How do companies assume the right to pollute under the cover of environmental labels? Faced with one of the greatest risks of misuse of the ecological transition, a dozen researchers, most from the University of Berkeley in California, looked into the carbon credit sector, criticized for its dubious methods, allowing for companies to claim to compensate for the carbon emissions of their projects using fossil energy. A potential “greenwashing” machine, making it possible to tout “carbon neutrality” while continuing to sabotage the climate.
They mainly tackled the four methodologies on which Verra, the world’s largest carbon credit certification body, uses to issue them. One credit represents one ton of CO2, either removed from the atmosphere through tree growth or prevented from entering through avoided deforestation. The conclusion of this study, financed by the NGO Carbon Market Watch, is clear: “REDD+ projects (Reduction of emissions due to deforestation and forest degradation in developing countries) are not suitable for generating carbon credits”.
Difficult criteria to evaluate
“The current configuration of the carbon credit market is not effective in reducing deforestation and protecting local populations,” they add. In detail, the researchers applied Verra’s four methodologies to several forest protection projects by varying several criteria. They conclude that, despite the requirements set to obtain certification, the “flexibility allocated by Verra to the people developing these projects” allows them to choose the most advantageous hypotheses so as to exaggerate the number of associated carbon credits.
In fact, these methodologies are based on criteria that are difficult to evaluate: the deforestation that would have occurred if the project had not been implemented, the real absorption capacity of the trees or even the risks incurred by the forest (possible fires, drought linked to global warming). The researchers thus observed significant differences in the number of credits allocated depending on the methodology used and the hypotheses subsequently adopted.
“Important improvements” but still insufficient
Worse still, the “auditors” who are supposed to check the compliance of projects with Verra criteria “think that their role consists of ensuring that the method of calculating emissions” respects the framework imposed by Verra but not to check whether the result “is accurate” or if the estimates are “conservative” enough. In other words, they let the polluting company present them with a project that meets the criteria of “carbon neutrality”, without ever checking whether the reality on the ground corresponds.
The authors acknowledge that Verra updated its methodologies in August with “significant improvements” that are not taken into account in their study but say that “substantial additional changes are still necessary to avoid exaggeration in the issuance of carbon credits”. Following a damning investigation into Verra published in January by the British daily The Guardianits general director David Antonioli resigned in May.