculumCode
Ah I see..I had thought that producing fewer emissions than target/allowance
would be given a credit they can sell to others. That is different than
Credits for Carbon capture. Thanks for clarifying.

------
tuukkah
I think a very promising model is getting people to pay monthly in accordance
to their footprint and a non-profit taking care of spending it wisely: "We are
constantly in a search for the most cost-efficient ways to reduce the amount
of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere."
[https://compensate.com/](https://compensate.com/)

~~~
mc32
I wouldn’t trust a non profit to do the right thing. They need oversight and
they need to have institutional turnover lest they become like the homeless
advocate services in SF who in theory should do best for the homeless but have
become political entities who are more aligned with themselves than the
homeless or resolving the issue.

~~~
tuukkah
I think this is different as it's not charity.

------
Mbaqanga
As Verchot says, REDD-mechanism was designed to offset deforestation and it is
not designed to work as a carbon credit system. Both are important but maybe
they should be kept separate. Money can be collected from consumers who want
to compensate their use of products or services which use fossil raw
materials. Follow-up should be rigorous and if money is wasted, it should be
paid back.

------
8bitsrule
I view 'carbon credits' as a way of manipulating perceptions ... doing
something on paper, stalling on concrete action.

The laws of physics don't care what we think or the stupid mind-games we play,
tickling the dragon's tail. So long as we refuse the necessary, massive
response needed, dozens of coming generations will pay.

------
francisofascii
Are there any programs that buy up fossil fuels and put it in a place or state
where it would be infeasible to consume in the future? Seems like the only way
this will work is to keep the carbon in the ground.

~~~
brendanmc6
That would just cause the price to increase, creating an incentive for more
extraction. The practical, most economically sensible solution to climate
change is also the most politically unfeasible: carbon tax

~~~
toomuchtodo
Increasing oil price beyond a certain point destroys demand [1] [2]. It would
not be infeasible to buy oil fields and inject oil consuming bacteria to
negate the ability to extract that oil in the future. The capital required
would be substantial though. Either get a hat to go in hand with to
billionaires to get support, or perhaps go to carbon tax markets to obtain
funding.

In some jurisdictions, a carbon tax will never fly politically, so you'll need
to make due with less efficient mechanisms.

[1] [https://in.reuters.com/article/oil-prices-kemp/column-
rising...](https://in.reuters.com/article/oil-prices-kemp/column-rising-oil-
prices-put-demand-destruction-back-on-the-agenda-idINKBN1I30X0)

[2] [https://www.bloomberg.com/news/videos/2018-10-30/oil-s-
slide...](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/videos/2018-10-30/oil-s-slide-
deepens-as-demand-destruction-fears-build-video) (Warning: Video)

~~~
imtringued
How would bacteria consume oil without causing emissions?

~~~
toomuchtodo
I assume the byproducts of oil metabolism would be stable when consumed in
situ. It would not make sense if emissions were still generated in the
process.

------
RenRav
Farmers and forest owners have been doing this for years already.

------
iicc
What if they destroyed the accessibility of the land, thereby making logging
and farming uneconomical?

~~~
imtringued
Yes but that will most likely involve the use of land mines or a dirty bomb
that pollutes the forest with radioactivity.

------
rdiddly
Bargaining is one of the five stages of grief for something that is lost.

