​​​​

The Founder of Creative Vibes Solutions has been speaking to someone in sustainability in a big consulting firm

and someone working on a PHD on the topic of carbon credit effectiveness. Here is what she was told: 

​

​

• Tree saplings used in carbon credit schemes are very small, they barely sequestrate any carbon until they become much larger. Trees grow slowly, so this can take decades. i.e.: carbon projects aren’t fit for purpose at all, at least not for a very long time,

• Carbon credits are usually about planting. Afterwards, made or natural destruction often occurs: a carbon credit programme based in Cambodia saw forest coverage in a preservation area decrease by 42% across the duration of the programme, according to ProPublica.

• How much carbon is being absorbed is not measured, so it is a game of making preposterous claims about very large amounts of carbon being absorbed.

• Carbon credits are sold for very little money, that money does not cover the costs. The same project is often sold to additional clients until the cost is re covered… each client presenting that project as their own for PR, despite having covered only a fraction of the cost

• Old-growth forests are generally excluded from standard carbon credit generation schemes that focus on new tree planting (afforestation/reforestation) because they typically do not meet the core principle of "additionality". Additionality requires that the carbon reduction or sequestration would not have happened without the specific carbon-financing intervention. This means that if you wanted to protect the Amazon forest or any other primary forest, it is rarely done through carbon credit. Even REDD+(*) project that allow funding to prevent deforestation are measured by 1) carbon emission reduction 2) conservation & enhancement of carbon stock... Even these projects aren't about ecosystem preservation.

• Additionality: A forest that already exists and is continuing to sequester carbon on its own is considered the "baseline" or what would have happened anyway. Therefore, projects focused simply on maintaining an existing, healthy old-growth forest typically cannot generate new, sellable carbon credits in the voluntary market in the same way that planting new trees on non-forested land can.

• Carbon credits create a distraction while nothing is being done to reduce pollution, or to remove the critical amount of pollution generated by humans: oil spills, diesel pollution, chemical being spread, nuclear still being called "clean energy" while the waste cannot actually be managed (it is a "burry it and hope for the best" situation), microplastics now found on glaciers and in rainwater, wind farms killing birds and their sound driving the local wildlife away

• Carbon credits are only about carbon, not biodiversity, but the role of a forest is not just to absorb carbon, it is habitat for wildlife. 

• Non-native trees are often used in corporate greenwashing programs, causing harm to the local ecosystem.

For background, planting the wrong tree can do damage beyond imagination: prosopis was introduced in Ethiopia (from South America) for its resilience to heat and quick-growth, it was intended to prevent soil erosion and provide cooling shade in Afar’s dry lowlands. The plant now dominates the ecosystem to the detriment of the endemic plants. Each prosopis tree extracts up to 7 litres of water daily, this depletes soil moisture and has devastated the local agriculture. The tree pods are toxic to the local kettle, which has caused a significant fall in livestock, causing poverty in the communities. At time of writing, the plant is still spreading despite local programs to attempt to remove it.

​

Moreover, companies organising “green projects” identify pristine land where growing trees is easy. Very quickly, they can create marketing showing tremendous growth… meanwhile, outside of the photo op, the challenges with desertification remain the same.

​

* Avoided Deforestation (REDD+) is the only way to use carbon credits to protect an existing forest. It stands for Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD+). These projects focus on the avoidance of emissions that would occur if the forest were to be logged or cleared (e.g., in tropical regions). They generate credits for the carbon that is not released into the atmosphere. This is not designed to protect tropical or primary forests, or any biodiversity, this is only designed to monetise a carbon related project.

​

​

We want the forest that are key to the ecosystem of the planet to be protected, we want reforestation to occur naturally with native trees.

And we want the future to include technology reducing pollution & removing pollution.

This is why we are setting up Creative Vibes Solutions and the Magnificent Earth Foundation.

​

A good read: https://mediamanager.sei.org/documents/Publications/Climate/SEI-WP-2015-07-JI-lessons-for-carbon-mechs.pdf

​

Note: we are aware of a new initiative called Tropical Forest Forever Facility and that it is attempting to link in with carbon credit initiative. We have so far noted that:

• it is looking raise 125BN (an unrealistic amount given it matches the entire annual GDP of a country like Bulgaria). That is an awful lot of money just to leave forests alone.

• 20% is for local populations (i.e.: it is not intended that all the cash will be directed to tropical forest conservation)

• "Countries will have sovereignty over how they spend the payments" i.e.: the project is undefined and it is hard to tell how some corrupt governments will invest the large sums

• The project promises healthy annual return on investment without explaining what would generate the cash

• The UK is one of two countries who helped the design of the fund but has announced it won't be investing