Avoided deforestation should not be used as a basis for creating carbon credits, says David Humphreys, while Paul Steele and Anna Ducros introduce biocredits and Dirk Forrister defends current methodologies
Your articles accurately identify the problem of “phantom credits” in carbon offset projects (Revealed: more than 90% of rainforest carbon offsets by biggest provider are worthless, analysis shows, 18 January; Shell to spend $450m on carbon offsetting as fears grow that credits may be worthless, 19 January). When such credits are sold within offset schemes they in effect legitimise additional carbon emissions that contribute to global heating.
In particular there is an inherent flaw in offset projects based on avoided deforestation. In principle the idea of avoided deforestation is sound. Forest owners and forested countries in the global south should be financially incentivised to reduce their deforestation beneath an agreed baseline rate.
