They could do – in the jargon, that is known as “carbon leakage”. Won’t the loggers just move to the next bit of forest, that isn’t covered by carbon credits? At least certification schemes require monitoring and frequent evaluation, so that companies can more easily be held to account. However, they are often right in their claims that forests would be in danger without legalised logging and carbon credit schemes – forests in many parts of the world enjoy few protections, as even when they are legally off-limits to loggers, in practice governance is often poor and violations frequent. Doesn’t this give forest owners or loggers an incentive to hold forests to ransom?Īrguably yes. So the same people who cut down the forest get money for leaving some bits standing. Under REDD+ and similar schemes, certification experts take account of what deforestation – legal and otherwise – is taking place in a given region, and forest owners can be awarded carbon credits if they agree to keep more trees standing than is average in the area. How do you know what deforestation might otherwise occur?

In others, they agree to take wood at a lower rate than the deforestation which occurs in comparable areas nearby, or the deforestation which might occur if the forest was not under protection. In some cases, loggers take the highest value trees – such as hardwoods valued for their timber – and leave most of the rest standing. Areas of forest can qualify for carbon credits and be used as carbon offsets even when logging still occurs within them. REDD+ and similar schemes do not mean an end to deforestation. REDD+ schemes help forest owners calculate the carbon value of their forests, according to agreed criteria, and sets out a system of rules by which carbon credits can be issued when forest owners avoid deforestation or restore damaged forests.Īvoiding deforestation sounds good. REDD+ (Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation) aims to provide forest owners with an alternative to logging and exploitation, by allowing them to raise money for protecting forests based on the carbon value of keeping forests standing or restoring them to health. They face a dilemma: allow loggers and industrial interests to cut down forests, perhaps replacing them with commercial plantations, or lose out on potential economic growth. Most of the world’s remaining dense tropical forests are in developing economies with tens or hundreds of millions of people living in dire poverty. The world is losing more than 7.3m hectares (18m acres) of forest every year, the equivalent of 27 football pitches every minute, which causes a vast reduction of the planet’s carbon sinks, as well as a staggering loss of biodiversity. But while deforestation continues, planting trees cannot make up for the carbon lost when standing forests are cleared – and cannot replace the lost populations of wildlife, plants and other species, or the damage to people who call the forests home. Planting more trees is one answer, and there are plans in many countries to do so. To supporters, offsetting and the sale of carbon credits produce a flow of money to developing countries to help them preserve carbon sinks and develop their economies along low-carbon lines. To opponents, carbon credits and carbon trading are a distraction while we dither over the systemic reforms. Carbon credits should not be used as an excuse to put off the systemic reforms to our energy generation and usage that are urgently needed – ultimately, we must reduce emissions drastically to prevent catastrophe and offsetting alone will never achieve that. So companies can buy their way out of climate trouble with carbon credits? So, in theory, companies and individuals can cancel out the impact of some of their emissions by investing in projects that reduce or store carbon – forest preservation and tree planting are among them, but carbon credits are also awarded for projects that reduce fossil fuels in other ways, such as windfarms, solar cookstoves, or better farming methods.

Carbon neutral definitions